Posted 21 September 2010 - 02:53 PM
So: Victor Morton gives it a "9", joining the chorus of raves that have hailed this as one of Leigh's very best. Which is exciting news indeed.
Posted 13 October 2010 - 12:10 PM
Re: one of vjmorton's comments:
In ANOTHER YEAR, the second consecutive British film I saw that takes place over one year and is segmented into four seasonal sequences, social mobility has happened. This is the first movie you’ll see in which sympathetic Mike Leigh characters are playing golf.Ah, but Leigh shoots the game from very low angles that accentuate the transmission tower looming in the background; this is not a particularly high-end golf course. So the social mobility has only gone so far, or so it seems to me. (Not that the characters are complaining, mind.)
Posted 27 November 2010 - 11:28 PM
Indeed, this may be the most Christian film I've seen this year. The fact that no one espouses Christian faith in the film (did I miss something obvious?) makes no difference. (There's a Christian funeral scene in the film, FWIW.) The married couple around whom the story revolves are wonderful people, imperfect but kind-hearted and generous. People come to them with their worries and fears, with good news and bad. And the couple reaches out to others who are hurting, who are newly widowed. They take care of their family, and their friends.
It all seems so simple and obvious, but it's amazing.
Posted 02 December 2010 - 03:03 PM
So who the heck arranged for me to get the screener?
Posted 03 December 2010 - 12:06 AM
Posted 05 December 2010 - 02:25 AM
Posted 30 December 2010 - 02:58 PM
Unfolding in four episodes pegged to the seasons, Another Year’s arc covers the widening gulf between Tom and Gerri’s entitled contentment, and the increasingly bleak desperation of their family and friends. Ken and Mary, envious of Tom and Gerri’s bond to one another, seem to regard the couple’s home as a safe space in which to unload—apparently oblivious to the knowing looks that Tom and Gerri exchange right in front of them. The further the characters are etched, the harder it becomes to figure out with whom Leigh intends us to identify: Tom and Gerri’s horrible house guests, who you can’t help but pity for their clueless concern for only themselves? Or self-appointed “Saint Gerri” and her even more self-righteous partner, whose care for friends and family is never anything less than condescending?
In fact, the most interesting aspect of Another Year is its slow, subtle shift in perspective. We start out watching Mary behave awfully through the eyes of Gerri and Tom, whose smugness is equally awful (they’re such a unit that to get passive-aggressive, they both have to chip in—Gerri’s judgment is passive, Tom’s aggressive). But by the film’s final scene, as an unchanged Tom and Gerri finish one another’s sentences when telling an insufferable story about the time they traveled all over the world “and didn’t even have to do it cheaply,” we’re seeing the scene from the point of view of Mary, who—though humbled by a year’s worth of disappointment and defeat to the point of being physically depleted—is still totally awful, a needy drunk whose self-pity sends out stink waves. I haven’t seen a film this year that so openly invited me to revile each and every one of its characters—and I reviewed The Human Centipede.
Posted 31 December 2010 - 04:14 PM
Leigh’s attention to character detail and interpersonal dynamics is as astute as ever, and his social critique is harshly even-handed, censuring both the judgmental middle-class Tom and Gerri as well as their pathetic working-class mates. . . . In the sight of Tom and Gerri tending to their farming allotment, Leigh conveys the amount of care and attention necessary to maintain a marriage, friendships and family, though Another Year’s primary concern is capturing a bone-deep sense of Mary, Ken, and Tom’s widowed brother Ronnie’s (David Bradley) desolation, all of them lonely and lost souls whose unhappiness is magnified by the juxtaposing presence of Tom and Gerri’s stable union.Glenn Kenny:
Tom and Jerri are cheery, comfortable old lefties who've understood that they're not in a position to change the world anymore, and have gotten to be fine with that -- there's a correlation between this picture and Leigh's 1988 "High Hopes," in which a younger (obviously), punkier, leather-jacketed Sheen played one half of far a more agitated couple in Thatcherite Britain. As for Mary, her life is one (largely invented) turmoil after another, and the couple's dealings with her frantic plaints eventually get the viewer to wondering whether these nice, settled folks are really all that nice. Mary is very clearly an alcoholic. But the A-word is never once dropped in the film. And Jerri, who's a therapist herself, never even suggests counseling, or a support group, to Mary until an almost cruel hammer-dropping scene near the film's end. Tom and Jerri are so very polite, so very indulgent, so very correct in all their dealings, all the while dispensing conventional left-liberal wisdom spiked with conventional complacent cynicism whenever contemplating a crisis, be it global or local. But it's clear that all the while, they're stifling their own strong feelings of put-upon-ness and resentment. As much as you like them -- and maybe you won't like them, (that's one of the things about Leigh's films and their characters, they're so unusually and thoroughly textured that they never seem designed to elicit a simple response) -- you have to wonder if they're so besotted by their own comfort and contentment that they can't help but act as passive-aggressive near-monsters to the people they're supposedly close to.These responses (combined with Karina's, above) are all rather interesting to me, as I don't remember having any particularly negative thoughts about Tom and Jerri; indeed, I have seen some other critics casually assert that Tom and Jerri are "good" people, and that's more or less how I responded to them, too. But, as always, I expect a second viewing would be most illuminating.
Posted 31 December 2010 - 05:17 PM
However, that ain't gonna happen before I put together my Top 10 list. And guess which film will be sitting at number one?
Posted 31 December 2010 - 08:18 PM
But no. I don't think I'm willing to go there.
Instead I'll look to their garden - and their jobs. They always seem to me working in the muck - the muck of compost, or of core samples (doesn't Tom seem to love looking at that dirt), or someone's emotional problem.
Maybe I did just go there.
Edit: Btw, does anyone else want to see the movie that is Imelda Staunton's story here?
Edited by Darrel Manson, 31 December 2010 - 08:23 PM.
Posted 01 January 2011 - 10:00 AM
I don't use the term "Christian film" with any regularity. What I meant was that it espouses behaviors in line with a Christian way of life - Gal 5:22 seems apt to me, although, as I cautioned earlier, I don't think these characters are self-consciously religious.
The one scene I keep thinking about is toward the end of the film, when the husband and wife arrive home to find Mary in their home again, and the husband sees her, pauses -- and there's a flash of annoyance in his face. Maybe more than a flash. There she is again. It's clear that these people, as kind as they've been for as long as they've been, have their limits, and if those limits weren't demonstrated earlier (maybe they were, but I can't remember), we see them in that moment. I wonder if it's moments like that one that have other critics seeing the couple as cruel, etc., when I see it as humanizing and a bit of a relief: "Good people" aren't angels; they're just people, and their patience has a limit.
Posted 01 January 2011 - 11:27 AM
Even though Tom and Gerri are central, this really is Mary's movie.
Yes, that scene you talk about is a sort of replay of Joe being there waiting for them. What a difference in the surprise response. I always wonder, given Leigh's method, to what extent all the actors knew what is going on in the scene.
Posted 01 January 2011 - 12:06 PM
The Washington area critics went through this during awards voting, and some of us think the movie failed to land a Manville nomination because of the confusion on this point. I believe BAFTA nominated Manville -- correctly, in case you're wondering what side of the fence I'm on -- as Best Supporting Actress, while Sony in the U.S. is pushing her as Best Actress. Its president or CEO or someone who can speak to the strategy has been quoted as saying it's Manville's story, even though he admits that she has less screen time than Ruth Sheen, who would be the other potential Best Actress nominee. I think it's the married couple's story. The characters revolve around them, not the other way around. I really need to see the film again, but my inclination is to think that the Brits have it right, and the Manville-is-the-lead strategy is a U.S. concoction that actually hurts Manville's awards chances and which is simply incorrect.
Edited by Christian, 01 January 2011 - 12:07 PM.
Posted 01 January 2011 - 12:53 PM
Posted 01 January 2011 - 05:20 PM
: To say these excerpted experiences of the film are foreign to my own would be a huge understatement, but seeing it expressed by people who, I presume, come from different places in terms of their views of "human goodness" makes me think a second viewing is in order.
Heh. Well, Kenny in particular has been very critical of Longworth in general, and both he and his commenters zeroed in on her review of this film at his blog, so yeah, they're definitely "coming from different places" on SOME level!
: I kept waiting for her character to reappear. And waiting.
It seems to me that many of Leigh's films feature one scene that kind of comes from out of nowhere, in which we come across one character who is even more out-of-step with the world around them than everyone else. Secrets & Lies has the scene with the original owner of the photography shop, Happy-Go-Lucky has the scene with the homeless guy, etc. But these scenes usually appear in the middle of the film somewhere. In Another Year, on the other hand, we get the Imelda Staunton scene at the very beginning. And while she is clearly a miserable person, the way she is thrust upon us without any context whatsoever makes her scene less "there but for the grace of God" (a line that is actually spoken aloud in Secrets & Lies) and more, well, funny, to judge by the reaction of the audience with whom I saw the film, at least. It sets an unusual or unexpected tone for the film as a whole.
Posted 09 January 2011 - 11:16 PM
Another Year: Folks (like Karina Longworth) naively assume Mike Leigh is parading a bunch of grotesques for our amusement and/or consternation, but that says more about their cynicism than it does about Leigh's vision. The understanding he shows this film's most "pathetic" characters is towering. The only way you'll miss it is if you greet their explanations of why they're so needy and lost with the kind of condescension his two leads shower upon them. Everybody plays the fool, sometimes.I really need to see this film again. Not only because it's a good film, but because I don't remember the lead characters being all that "condescending", per se. An occasional insensitive remark or two, perhaps -- they're not perfect, obviously -- but the remarks in question never seemed all that unearned, to me. At least not that I can recall.
And in fact, the more I think about this film, the less I think of the two leads and the more I think of their son, who is put in a very, very awkward situation by Mary. The fact that his parents choose to hang around with certain friends might indeed say something about THEM (about the parents, I mean), but you can hardly blame the son for that.
Posted 17 January 2011 - 05:21 PM
He even says that Broadbent and Sheen "stand fi[r]m in their principles without condescending to those struggling around them" (emphasis added; see the above posts for why this particular statement is somewhat significant).
He also characterizes Mike Leigh's previous film, Happy-Go-Lucky, as a story about "a character of genuine optimism and grace".
It's interesting that Brett describes characters like these as people who "help the struggling get better". Is that, in fact, what we see in Another Year? Given how the film begins AND ends, can we truly say that the struggles faced by the Imelda Staunton or Lesley Manville characters have "gotten better"?
Just as a side note: Yes, I am one of those people who gets skeptical when evangelicals start throwing the word "grace" around a little too easily; if it isn't being used as a passive-aggressive weapon (a la "You need to be more grace-full... kind of like me"), it often gets invoked to smooth things over, to make tough, complicated situations look and feel a little prettier. In that vein, I am reminded of how Steven Spielberg once declared at the Oscars that Stanley Kubrick's films reflected "a vision of hope and wonder, of grace and of mystery." To put it mildly, that seems... inadequate.
But, at the same time, I don't want to assume that the Broadbent and Sheen characters AREN'T figures of grace in some sense. I'm just intrigued by the way a number of critics have found the characters "condescending", whereas we Christian critics seem to think they're better than that -- and, in Brent's case, he specifically states that the characters are NOT "condescending", though he does not seem to be saying this in reply to anyone else's critiques.
Edited by Peter T Chattaway, 17 January 2011 - 05:26 PM.
Posted 18 January 2011 - 06:44 AM
Good stuff from Brett. (Maybe he can work Another Year into his list of most trascendent films from this decade. )
I recently rewatched the film because I needed to write it up for Crosswalk's "Best of 2010" movies list (I'll keep you in suspense as to where Another Year landed). I'm more certain now that Brett's take is correct, so I continue to be perplexed by how others see the characters of Tom and Gerri.
This made for an interesting capsule write-up of the film, as I struggled with precisely the issue Peter lays out below.
Great observation, as it struck me on second viewing that not only does the film close with an image of despair, but it basically opens with the same image from another character (Staunton's, although some comments attributed to her as being in the opening scene are actually a few minutes later, after she's been referred by one worker to Sheen's character; their interaction takes place shortly thereafter.)
It's worth thinking about this because, rather than showing that Sheen is "condescending," I think it shows that sometimes our efforts to help people go unheeded. We can't fix everyone, and Sheen recognizes this over the years. Why, then, is her character punished by critics who normally applaud such realism? What, exactly, do they want from Sheen's character -- someone who mends, heals and sees positive results in the lives of her friends and acquaintances?
Life doesn't work like that, and I suspect that what REALLY troubles critics of this film -- and of Tom and Gerri's characters, in particular -- is that Tom and Gerri seem to accept this reality, while the critics, who so often champion "realism" in films, struggle to see characters who are so content in accepting this obvious truth.
Fair critique? Maybe not.
Edited by Christian, 18 January 2011 - 06:46 AM.
Posted 18 January 2011 - 11:59 AM