:00:04. > :00:08.This programme contains strong language.
:00:08. > :00:13.Tonight on The Review Show, sexual compulsion, political betrayal, and
:00:13. > :00:19.a disturbed and highly disturbing childhood. We bring you our
:00:19. > :00:24.selection of films from the 55th BFI film festival. The last major
:00:24. > :00:33.movie extravaganza of the year. The opening galah film 360 was written
:00:33. > :00:36.by screen mitre Peter Morgan, and directed by City of God turf,
:00:36. > :00:44.Fernando Morales. The festival closes next Thursday with an
:00:44. > :00:53.adaptation of Terence Ratikan's drama, The Deep Blue Sea. The
:00:53. > :00:58.festival includes Madonna's take on the Wallace Simpson's story. And
:00:58. > :01:01.disaster drama, Doyenne, examining the theory that Shakespeare didn't
:01:01. > :01:07.write his own plays. There is a brace of new British films, which,
:01:07. > :01:10.according to outgoing artistic director, Sandra Hebron, proved the
:01:10. > :01:16.British film industry is in rude health. It is interesting we have
:01:16. > :01:19.such a strong line up from the UK, is because we are saying it for a
:01:19. > :01:23.second consecutive year. There is no shortage of films with
:01:23. > :01:27.challenging subject matter. I have said flipantly that there are lots
:01:27. > :01:31.of films that deal with murder, suicide and psychosis. The films
:01:31. > :01:37.are not issue films, they are very fine stories well told with great
:01:37. > :01:41.casts, strong performances. Tonight on Review, we look at Lynne
:01:41. > :01:47.Ramsay's adaptation of Lionel Shriver's best seller, We Need To
:01:47. > :01:55.Talk About Kevin. George Clooney's political thriller, The Ides Of
:01:55. > :02:00.March. Shane, about sexual compulsion. AndDown casts one of
:02:00. > :02:06.the smaller dramas we fest value. We look at a pitch black Austrian
:02:06. > :02:10.film, inspired by hidious life events. Lighter relief hopefully in
:02:10. > :02:19.the panelists' own selections from the festival.
:02:19. > :02:27.From the red carpet to the studio, I'm joined by four film aficionados.
:02:27. > :02:35.The writer of the film festival, Hannah McGill, one-time agony aunt,
:02:36. > :02:40.Indrit Krasniqi, Matthew Sweet and Mark Millar. You can kick our ass
:02:40. > :02:44.on Twitter. First up, George Clooney for President, anyone,
:02:44. > :02:50.Clooney play as governor and presidential hopeful in The Ides Of
:02:50. > :02:57.March. The film attempts to look at the contemporary murky world of
:02:57. > :03:02.politics. Clooney adapts the play FarogateNorth, a story of betrayal,
:03:02. > :03:08.power and sex. Are you OK. It is OK, it is the right thing, nothing bad
:03:09. > :03:12.happens when you do the right thing. With the all-star cast, Evan Rachel
:03:12. > :03:17.Wood, George Clooney and Ryan Gosling, it is set around the
:03:17. > :03:26.Democratic primary in the race for the cadidacy. It is not a film
:03:26. > :03:30.about politics, it is a film that takes place in the political world,
:03:30. > :03:35.All of the things we experience in our daily lives. We are telling the
:03:35. > :03:39.human story in a political landscape where the stakes are very
:03:39. > :03:42.high because it is about determining the next leader of the
:03:42. > :03:47.free world. Ryan Gosling plays Stephen Meyers, the press secretary
:03:47. > :03:52.to the governor Mike Morris, played by Clooney, whose seduction at this
:03:52. > :03:57.hands of intern Molly, leads to a destructive chain of events.
:03:57. > :04:06.Tonight is good. You have my number, it is programmed in your phone.
:04:06. > :04:12.Under Mary. I know your name is Mary. My name is Molly. I thought
:04:12. > :04:20.she was ballsy and sure of herself. She's a young woman in tune with
:04:20. > :04:24.her sexuality, but not in a cheap, weird, Monica Lewinsky sway, she
:04:24. > :04:28.knows what she wants, and is going after it. She's honest about it. I
:04:28. > :04:34.loved playing that role of a girl throwing all these very powerful
:04:34. > :04:39.leading men totally off their game. There is something in American
:04:39. > :04:44.politics where it is a seduction, I guess, you are really trying to woo
:04:44. > :04:49.these people, millions at a time, and that is very much like, it is a
:04:49. > :04:54.very seductive process, often in desuctions in our every day lives
:04:54. > :04:57.we are ut - seductions in our every day lives we are putting on a
:04:57. > :05:01.different face. Does The Ides Of March bring anything new to the
:05:01. > :05:04.political corruption genre. Republicans have no-one out there
:05:04. > :05:12.who can touch this guy, for this moment, this election, this primary,
:05:12. > :05:14.is the presidential. That is the State of the Union.
:05:14. > :05:18.Hannah McGill, does this bring anything new to political
:05:18. > :05:21.thrillers? I think it is not necessarily trying to bring
:05:21. > :05:25.anything new, if anything it is trying very hard to exist within a
:05:25. > :05:29.tradition of corruption thrillers. To do something very mainstream
:05:29. > :05:34.with an idea of political corruption that, it tests your
:05:34. > :05:37.boundaries slightly, but it is quite safe. It is extremely
:05:37. > :05:40.efficient film. Like its beautiful director, it doesn't have a hair
:05:40. > :05:46.out of place. It is efficient and slick. What it lacks is something
:05:46. > :05:52.of edge and depth and a little bit of roughness, something a bit more
:05:52. > :05:56.experimental they might have done with this. It works extremely well.
:05:56. > :05:59.There might be a claim of a hint of originality, where Clooney is
:05:59. > :06:02.central, it is more about the back room staff and the influence they
:06:02. > :06:07.have? That is true, Clooney's presence is communicated more by
:06:07. > :06:12.the poster that we see of him everywhere in the film rather than
:06:12. > :06:16.by the performance. I thought is this George's very expensive way
:06:16. > :06:20.he's not going to run for the presidency itself. This is one of
:06:20. > :06:24.those films that comes along every few years that has to reassure and
:06:24. > :06:28.explain to liberal Americans why they don't have the President they
:06:28. > :06:32.want in the White House. They can go away and think there is
:06:32. > :06:39.something wrong with the system, it is not our fault and they can go
:06:39. > :06:43.home and absolve themselves of responsibility. The cult of youth
:06:43. > :06:48.is very large here, did you find it disturbing, or are you well versed
:06:48. > :06:52.that it is probably very young and inexperienced people controlling
:06:52. > :06:55.politics? Young and inexperienced people voting, I imagine. I
:06:55. > :07:01.expected there to be a flood of youth and so there should be. What
:07:01. > :07:07.I thought about this as a film, and I think that is right, it fits into
:07:07. > :07:10.a background. I felt it need rad better core. Everything around it
:07:10. > :07:14.worked - needed a better core. Everything around it worked. When
:07:14. > :07:21.it came to the point where the story needed to happen it flattened
:07:21. > :07:25.out. It is like a kinder surprise with no surprise.
:07:25. > :07:29.It is smart and sassy, then a couple of things happen and the
:07:29. > :07:33.narrative changes and the whole film gets a little bleaker?
:07:33. > :07:41.reminded me of early 1970s cinema, which Clooney has done in the past.
:07:41. > :07:44.It felt like a modern version of The Candidate, and Robert Redford
:07:44. > :07:49.was the Clooney of his day. It hadn't moved on though, it felt
:07:49. > :07:53.like a film of that era. It doesn't have the dark heart of that 70s
:07:53. > :07:59.film making, it is too assured, it is too much of a product, really,
:07:59. > :08:03.there is no kind of wobble or edge to it. This is much more cynical?
:08:03. > :08:07.It is cynical and not. One thing I found interesting about it, there
:08:07. > :08:14.is an element where the point is you have to accept that even your
:08:14. > :08:19.hero candidate, even your wonderful man, the poster is the Obama poster
:08:19. > :08:23.with "believe" writtenen to, even he might have a flaw. Your corrupt
:08:23. > :08:26.depraved little people behind the scenes with their machinations,
:08:26. > :08:29.they want the good President. They have to accept that you have
:08:29. > :08:33.terrible things in your personal life but they will get together and
:08:33. > :08:37.make America a better place. It is cynical and sentimental at the time.
:08:37. > :08:41.They say you have to accept Uruguay will be damaged and broken and
:08:41. > :08:45.still try to - your guy will be damaged and broken but you have to
:08:45. > :08:48.still try to get him there. What felt new was having a Democratic
:08:48. > :08:53.villain, in a sense it is always the Hollywood thing to make a
:08:53. > :09:00.character like that a Republican. It felt slightly fresh, it was like
:09:00. > :09:06.trying a few fresh things, making the back room guys the important
:09:06. > :09:11.thing. He's a good buy politically and bad guy behind the scenes.
:09:11. > :09:16.is an old story. Interestingly, they were going to release this and
:09:16. > :09:20.do it in 2007, but then the optimisim around Obama they
:09:21. > :09:25.realised they couldn't do that. Now the world is more jaded, does it
:09:25. > :09:28.reflect that? I was thinking about this, even if he was successful and
:09:28. > :09:31.wonderful and pristine in his personal life and a bad politician,
:09:31. > :09:34.we wouldn't care. He was very careful making this film and
:09:34. > :09:37.putting it out when he did. I don't think it really says anything
:09:37. > :09:44.necessarily new, but it does shore up things we already learned. We
:09:44. > :09:47.learned from the 1970s and 1980. learned from television series like
:09:47. > :09:52.the West Wing that women were strong figures and had a certain
:09:52. > :09:56.amount of control. Here they are interns or harassing journalists?
:09:56. > :09:59.This was interesting, it would have been interesting to play with the
:09:59. > :10:05.sexual politics and have a powerful women. American politics has
:10:05. > :10:10.powerful women in positions of authority. Weirdly in this film
:10:10. > :10:15.anybody with any power is men, the important conversations are between
:10:15. > :10:20.men. The women are the First Lady, which are I adore you and do what
:10:20. > :10:24.you have to do. The intern, she is key, what happens to her happens to
:10:24. > :10:27.everybody else, she's a victim in the end. There was no women with
:10:27. > :10:30.authority. That was a weird decision, particularly from George
:10:30. > :10:39.Clooney, you want more parity, but it would have made it more
:10:39. > :10:43.interesting rather than the intern a disposable bimbo. Marissa Tomei
:10:43. > :10:49.is in it as the journalist? Women are the grit in the oyster to be
:10:49. > :10:53.annoying. It is a boys club, you have your Hillary Clintons, but in
:10:53. > :10:56.personal experience it is a boys' club. That intern being abused, I
:10:56. > :10:58.think I have never really seen before, I thought that was quite
:10:59. > :11:03.brave, especially the ending, I thought that was a bleak ending
:11:03. > :11:07.where you thought there is a prosession of these people.
:11:07. > :11:11.Political exploitation. A new twist on that. Moving on, I want to move
:11:11. > :11:18.on to the fastest-selling film at this film festival Shame, the
:11:18. > :11:28.second feature from artist film maker Steve McQueen, it reunites
:11:28. > :11:28.
:11:28. > :11:32.him with Michael Fassbender, who portrayed Bobby Sands in Hunger.
:11:32. > :11:38.Shame, Michael Fassbender is a high flying but has an addiction to sex.
:11:38. > :11:45.Another story with a man in his 30s with a dark secret, a film from
:11:45. > :11:51.Austria which reflects recent real- life events. Michael is the
:11:51. > :11:55.directoral debut, casting films such as the Piano Teacher and the
:11:55. > :11:59.White Ribbon. Both contentious. The topic of Michael could hardly be
:11:59. > :12:03.more controversial. Michael is a 35-year-old office worker who holds
:12:03. > :12:09.captive Wolfgang, a ten-year-old boy. The film follows five months
:12:09. > :12:19.of their life together. Charting in painstaking detail their daily
:12:19. > :12:26.
:12:26. > :12:30.routines, inside and out of their With such a provocative storyline,
:12:30. > :12:37.he was under no illusion about the difficulty that lay ahead in
:12:37. > :12:41.securing the right actors for the roles. By France was on a film
:12:41. > :12:45.academy - by chance I was on a film academy and I had to see a lot of
:12:45. > :12:51.films by a lot of people. There were two good short films, at that
:12:51. > :12:55.point I knew it was the guy that should play Michael. He said he was
:12:55. > :12:58.afraid, he didn't want to do this. He needed time to think about this,
:12:58. > :13:02.and discuss it with his family and friends. After two weeks he called
:13:02. > :13:07.me and said he really wanted to do it. He was adamant from the outset
:13:07. > :13:11.that Michael would not be an emotionally manipulative film, but
:13:11. > :13:17.a sparse and clinical observation of the story. But with real life
:13:17. > :13:22.cases, such as that of Joseph Fritzel, was it necessary to make a
:13:22. > :13:26.film about the subject at all. Another film at the festival, to
:13:26. > :13:31.chronicle the troubled life of a 30-something man, is Shame.
:13:31. > :13:36.Starring Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan. Fassbender plays
:13:36. > :13:39.Brandon a New York executive who works and plays hard, but his
:13:39. > :13:44.carefully constructed lifestyle masks his addiction to sex and the
:13:44. > :13:49.drive for constant fiscal gratification. There are plenty of
:13:49. > :13:54.precedents for boundary-breaking nudity and sexually explicit
:13:55. > :14:04.material, but 40 Years Of Queen cites a film from the 70s as a
:14:05. > :14:07.
:14:07. > :14:10.major inspiration. - McQueen cites a film from the 70s as a major
:14:10. > :14:15.inspiration. In last Tango in Paris, it is the physicality of brand
:14:15. > :14:18.dough. There is a fragility in Michael, he's a man's man, he's
:14:18. > :14:25.bold, physical. There is a certain fragility in him that is so
:14:25. > :14:30.beautiful. That take as very brave actor. Will audiences find Shame as
:14:30. > :14:40.daring a provocative as Hunger, and will Michael give anen sight into
:14:40. > :14:45.what leads men into extreme patterns of behaviour.
:14:45. > :14:48.Does Shame explain to you enough why the character Michael is as he
:14:48. > :14:51.is? I don't think you need to see anything about his background. The
:14:51. > :14:56.purpose of Shame, and the purpose of talking about sexual addiction
:14:56. > :14:59.is talking about the detatchment from intimacy, and yet craving
:14:59. > :15:03.intimacy at the same time. As we know he has a complicated
:15:03. > :15:06.relationship with his sister, it sounds weird but not as weird as
:15:06. > :15:10.you might think. I don't think we need a lot of explanation. I think
:15:10. > :15:16.McQueen has done a beautiful job showing us this story, showing us
:15:16. > :15:20.enough of his fragility without taking us too deep. Is it daring,
:15:20. > :15:24.transgressive, or are those things irrelevant? I found it rather
:15:24. > :15:29.disappointing compared with Hunger, such a beautiful film you were
:15:29. > :15:32.given time to observe and explore. This is rather choppy. I'm not sure
:15:32. > :15:39.whether a drama that is essentially about a man deciding whether or not
:15:39. > :15:43.to throw away his collection of jazz mags, it is not Sophie's
:15:43. > :15:48.Choice. I found the whole thing overblown. There is a seen where
:15:48. > :15:56.he's writhing around in on the floor in the rain, in a scene of
:15:56. > :16:02.romantic agony. I wonder whatever, it is a 90-minute film of male
:16:02. > :16:08.anger and self-pity. Is that a British male summation that it is
:16:08. > :16:12.about your jazz mags, when they were researching the film in
:16:12. > :16:15.England it wasn't an open condition here. They had to go to America. Is
:16:16. > :16:19.it a particularly American condition? I think the fact it was
:16:19. > :16:23.set in America it was an attempt to say something about the city of New
:16:23. > :16:26.York and the degree of isolation and commercialism and separation
:16:26. > :16:32.that is particularly New York. In some ways the fact it is set in
:16:32. > :16:36.America, even though the actors are British, Irish, the director is
:16:36. > :16:40.British, contributed to that slight feeling of remove that I had from
:16:40. > :16:45.it. Agree with Karen, the theme of sexual addiction is about emotional
:16:45. > :16:49.remove. The film, in some ways it puts you through the ringer of
:16:49. > :16:54.watching this guy doing the same thing over and over again. It
:16:54. > :16:57.doesn't give you any sense of transformation, or of why this is
:16:57. > :17:01.happening, or of what you are learning about him. In way it was
:17:01. > :17:06.just like, fine, you like having sex, go ahead. Isn't addiction
:17:06. > :17:12.about that idea that it isn't necessarily transformative? I'm not
:17:12. > :17:18.the guy to ask! For me it does explain it so beautifully, and in
:17:18. > :17:27.such a minimalistic fashion. It starts off like a post MoD all fee,
:17:27. > :17:30.you hate him and find - postmodern Alfie, then you see there is
:17:30. > :17:35.something there, it is his sister, they are naked in front of each
:17:35. > :17:38.other, he can't stand to be in the same room when she has sex, he has
:17:38. > :17:42.to go for a run. You know they have come from the bad place. This isn't
:17:42. > :17:45.about hand washing, it is not washing his hands all the time.
:17:45. > :17:51.There is some lovely character work in it. It is a beautiful plot.
:17:51. > :17:55.There is a seen with a very awkward date where he takes a co-worker out
:17:55. > :18:00.to a restaurant. It is excruciating and beautifully played. It is a
:18:00. > :18:05.movie about abuse, both characters were abused, then the whole film
:18:05. > :18:12.unfolds back on itself again when you think about it. It is such an
:18:12. > :18:18.understated movie, a brilliant writing on the part of Abi Morgan.
:18:18. > :18:21.The American movies are clunky with the flashbacks, and yet they say it
:18:21. > :18:26.quietly. For me it is the film of the year. It is the best film I
:18:26. > :18:31.have seen. You say you loved Hunger, you're not sure about this. He is
:18:31. > :18:34.still a great film maker, there are still traits, with the repetition,
:18:34. > :18:41.it is a beautiful-looking film, he has the long, long shots. Does that
:18:41. > :18:46.redeem it for you? I don't think it has the paint qualities of Hunger.
:18:46. > :18:50.I don't think the images are quite as original as Hunger. The tempo of
:18:50. > :18:54.it seems less original too. The wonderful thing about Hunger was
:18:54. > :18:59.the time that we spent within all of those images. There is no
:18:59. > :19:03.equivalent of that here. I found that so self-indulgent in Hunger, I
:19:03. > :19:08.liked it, but I feel this is a guy who has honed his skills, when he
:19:08. > :19:12.keeps the scene going longer than you would expect it is an effect.
:19:12. > :19:19.When the running sequence goes on you feel you are eavesdropping on
:19:19. > :19:25.someone's life. There is a really long threesome as well. That was
:19:25. > :19:35.long. Let's move on to Michael. No real link except that it is another
:19:35. > :19:35.
:19:35. > :21:01.Apology for the loss of subtitles for 86 seconds
:21:01. > :21:05.man in his 30s with a dark secret. The power comes from the repetition,
:21:05. > :21:10.essentially this is not a Gothic melodrama of any sort at all. This
:21:10. > :21:16.is a film about domestic routine. So we see these two figures, the
:21:16. > :21:21.captive, and the man who has taken him prisoner doing the washing up.
:21:21. > :21:25.Eating Spam and peas. We also see him washing himself after clearly
:21:25. > :21:35.sexually abusing the boy. There is a horrible kind of equivalence
:21:35. > :21:40.
:21:40. > :21:44.It never loses sight of the pervesity of the villain. You
:21:44. > :21:48.appreciate how this sort of situation might be normalised for
:21:48. > :21:52.everybody involved in it because it is the same thing over and over
:21:52. > :21:59.again. I never felt manipulated, I watched it, it was moving, it was
:21:59. > :22:02.observational, it let you make up your mind. I never felt
:22:02. > :22:08.manipulative, it is brilliantly cast, and the director is casting
:22:08. > :22:13.director. You would also say that he's one of the few directors who
:22:13. > :22:17.might take on this subject matter. He's brave not fool hard yi to make
:22:17. > :22:24.the film? It is a very good film, I can't say I enjoyed watching it,
:22:24. > :22:29.I'm glad I saw it. It is more generous and humane than anything
:22:29. > :22:37.Michael Hanniker, he would want to punish us for watching film. Can we
:22:37. > :22:42.permit the trafality of having Sonny by Boney M playing in the
:22:42. > :22:48.credits? That is fine, you could regard it as a lapse of taste, it
:22:48. > :22:53.shows how to read the emegmatic ending of the film, I don't want to
:22:53. > :23:01.describe it, it is one of the brilliantly chosen moments to end
:23:01. > :23:11.the film. It kept us off suicide watch. This week was the bleakist
:23:11. > :23:12.
:23:12. > :23:18.week of films I had to admit. We had to go and see The Lion King to
:23:18. > :23:23.cheer ourselves up. There is more dark drama to come in Junkhearts a
:23:23. > :23:28.debut feature that is part social realism and part fairytale set on
:23:28. > :23:34.the streets of East London. Junkhearts tells the story of a
:23:34. > :23:40.former soldier, and his unlikely friendship with a teenage girl, a
:23:40. > :23:43.bond that could be broken when her homeless boyfriend muscles in on
:23:44. > :23:48.the affair. The director wanted the film to have an optimistic feel.
:23:48. > :23:53.The way we see the world, especially younger people, is
:23:53. > :23:58.through magical eyes, that is what Lynette brings into Frank's life,
:23:58. > :24:05.where suddenly you notice the patch of sunlight coming into the room.
:24:05. > :24:11.There is joy and colour. We played Frankie's quite desaturated and
:24:11. > :24:16.colourless life, until Lynette comes along. There is a vibecy.
:24:16. > :24:22.was sniffing glue at eight, supping Bud at nine, I don't do crack or
:24:22. > :24:25.coke, thanks any way. Are you a runaway. Eddie Marsan's Frank, is
:24:25. > :24:33.suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, a condition of
:24:33. > :24:38.which the film's director has firsthand experience. When the
:24:38. > :24:42.tsunami happened I was in Phuket, I was a doctor, and my training
:24:42. > :24:46.kicked in, I helped in the immediate process. I was helping
:24:46. > :24:50.out in liaison between the mass mortuaries. I came back from that
:24:50. > :24:53.with a degree of post-traumatic stress disorder. When I read the
:24:54. > :24:59.script I really connected to that element of it, suddenly the film
:24:59. > :25:05.maker part of me came alive. gradual takeover of Frank's life
:25:05. > :25:08.and home by the drug dealer, Danny, reflects a modern day issue, that
:25:08. > :25:13.of cuckooing. People will target a vulnerable person, it could be an
:25:13. > :25:18.older person, someone like Frank. Someone with learning difficulty,
:25:18. > :25:22.and they will target them, befriend them and then take over their
:25:22. > :25:27.property, it is quite common. given the theme as covered in the
:25:27. > :25:32.film, can there ever be a happy ending.
:25:32. > :25:37.The idea for us wasn't to make an issue-driven film, for us the film
:25:37. > :25:40.is one about probably love, redemption, and family
:25:40. > :25:45.relationships, relationships between fathers and daughters. I
:25:45. > :25:51.think what we took is a structure where there is a social phenomenon,
:25:51. > :25:55.what we were doing is creating a human story from it.
:25:55. > :26:00.Matthew Sweet, was this an impressive debut film? It is an
:26:00. > :26:06.apprentice work. It begins in quite a clumsy and clunky way. When these
:26:06. > :26:12.two protaganists meet each other on a street in London t has the
:26:12. > :26:15.feeling of an improv, about seeing where the seen goes and it might
:26:15. > :26:20.expose something about Britain today. As it progressed I began to
:26:20. > :26:24.feel something for these characters and rather moved by them. I
:26:24. > :26:34.desperately wanted a happy ending to be generated somewhere. Yes, I
:26:34. > :26:36.
:26:36. > :26:41.can see the scepticism building Were you as moved? I agree, I think
:26:41. > :26:46.there are elements of this that veer towards cliche, there is this
:26:46. > :26:51.sort of talk about the heart of gold, there is the redemption of
:26:51. > :26:56.broken people. The way in which it takes what could have been a slice
:26:56. > :26:59.of gruingy, nasty social realisim and does something shiny with it,
:26:59. > :27:04.and tries to create a mainstream movie narrative about the story of
:27:04. > :27:08.life on the streets, there are problems with it, I did find it
:27:08. > :27:13.affecting, I did find myself pulled in by it, absolutely. Karen, you
:27:13. > :27:17.were enlightened by the state of contemporary Britain, I can see by
:27:17. > :27:22.the raised eyebrows? I'm the only one who understands sex addiction!
:27:22. > :27:26.I was looking forward to this film, I thought it would be promising, I
:27:26. > :27:29.thought this would be the new Mona Lisa, fantastic, wonderful
:27:29. > :27:32.performances, I thought it came apart. I found it difficult to
:27:32. > :27:36.watch towards the end. I think it is a brave attempt. I would like to
:27:36. > :27:40.see the director's next work. No, I didn't. It really didn't do enough
:27:40. > :27:46.for me I felt it was cliched and predictable. There are a number of
:27:46. > :27:50.strands we see. One that we haven't mentioned which involves Romola
:27:50. > :27:54.Garai's character, sparsely drawn, but eventually becomes slightly
:27:54. > :27:59.more central. Did that reflect something powerful, the fact that
:27:59. > :28:04.people do have disjointed lives, or was it an accident of inexperience?
:28:04. > :28:08.Can you tell it is a first movie. It would be disingenious to judge
:28:08. > :28:14.it like that. This was the one I was least looking forward to of all
:28:14. > :28:18.of the movies this week, I found it oddly warm hearted, I was surprised
:28:18. > :28:22.at myself. I didn't cry, but I was moved, which is unusual for me.
:28:22. > :28:27.was warm hearted because of the central performance, Eddie Marsan,
:28:27. > :28:30.in particular? It was a great cast. I'm not sure who it was aimed at.
:28:31. > :28:37.When I saw the title, it wasn't something I would naturally see,
:28:37. > :28:43.but I was glad I saw it. Any film with Eddie Marsan's head in it, he
:28:43. > :28:48.was built by the crowman, a root vegtable revived by dark forces.
:28:48. > :28:57.That is an issue with the film is who is it aimed at. It seemed to be
:28:57. > :29:01.going for the Kiddulthood, and Adulthood, is it for the young
:29:01. > :29:05.people or the art house audience or the film festivals. I like that
:29:05. > :29:09.they are taking on a film that could appeal to the mainstream
:29:09. > :29:13.audience while makes points about life in Britain. This confusion for
:29:13. > :29:18.who it is aimed at, one thing seems to emerge is it is an appropriate
:29:18. > :29:23.film for a film festival, this mixture of inexperience and
:29:23. > :29:26.showcases what film festivals should do? This is why film
:29:26. > :29:30.festivals exist, you have a platform for a film like that, it
:29:30. > :29:36.requires an audience and reviews. This film already had distribution.
:29:36. > :29:40.It has some exposure. Film festival audiences are very open minded in a
:29:40. > :29:43.way, that cinema audiences aren't necessarily. To make a serious
:29:43. > :29:48.point about the bleakness, it hit me when I watched so many bleak
:29:48. > :29:52.movies in a row this week, it was shocking. Trfs interesting when a
:29:52. > :29:55.film is regarded as a - it was interesting that when a film is
:29:55. > :30:00.regarded as worthy 0 and interesting for a film gest value
:30:00. > :30:04.it has to make you feel bad. I'm glad we have summer to get us
:30:04. > :30:14.through autumn. It was unrelentingly bleak.
:30:14. > :30:15.
:30:15. > :30:23.It was about post-traumatic stress disorder. You could say it was the
:30:23. > :30:25.tradition of British miserableness. The scene adaptation of Lionel
:30:25. > :30:30.Shriver's novel, We Need To Talk About Kevin. The horrifying crimes
:30:30. > :30:35.committed by a teenage boy in America has plenty of movie
:30:35. > :30:40.precedence, but the perspective of a traumatised and guilt ridden
:30:40. > :30:47.mother is new. It is 12 years since Lynne Ramsay
:30:47. > :30:52.dazzled the Cannes Film Festival with Rat Catcher.
:30:52. > :30:56.Now Ramsay's back, tackling her darkest subject yet. Oscar winner,
:30:56. > :31:01.Tilda Swinton, plays successful travel writer, Eva, who discovers
:31:01. > :31:05.she's pregnant with her first child. When maternal instincts fail to
:31:05. > :31:15.kick in, Eva struggles with her new life. The already uncomfortable
:31:15. > :31:15.
:31:15. > :31:19.bond between mother and son becoming ever-more intense. When
:31:19. > :31:25.Kevin's younger sister suffers a suspicious eye injury whilst in his
:31:25. > :31:29.cautious the rift between Eva and her husband, Franklin, played by
:31:29. > :31:39.John C Reilly seems to widen. did you leave the drain stuff out.
:31:39. > :31:44.
:31:44. > :31:53.I didn't. I put it away. Then how did it get out? It was Kevin. Kevin
:31:53. > :31:59.did it. You needing to talk to someone.
:31:59. > :32:04.With Franklin seemingly oblivious to his son's nature, Eva grows more
:32:04. > :32:14.and more isolated. I thought you didn't like those. They are, what
:32:14. > :32:19.
:32:19. > :32:24.do you call it. An acquired taste. While Shriver's book tells the
:32:24. > :32:34.story through letters written from Eva to her husband. The movie
:32:34. > :32:34.
:32:34. > :32:41.flilts between past and present, as Eva recounts the past. Eva is left
:32:41. > :32:44.to atone for the since of her zone as he languishs in prison. Ramsay
:32:44. > :32:49.sets out to look at the human condition. Does it bring any
:32:49. > :32:58.clarity to the nature versus nuture argument. It is easy to
:32:58. > :33:03.misunderstand something when you hear it out of context.
:33:03. > :33:07.How can I not know the context, I am the context.
:33:07. > :33:10.Hannah McGill, some of the publicity material calls it an
:33:10. > :33:15.emotional thriller, Lynne Ramsay calls it a psychological horror
:33:15. > :33:20.story? I saw it as a black comedy, definitely a horror. Definitely not
:33:20. > :33:25.an issue movie. You are going off beam with this if you see it as a
:33:25. > :33:30.film about women's roles or parenting or America, or about
:33:30. > :33:35.murder. I think it is a fantasy of the worst possible experience of
:33:35. > :33:39.parenting. Which actually, and I found quite fun in a very dark way.
:33:39. > :33:45.I didn't find it traumatic to watch. We have watched some dark material
:33:45. > :33:50.this week, but I think this one actually I saw it as a very, almost
:33:50. > :33:56.operatic heightened piece of melodrama that is actual lie quite
:33:56. > :34:01.funny. Were we supposed to be on her - Actually quite funny. Were we
:34:01. > :34:04.supposed to be on her side, my judgmental side kicked in. I don't
:34:05. > :34:08.think we're supposed to be on anyone's side, she's not the nicest
:34:08. > :34:12.woman in the world and he isn't the nicest person in the world and it
:34:12. > :34:17.is ambiguous. The first 30 minutes I hated it, I saw them as the most
:34:17. > :34:21.up themselves media couple who were just crap parents. I wasn't that
:34:21. > :34:26.mad on the rest of it. With the book you have a narrative voice
:34:26. > :34:29.where you have a freedom as a reader to read it very, very
:34:29. > :34:35.critically. That you are free to suspect that this woman is the
:34:35. > :34:40.author of her child's awfulness, in some way. You don't have that
:34:40. > :34:49.freedom here. I know Lynne Ramsay says she wanted to give an intense
:34:49. > :34:53.subjecttivity to this film, I don't think it has it. It wouldn't have
:34:53. > :34:56.if she stuck to the form of the book? She needed to find some
:34:56. > :34:59.device to allow us to give a sceptical reading of Eva, I don't
:34:59. > :35:04.think there is room for that. think you could have a sceptical
:35:04. > :35:08.reading of Eva, I thought she was a bit of a cow. We are not giving
:35:08. > :35:12.room to doubt the voracity of the events we see before us, I don't
:35:12. > :35:16.think. There are no children in the world like Kevin, they simply don't
:35:16. > :35:20.exist. Any kind of statement that the film might be making, maybe you
:35:20. > :35:26.are right it is not trying to make a statement of any kind at all. Any
:35:26. > :35:29.statement it might be trying to make is taken out by that, it can't
:35:29. > :35:35.talk about post-natal depression, or dislocation between parent and
:35:35. > :35:39.child, because such children don't exist in the world. Ez ra Miller
:35:39. > :35:41.who plays the final version of Kevin said he could understand and
:35:41. > :35:46.the character took him over, and there was something very familiar
:35:46. > :35:50.about that child? I don't know if there are children, I'm not parent,
:35:50. > :35:57.I don't know, you're a parent? There probably are. We hear stories
:35:57. > :36:02.about children that do these kinds of things. Obviously they exist.
:36:02. > :36:05.delay speaking until the moment they can torment their parents.
:36:05. > :36:12.is called autism isn't it. I feel conflicted about the film, he hated
:36:12. > :36:17.it when I saw t I have worked very hard to overcome my hatred of the
:36:17. > :36:22.film. Because Matthew hates it! is beautifully crafted, it is
:36:22. > :36:26.beautifully crafted, very heavy on the symbolism. In a way I was upset
:36:26. > :36:32.because I felt emotionally manipulated. There is a crudeness
:36:32. > :36:36.about it. That clip we saw there, gobbling up those lychees whilst
:36:36. > :36:42.talking about somebody's eye being removed. Smacking you around the
:36:42. > :36:46.face. Any self-respecting horror director would reject that as
:36:46. > :36:52.vulgarity. I don't think she understands the cliches of horror
:36:52. > :36:56.well enough. You can't blame her of doing that, if she was given Lovely
:36:56. > :37:00.Bones, it would have been fantastic film. It might have been a
:37:00. > :37:04.marginally better film? Much better, much better. This is a career film
:37:04. > :37:10.for her. She's putting a lot of technique, a lot of effort, a small
:37:10. > :37:16.budget. She has done brilliantly, but I found it really offensive.
:37:16. > :37:20.This ambivalence is coming through in all of us. The character played
:37:20. > :37:25.by Tilda Swinton, the ambivalence has to be there, she knows she
:37:25. > :37:28.should love her child and she can't bring it through. Is the whole
:37:28. > :37:33.thing built on ambivalence. Everybody I have spoken to this
:37:33. > :37:38.week has said five-star. It is cat nip for the Review show audience,
:37:38. > :37:42.it is a Lionel Shriver book, Tilda Swinton in the lead, and directed
:37:42. > :37:47.by Lynne Ramsay. Everybody watching the show will love it. By the end
:37:47. > :37:52.of the first act I got into it. First act I hated it, I wasn't on
:37:52. > :37:57.her side but I was enjoying the ride. She did a great job. Cat nip,
:37:57. > :38:00.there will be a lot of Twittering about that. What about the
:38:00. > :38:07.symbolism that began with that extraordinary scene in the tomato
:38:07. > :38:11.festival in Spain, and then to the paint door with the blood. I am
:38:11. > :38:17.already getting a look that it was heavy-handed, it was elegant wasn't
:38:17. > :38:22.it? Yes it was Anne resting image. There is too much else in the - It
:38:22. > :38:27.was an arresting image. There is too much else in the film that is
:38:27. > :38:32.heavyhanded. At one point Kevin forewarns us that he's going to do
:38:32. > :38:36.something bad, he almost wagles his eyebrows at us. I don't think it is
:38:36. > :38:43.made as a horror movie, I don't think it tells you anything more
:38:43. > :38:52.about children than Damien The Omen. If it is a horror film, fine, if it
:38:52. > :38:58.has other ambitions, I don't buy it. Working in the tenets of horror?
:38:58. > :39:02.think a real director could have handled that more deftly. It is
:39:02. > :39:08.held together by a terrific performance by Swinton and the
:39:08. > :39:16.child Ezra Miller? I think great performance and Ramsay is great at
:39:16. > :39:20.directing actors. Casting Eva, she's odd, offputting in some ways.
:39:20. > :39:24.I think she creates a character who you don't automatically warm to,
:39:24. > :39:29.that is good. She's really good at being non-vain on screen. She
:39:29. > :39:33.doesn't need to look gorgeous all the time. She's edgy and peculiar,
:39:33. > :39:36.it is a strange character being played by an actress with a
:39:36. > :39:39.capacity to do oddness. I think that really works. I think the
:39:39. > :39:43.combination of her with John C Reilly, this very warm, benign
:39:43. > :39:49.presence, is very interesting. I think all the kids are really good
:39:49. > :39:57.as well. There we must stop talking about the We Need To Talk About
:39:57. > :40:00.Kevin. What else has caught your eye? Go and see Anonymous, Rhys
:40:00. > :40:04.Ifans, a fantastic cast, Roland Emmerich doing a story about the
:40:04. > :40:08.true story of Shakespeare. thought that was written by
:40:08. > :40:12.Christopher Marlow? It could have been anyone for all we know. It is
:40:12. > :40:18.absolutely wonderful. A wonderful performance, and it is great to see
:40:18. > :40:22.a big budget director doing a small film. A little British film called
:40:22. > :40:27.Weekend by a director called Andrew Haye, very different from the stuff
:40:27. > :40:32.we have talked about. Very simple, a story about two people meeting,
:40:32. > :40:37.having a kind of almost romance, and just a beautiful story. So
:40:37. > :40:43.confidently directed, lovely film. We have a clip. The morning after
:40:44. > :40:51.the first meeting. I saw you in the club and I thought you were, I
:40:51. > :40:57.thought you were out of my league, I liked your T-shirt. What league
:40:57. > :41:05.are you in? I don't know, third division maybe.
:41:05. > :41:08.Karen said memorably that people are calling it gay Brief Encounter?
:41:08. > :41:15.It is wonderful performances, so simple, absolutely about character
:41:15. > :41:21.and script, no bells and whistles. It is culling out in cinemas. -
:41:21. > :41:25.Coming out in cinemas. I like the story of a man who thinks a big
:41:25. > :41:28.catastrophy is coming to his community. It manages all the
:41:28. > :41:32.shifts of perspective that We Need To Talk About Kevin didn't, in that
:41:32. > :41:35.you are both in and out of his delusions, you don't know if it is
:41:35. > :41:39.a real catastrophy or a metaphorical one, it is all of them
:41:39. > :41:47.at the same time and beautifully handled. Beautifully handled to get
:41:48. > :41:56.the final boot in. Nice one. would say an old Italian movie
:41:56. > :41:59.called The Killing, the title alone is - the Man That Kills Bad People.
:41:59. > :42:04.By Roberto Rossellini. The title sucks me in, I have never seen it
:42:04. > :42:13.before, it is nice to go and see an old movie you haven't in the cinema.
:42:13. > :42:19.What's the premise of it? I haven't seen it yet! But The Machine That
:42:19. > :42:26.Kills Bad People. That is enough. All four of you have proved exactly
:42:26. > :42:31.why we need film festival, to show the obscure, and the ease sow
:42:31. > :42:34.terrik. Thank you to all my guests tonight. The London Film Festival
:42:34. > :42:39.continues until next Thursday, find out all the details on the films
:42:39. > :42:46.discussed on the website. You can review the reviewers on Twitter.
:42:46. > :42:51.Stay tuned on BBC Two for Later With Jools. You can see an
:42:51. > :42:56.interview with Steve McQueen on The Culture Show. Kirsty will be here
:42:56. > :43:04.with her guests to discuss what what is tipped as the plays of the
:43:05. > :43:09.year 13 at the National. And the 3- D version of Tin Tin from Peter
:43:09. > :43:19.Jackson. Here is a little. Before he lost consciousness he tried to
:43:19. > :43:22.
:43:22. > :43:29.tell me s I think he was spelling out a word. Karaboudjan? Does that
:43:29. > :43:33.mean anything to you? Great Scotland, yeah. It is extraordinary,
:43:33. > :43:38.Worthingtons has a half price sale on bowler hats. Great Scotland Yard