Saturday, 15 February 2025

For what it's worth...




UK box office Top Ten (for the weekend of February 7-9, 2025):

1 (new) Dog Man (U)
2 (1) A Complete Unknown (15) **
3 (2) Mufasa: The Lion King (PG)
4 (new) Macbeth (12A)
5 (new) September 5 (15) **
6 (5) The Brutalist (18) ***
7 (4) Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (PG)
8 (new) Becoming Led Zeppelin (12A)
9 (3) Companion (15)
10 (8) Moana 2 (U) ***

(source: BFI)

My top five:

 
DVD/Blu-Ray/Download top ten: 

1 (1) Moana 2 (U) ***
2 (4) Venom: The Last Dance (15)
3 (2) Wicked: Part 1 (PG) **
4 (new) Nosferatu (15) ***
5 (3Gladiator II (15) ***
6 (5) Kraven the Hunter (15)
7 (7) The Wild Robot (U) **
8 (re) Terrifier 3 (18)
9 (re) The Last Voyage of the Demeter (15)
10 (8) Conclave (12) ****


My top five: 
1. Speak No Evil


My top five films on terrestrial TV this week:
1. Surge (Sunday, BBC Two, 11.50pm)
2. Quo Vadis, Aida? (Saturday, BBC Two, 1.25am)
3. The Quiet Girl (Monday, Channel 4, 12.10am)
4. While We Watched (Wednesday, Channel 4, 2.45am)
5. The Best Man [above] (Friday, BBC One, 12.25am)

Thursday, 13 February 2025

Bigpants strikes again: "Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy"


So help me, she's back: Britfilm's own Michael Myers, the postergirl for Richard Curtis monoculture, the drippiest creation in all 21st century cinema, the most regrettable legacy of Tony Blairs' New Labours, up to and including the second Gulf War. Nine years on from
Bridget Jones's Baby, which dropped in the year of Brexit (had we not suffered enough?), Bridget (Renée Zellweger) is back, squinty or grinning, sometimes squinty and grinning, her babies (plural now) in their early schoolyears. Their father, the other Mr. Darcy, is a goner, alas: Colin Firth judged there's more fun to be had reinvestigating the Lockerbie bombing, though he's one of several familiar faces making a ghostly cameo early on as Mad About The Boy strives to remind us of this franchise's former (ahem) glories. Drifting in to deliver a line or two in our heroine's Darcyless and child-strafed but nevertheless well-appointed and semi-aspirational kitchen: Gemma Jones and Jim Broadbent as Bridget's ma and pa, those wacky pals (Sally Phillips, James Callis et al.) who in 2001 resembled some Anglo equivalent of those aggravating twats in millennial Doritos ads, Neil Pearson from Drop the Dead Donkey, and - of course - the big pants. Remember them? Garlic bread?! Low bar though this is, it is, all told, the most intriguing set-up as there's been for a Bridget Jones movie. Is Bridget, plunged into middle-aged solitude and stalked through her nothingy life by all these ghosts from her past, actually, literally going mad? Will the series come to an end with the nation's favourite nincompoop committing some terrible, unforgivable atrocity in the Oliver Bonas on Hampstead High Street?

No, she just needs a shag. That's what Mad About the Boy invites its audience to speculate on for two hours: who will be next to fill up the empty squinty lady? (Both short-term and full-time applicants sought.) We learn that Bridget is now on Tinder, because there's apparently nothing funnier than hearing a small child asking "Mummy, what's Tinder?" And in the non-virtual world, the contenders assemble. Hugh Grant's Daniel Cleaver is up for it - when was he not? - but settles for serving as a willing babysitter and the one interesting figure in the whole movie: an aging roué/sex pest facing up to the notion of dying alone, a craggy character actor stuck in a piffling pantomime, the only person associated with this franchise to have evolved in any dramatic and tangible way. His romantic rivals this time out are far less compelling. Chiwetel Ejiofor has to tone down everything (save his abs) as the science teacher Mr. Wallaker, whose only identifiable characteristic is "possesses own whistle". When Bridget gets stuck up a tree on the Heath (oh Bridget, that's so Bridget), she's rescued by Leo Woodall, the childproofed Michael Pitt from One Day and that dull maths show no-one's watching on Apple. There's even a scene where the hunky guy behind a cafe counter asks Bridget whether she wants to go for a drink, and she says "no thank you, I've got a boyfriend", only - get this! - he was talking about adding a drink to her Meal Deal! Cringe! Squint! Oh Bridget/That's so Bridget!

Imbecilic as much of this is, you can at least see what the intention is: to do something positive and non-judgmental with late-life sex and older woman-younger man romance, like a version of 2022's Good Luck to You, Leo Grande emptied of all insight. That film's Emma Thompson recurs here as Bridget's gynaecologist and general voice of common sense; one of her scenes still ends with Bridget's daughter trying to pronounce the word "syphilis". (That's so Bridget's daughter.) Michael Morris, taking a promotion that feels like a demotion after his work on Better Call Saul and the Oscar-nominated To Leslie, does a worse job of directing than even the first and third film's Sharon Maguire. It's not his fault he's working from an artlessly episodic script that shows no more idea of how TV and the media work than the first movie and invests all these relationships with zero depth and weight. It is his fault, and the fault of some deeply perfunctory, point-and-shoot lensing, that Mad About the Boy emerges as just about the one Britfilm of the past fifteen years that apparently hasn't a clue how to make London - Hampstead, even - look attractive. (He makes Richard Curtis seem like Stanley Kubrick: I wasn't expecting a 2025 release to remind me so forcefully of Truffaut's waspish comment about British cinema being a contradiction in terms, but here we are.) His needledrops - one means by which a director could pump some life and fun into these frames - are persistently unimaginative: Dinah Washington (as per the title) after Woodall jumps into a pool to rescue a dog, Fatboy Slim's "Praise You" over a middle-class knees-up, a John Lewis cover of Erasure's "A Little Respect" when Bridget is Sad. (Sit through the end credits at your peril: a Robbie Williams swing number lurks in wait.) Mostly it's people you know off the telly being caught with their shirts off or their pants (big or otherwise) down, like binging a season of The Brittas Empire with far fewer laughs; it's going straight-to-streaming in the US, which may end up being the sanest decision taken during the second Trump administration. I'm guessing there was a lot of free alcohol flowing before the UK press screenings, judging from the inexplicably glowing reviews, which themselves betray flickers of Trumpish protectionism. Bridget Jones is a witless dullard, but she's our witless dullard; the films made in her name may be shite, but they are, unmistakably, our shite.

Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy opens in cinemas nationwide today.

Tuesday, 11 February 2025

Playtime: "Hum Aapke Hain Koun...!"


We rejoin Bollywood in much the same position as Hollywood eighteen months ago, having to reissue established titles to fill a gap while the industry sorts itself out. The situation is pretty dire, all told: despite a raft of new releases in the first month-and-a-half of 2025, not one has broken into the UK Top 10, and on the list of the lowest ten opening weekends of the year so far, fully seven spots are occupied by Indian films. (The audience that abandoned the multiplex for the sofa and streaming services during lockdown isn't coming back in any hurry.) For Valentine's Day, we're getting 1994's
Hum Aapke Hain Koun...!, as savvy a choice of revival as any. Headed up by two major stars in their pomp, this studio-bound fairytale from writer-director Sooraj Barjatya was a runaway hit upon its first run, opening in the interval between Jurassic Park and Titanic and doing almost as much business as either. (I have a vivid memory of seeing the title in local cinema listings week in week out for months, without ever really knowing what it was.) Clearly, distributors are relying on the nostalgia factor, treating the audience as errant children who need to be tempted outside with the colour, songs and light fun the industry appears to have forsaken in putting today's stars in drab military khaki and having them repeatedly pledge fealty to a flag.

By contrast to those frowningly serious undertakings, the opening stretch of Barjatya's film - and, indeed, much of what follows - has the look of Saturday morning kids' TV. A jovial cricket match, overseen by a dog in an umpire's chair (meet Tuffy, played by an Indian Spitz called Redo, who somehow negotiated a full-screen opening credit for himself); twentysomething performers, playing far, far younger; a woman in a sweatshirt bearing the legend "BUM CHUMS", which is certainly a choice, if not perhaps a label that could take off outside India. A sort-of plot emerges. Two brothers from one family, two sisters from another, all under the thumb of parents pairing them up, if not necessarily with the urgency Salman Khan's Prem and Madhuri Dixit's Nisha would prefer. Predominantly, however, Barjatya sets these characters to gameplaying: the cricket is followed by snooker, pass the parcel (or toss the pillow), hide the shoes, lots and lots of Tuffy ("he never bites, he only loves") doing tricks on his hindlegs, riddles (of which that title - translated as Who Am I to You? - is one, solved in the final seconds), friendship and loyalty tests, and even some kind of kd lang-ish drag act in the queer-coded musical number "Didi Tera Devar Deewana". Its appeal in 2025 is pure escapism. HAHK might well have seemed unlike anything else in cinema in 1994 - lest we forget, the year of Speed, Sátántangó and Through the Olive Trees - clinging as it did to the same devotional songs Hindi films had been singing for a half-century or more and broad comedy interludes (a salt/sugar mix-up; Tuffy supping from a bottle of Thums Up; a baby peeing on someone's dress) intended to tickle all corners of the family unit. An hour in, with a lot of this business going on and no immediate sign of a story developing, you realise the film has had to be made behind closed studio doors - much as, say, Meet Me in St. Louis was - to detach its action almost completely from the rigours and demands (not to mention the gravity) of reality.

HAHK is one of those rare films where its most passionate fans and most vocal detractors agree entirely on what it is (childish); what matters is whether you mind that it takes place in cloud cuckoo land, or that the final-act complication could have been prevented by the simple installation of a stairguard. (It's what happens when the fully grown adults in a movie are set to behaving like toddlers.) The worst I'm prepared to say about Barjatya's film is that its Quality Street aesthetic now looks like a basic version of what Sanjay Leela Bhansali was just beginning to layer up and finesse, by toning down the dayglo greens and pinks and introducing darker shades to the dramatic palette. Like the Cadbury's products the sweet-toothed Nisha can be sporadically seen munching on, this is a confection, working from a story that often seems to have been made up by sugar-giddied youngsters: two hours of mucking about and dressing up, followed by a gabbled hour of conflict premised on the idea that Prem and Nisha are obvious, ready playmates. That innocence continues to beguile, nevertheless. Here's a reminder of a time when Salman, latterly a gruffly adenoidal action figure, was but a goofy prince prepared to sing "it's my first love/It's the first time"; when Mads, introduced on rollerskates (!), was the dancing queen of Bollywood; and when Hindi film was still in fond conversation with its inner child, rather than handing him a rifle and packing him off to cadet college. Getting folks back into cinemas - regaining the audience's trust - may well require such baby steps.

Hum Aapke Hain Koun...! returns to selected cinemas from Friday.

Monday, 10 February 2025

Homework: "Jeanne Dielman, 23, Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles"


An admission: I felt a vague pang of sadness upon hearing that Chantal Akerman's 1975 work 
Jeanne Dielman... had been voted Sight & Sound's Greatest Film of All Time in 2022. It wasn't that the great white men of film history - represented by Hitchcock and Welles with former GOATs Vertigo and Citizen Kane - had finally been toppled by a (white) woman: in the 21st century, we know enough to know great films can come from anywhere. It was partly residual trauma from an undergraduate screening of Akerman's 1974 film Je tu il elle, organised by a well-meaning professor who thought it a wise idea to expose restless 19-year-olds to the tale of a morose woman who spends eighty minutes flopping around on a filthy mattress. (The sound of seats flipping up, and the departing abuse shouted at the screen, will haunt me forever.) Mostly, it was that this coronation confirmed something I'd suspected for a while: that the days of film being a great popular artform were over; that the cinema was now a niche concern, the preserve of academics, something we pallid nerds talk about among ourselves behind closed doors. I can imagine pressing a DVD of Vertigo or Citizen Kane on a novice and trying to persuade them of those films' greatness. I can't with Jeanne Dielman..., or at least I can't without also providing that novice with a fifty-foot stack of contextualising material, mitigating circumstances, additional reading. The newcomer may still be engaged, stirred or thrilled by those earlier American entertainments, whether by their stories or by how those stories are told, but some large part of Jeanne Dielman... specifically intends to do the viewer's head in. The pleasure principle that governed moviegoing and moviewatching for well over a century is here replaced by something more punitive and accusatory, and naturally it's only the hardcore cinephile - possessed of that masochistic streak that carries he or she away from others and into the solitude of darkened rooms for long stretches - who dares to lap it up, recommend it, label it the best of the best.

So: let the contextualisation commence anew. Reissued as the flagship of the BFI's present Akerman season, this was the 25-year-old director at the midpoint of the 1970s - that decade in which feminist theory rapidly developed into active practice - determining to make a film that went further than ever before in what it said and showed about a woman: in this case, a middle-aged, middle-class woman (Delphine Seyrig), found at the address of the title; sex worker by day, single mother to a teenage son by night, a prisoner in her own home at almost all times. The directorial approach was there in the title: a prevailing desire to go into extreme, pedantic detail, generating extended sequences of our heroine cooking and cleaning mindlessly, going through the same old deranging routines day in day out. You've got three-plus hours of this, whether you like it or not, so settle in. When Jeanne takes a bath, Akerman shoots her scrubbing every part of her anatomy, and then - the kicker - struggling to turn the tap off. We get fully fifteen minutes of her preparing breakfast one morning; and you should see the meal she makes of a bag of potatoes. (British viewers of a certain age will spend some of this sequence wondering whether Smash would have been available in Brussels in 1975.) The point is that the film is exactly what it shows - hard work, with not much in the way of reward - and it demands a permanently frowning gaze from director and viewer alike. A structuralist landmark like Michael Snow's Wavelength (another unruly undergraduate discovery) could work in a kind of joke by including conventional movie activity - a murder - but keeping it largely off-camera. Jeanne, by contrast, has nothing going on around her, no interests, no real friends or confidantes; she exists simply to keep a dead zone neat and tidy, until she snaps and it gets messy. If you want murder done properly, maman tells us, do it yourself.

The one concession Akerman makes - and here, Jeanne Dielman... represents a quantum leap forwards from the scratchy, primitive experimentalism of Je tu il elle, the work of an emergent dissident still gathering her words, thoughts and images - is that she's prepared to teach us how to watch the film. With the action being by and large so perfunctory, we're obliged to fall back on mise-en-scène, to try and puzzle out how these rooms fit together, what's really being performed (big hint: it's bourgeois domesticity), what that odd flashing light is in the Dielmans' front room. Akerman schools us in this very quickly. One of Jeanne Dielman...'s virtues is that it often feels pacier than some 90- or 120-minute films we've all seen, because there's always something for the heroine to do, so Sisyphean is her domestic labour. The food gets eaten; the endlessly remade beds slept in. The sex work that might have offered some form of variation is itself described as a drudge, on the occasions we see any of it, but it's the one aspect of this life that isn't dwelled on at any length. It puts food on the table and keeps a roof over this head, but is no more of a source of pleasure - for her, or for those of us looking on - than anything else Akerman puts on screen. We are, then, set for something more overtly dramatic to happen; it does, eventually, but it involves going a long way around the houses (and around this house in particular) to get there, and even then the film leaves Jeanne and us stranded: her final act is a dead end in a location Akerman has left us in little doubt is itself a dead end. What may be surprising is how influential these dead ends have been. Watching Jeanne Dielman... this far into the 21st century, you can very clearly see its impact on such refusenik directors as Michael Haneke (the long, fixed shots, the reframing of the domestic space as a potential deathtrap, the desire to impress something on the audience, to poke or provoke us out of our passivity), Catherine Breillat (the weaponising of downtime, the spiralling-out into madness and murder) and numerous other contemporary filmmakers with whom you may have a passive-aggressive, love-hate relationship.

It's possibly also inspired those juniors who've recently centralised women's lives and work, although that claim is complicated by Jeanne Dielman...'s somewhat ambiguous relationship with its own protagonist. It's unclear even from these 201 minutes whether Akerman really likes or empathises with Jeanne, with her narrow little life and trad-wife concerns. Look at the tepid smile Akerman permits Jeanne when she hears her boy returning home; or the fact Seyrig has been asked to portray a vacuum (in both senses of the word), someone emptied out and finally exhausted by the demands of her daily tasks; or the comparative liveliness of those Jeanne encounters on her rounds. (A cameoing cobbler all but comes over as Bob Hope in this context, but presumably he has a wife to turn down the covers every morning.) For three-plus hours, Akerman is constantly telling us not to be this type of woman, so obsessed with and consumed by domesticity that she has nothing else going on in her life or between her ears. In this respect, Jeanne Dielman...'s newfound GOAT status represents a less radical disruption of the canon than it at first appears: I'm far from certain Hitchcock and Welles had entirely flattering things to say about "Scottie" Ferguson and Charles Foster Kane, obsessed with and consumed by Kim Novak and power respectively - and those filmmakers were far closer in spirit to their subjects than Akerman is to hers. One reason these films appeal to critics is that they are, fundamentally, critical. (It never ceases to amaze me how many of our most acclaimed films are formed of negative images.) For everybody else: Jeanne Dielman... stands a landmark of sorts, a beacon set by a woman atop an especially arduous hill in the hope other women will see the light. It is deliberately ungenerous, programmatic, repetitive, depressive, monotonous, extenuated, dull and no fun whatsoever, but it is still all of those things - and that's the perversion the pollsters and cognoscenti have so triumphantly embraced, cinephilia having become no more, in the bigger picture, than its own form of perversion, hidden from sight in the darker corners of the Internet. I wouldn't go so far as to call it the greatest film of all time, but it remains, like the housework it so assiduously witnesses and condemns as a crime, a pretty formidable timesuck.

Jeanne Dielman, 23, Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles is now showing in selected cinemas.

Sunday, 9 February 2025

For what it's worth...




UK box office Top Ten (for the weekend of January 31-February 2, 2025):

1 (1) A Complete Unknown (15) **
2 (2) Mufasa: The Lion King (PG)
3 (new) Companion (15)
4 (3) Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (PG)
5 (5) The Brutalist (18) ***
6 (new) Les Misérables: The Staged Concert (12A)
7 (4) Flight Risk (15)
8 (7) Moana 2 (U) ***
9 (new) Hard Truths (12A) ****
10 (6) Nosferatu (15) ***

(source: BFI)

My top five:
3. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind [above]

 
DVD/Blu-Ray/Download top ten: 

1 (new) Moana 2 (U) ***
2 (2) Wicked: Part 1 (PG) **
3 (1) Gladiator II (15) ***
4 (4) Venom: The Last Dance (15)
5 (new) Kraven the Hunter (15)
6 (new) Anora (18) ***
7 (3) The Wild Robot (U) **
8 (5) Conclave (12) ****
9 (8) Dune: Part Two (12) **
10 (10) Small Things Like These (15) ***


My top five: 
1. Speak No Evil


My top five films on terrestrial TV this week:
1. Blue Velvet (Sunday, BBC Two, 10pm)
2. Blue Jean (Friday, BBC Two, 11.05pm)
3. The Elephant Man (Sunday, BBC Two, 11.55pm)
4. Long Shot (Friday, BBC One, 11.30pm)
5. Starter for 10 (Saturday, BBC One, 12.10am)

Friday, 7 February 2025

The show must go on: "September 5"


It's often been the case that Oscar-recognised documentaries get repurposed as based-on-true-events drama: much as 1996's
When We Were Kings surely factored into the greenlight for 2001's Ali, so too 2008's Man on Wire begat 2015's The Walk and 2014's Citizenfour begat 2016's Snowden. "This story commands respect and wins prizes" is the underlying principle of all these fictions-based-on-fact, and there must be executives who only need to hear that before reaching for the studio chequebook. It's possible, then, that this week's September 5 has been kicking around as an idea ever since Kevin Macdonald's One Day in September won the Oscar back in 2000; possible, too, that it was temporarily shelved once Steven Spielberg made his pretty definitive Munich, the kind of movie that feels like a full stop on a subject, in 2005. The question hovering over the new film, which picked up a Best Original Screenplay nomination the other week, is why the idea has been returned to now, at this especially fraught moment in Israeli-Palestine relations, though the question mark is mitigated by an asterisk in the form of another question: when in the last 25 years hasn't there been a fraught moment in Israeli-Palestine relations? Director Tim Fehlbaum makes his primary concern the medium, not the message in revisiting the events Macdonald's film recapped, only from the notionally neutral perspective of the multinational TV crew providing ABC's coverage of the 1972 Munich Olympics. We arrive at the crew's dingy HQ at the start of another night shift, with the aircon on the fritz (good, we suppose, for a few beads of forehead sweat later on), preliminaries in soccer, volleyball and boxing to keep an eye on, and a senior producer (Peter Sarsgaard) establishing an editorial line by asserting the Olympics is "not about politics, it's about emotions". The next 24 hours will, however, be hijacked - along with the Games and any coverage thereof - after representatives of the Palestinian militant group Black September storm the Olympic village, an action that resulted in the deaths of eleven Israeli coaches and athletes. This was one of those sorry days when sports became headline news.

For the most part, Fehlbaum's film operates in a milquetoast procedural mode, holing up inside the brick-and-mortar equivalent of an outside broadcast truck and watching onscreen director Geoff Mason (John Magaro) and producers Roone Arledge (Sarsgaard) and Marvin Bader (Ben Chaplin) puzzle out first what's going on a block away, then the best angle on these events, what they can and can't show, and how best to keep the show on the road after local police storm the control room and demand they switch their cameras off. It's an odd, oblique, vaguely Sorkinesque set-up for what's surely meant to play as an involving thriller, falling closer to the experience of watching an on-the-hoof production or standards-and-practices meeting; the drama is interlaced with ABC's actual September 5 output, observed playing on the studio monitors, and showing anchorman Jim McKay - the American Des Lynam - stuttering and gulping through the single worst day of his decades-long career. It is, however, a set-up that generates a workmanlike metaphor for September 5's own making. What we're watching, for a dash over 90 minutes, are men of various nationalities shutting themselves away, rolling up their sleeves and furrowing their brows, and heading into one sombre meeting after another on the topic of how to cover an event - in the broader picture, world events after October 7, 2023 - without directly addressing the worst of it; how to film and report on an ever-mounting series of atrocities while simultaneously finding the right distance, a tasteful angle, the most apposite words, in the event there can ever be words. It's not a movie about the Middle East so much as it is a movie about the media's responses to the Middle East; the drama is largely confined to the booth, rarely venturing outside into the harsh sunlight of the outside world. It's always hermetic, consciously self-sealed, often a little stuffy.

That said, you wouldn't necessarily have to be Noam Chomsky to raise an eyebrow at the fact the story Hollywood has chosen to tell now - albeit outsourced to German producers - is one in which the Israelis were blameless martyrs; September 5 has played widely in the US this winter, where the more even-handed doc No Other Land (co-directed by an Israeli and a Palestinian, itself Oscar-nominated) has yet to secure theatrical distribution. Western media has grown comfortable with one point of view, and it would take a more forceful film than September 5 to usher us past any scepticism. The one we've got struck me as a product of that recent blurring of lines between the cinema and high-end cable television: a movie about TV that in many ways plays like the kind of illustrious TV movie that might have aired on HBO in the days before The Sopranos changed the subscription and programming model. Fehlbaum and his fellow writers insistently downplay the politics of the situation, instead honing in on period collars and hair, the intricacies of early Seventies technology (tape reels being rewound by hand to generate slowmotion effects, harried talk about satellite feeds, some taut business with a soldering iron) and internal conflict between ABC's sports and news divisions. To paraphrase Mark E. Smith, this is a film made with the highest German-American attention to the wrong detail - or at least to incidental detail, compelled and fascinated as it is by everything other than the identities and motives of the men in the athletes' village. (And even here, a hierarchy of sorts emerges: the Israeli athletes humanised with photographs and interviews with family members, the Palestinians never more than nameless faces on screens.) We're meant simply to admire the journalists' terse, unemotional professionalism, but September 5 also betrays the limitations of that professionalism: it's broadcasting on a narrow bandwidth, being both less informative than the Macdonald film (which didn't have to compress and streamline its facts to fit a thriller framework) and far less bold than the Spielberg film in what it says and shows. It does enough to sustain itself for an hour-and-a-half - one point in its favour: it retains a TV movie's economy - but a lot of it does feel like distraction, or at best circumlocution: a way of talking about the present without specifically talking about the present. Our movies - even our mainstream movies - used to be so much better and braver about this.

September 5 is now showing in cinemas nationwide.

Tuesday, 4 February 2025

How it is: "Hard Truths"


First things first: let's welcome Mike Leigh back to the present day. It's been fifteen years since this filmmaker last engaged fully with contemporary British reality in making 2010's
Another Year - a little less, if you count his Cultural Olympiad short A Running Jump - and maybe, having survived the 1980s once, Leigh felt he'd said everything he had to say about British life under a Conservative government. Instead, through the 2010s, Leigh took a step back into the past while expanding his palette: both 2014's Mr. Turner and 2018's Peterloo brought his signature, closely guarded improvisational methodology to bear on specific moments in national history. Now, however, it's 2025, the Tories have been toppled, and with Brexit proving the roaring success we were promised all along, it's hardly a surprise the characters in the director's latest, Hard Truths, are such radiant sunbeams, newly confident and upwardly mobile. I kid, of course. The new film, in which Leigh refines everything that was going on in 1993's savage Naked, 2002's baleful All or Nothing and 2008's comparatively perky Happy-Go-Lucky, scales back the cast-of-hundreds approach of those recent historical tableaux to focus in on a small handful of people - two family units - cowering in the wake of one colossal performance: that of Marianne Jean-Baptiste as Pansy Deacon, a middle-aged malcontent mired in her own ever-mounting unhappiness. Initially, Pansy - who wakes from slumber with a scream, as if realising with horror that she's stuck in this form/country/life - seems terrified to leave the house she obsessively cleans, and that may not be a bad thing, given the reign of bolshy terror we see her unleashing on her fellow humans whenever she is coaxed out and about. It becomes positively understandable, even relatable, if we start to read Hard Truths (and that title's no lie) as some form of state-of-the-nation address.

We are, after all, back within touching distance of that old social realist standby, the kitchen sink. (During one family meal, the silences are made more awkward still by the sound of a sporadically dripping tap.) Leigh's eye for the humdrum yet revealing is as sharp as ever. Hard Truths is bookended by scenes in which Pansy's dumbstruck plumber husband Curtley (David Webber) removes first a radiator, then a bath from a client's house, a process I don't think I've seen in a movie before; when Pansy pauses her afternoon cleaning to unwind on the sofa, it's to watch one of those A Place in the Sun-type schedule fillers, rubbing in what she cannot afford and will likely never have. No wonder everyone's unhappy nowadays; and as the media drifts further off into fantasyland, intoxicating their audience with aspirational escapism, there's something both sobering and admirable about Leigh's stubborn allegiance to realism as a form. Some of the behaviour we'll be watching here has been heightened and accentuated, the better to fit the big screen, but a far higher percentage of Hard Truths suggests a ready cognisance of how life now is for a lot of British people. A central tenet of Leigh's method has been that the actors compile a list of folks they know, and crucially what they're like; that technique pays off here in extraordinary ways. 

For a while, you may fear - much as some worried about Johnny in Naked - that Pansy is going to be too much, so relentless is she in her axegrinding, yet even in the midst of her loudest wails of despair, she remains recognisable as a very British type: the person who is woefully unhappy about their life, yet so terrified of making even small changes to their narrow routine that all that anxious, negative energy gets projected outwards onto anybody unfortunate enough to be in the vicinity. She's constantly being triggered; nothing's good enough or clean enough, and even the sight of a happy couple contemplating a sofa purchase serves to remind her of her own shortcomings. Some viewers have chosen to interpret this as another of the downcast Leigh's occasional self-portraits, altogether less flattering than Tim Spall's Turner - but, really, here but for the grace of God and a few lucky breaks go any of us. In the real world, such grousing can be funny to observe for a while, as indeed it is here; whether babies, dogs, close family or complete strangers, they all get it in the neck. Over the long haul, though, it's potentially exhausting and crushing. Though Pansy reacts to the presence of a fox in her back garden in much the same shrieking way a Sun reader might to just the idea of immigrants, it's not quite as simple as that she represents Brexit in human form. But she does feel like an embodiment of the many sicknesses and neuroses that have plagued this country in recent times: the isolationism and lack of long-term vision, the insecurity coupled to a hairtrigger temper, the constant lashing out. (And it's not even as if she's on social media.) Everything is everybody else's fault, because it's too painful to look inwards for long. A dentist, in passing, compliments Pansy on the cleanliness of her teeth, but it's the sharp end of our heroine's tongue she has to worry about, and there is no Mr. Muscle for the human heart; it takes an inordinate amount of scrubbing to remove the build-up of pain, disappointment and resentment, and good luck getting on a therapist's waiting list at this moment in time.

This was Leigh's final collaboration with the cinematographer Dick Pope before the latter's death last year, and after the dense period detail of Mr. Turner and Peterloo, Hard Truths marks a return to the look of those films the pair fashioned with TV money through the 1980s and 1990s. Leigh has never been one for undue adornment; he doesn't want anything to obscure these performances and what they represent. (The characters are multilayered, even if the worlds they inhabit are somewhat austere - or have fallen subject to austerity.) Yet the new film is properly widescreen - at one point catching five variably content folks seated side-by-side, like notes on a descending scale - and Leigh and Pope smartly use summer sunshine to offset the aggro, our sense there's a brouhaha waiting to happen in every car park and supermarket queue. We always feel this Britain - even this London - would be very pretty between May and September, if only we could keep the people out of sight. Every frame is similarly suffused with that wisdom born of careful observation. Pansy has a sister, Chantelle (Michele Austin), a hairdresser and a people person, which gives the film somewhere else to go whenever its protagonist becomes unbearable: her household, with its two energised twentysomething daughters (Ani Nelson and Sophia Brown), is all colour, life, enthusiastic dishevelment. One of the girls slings her feet up on the sofa, which Pansy - endlessly berating her morose son Moses (Tuwaine Barrett) - simply wouldn't tolerate. These cutaways at first seem a jolting break from the depressive norm - who are these healthily adjusted people, and what on earth are they doing in the same film/country/universe as a black cloud such as Pansy? - but they cast new light on our heroine's plight: Chantelle's clan have developed coping strategies - for setbacks in life, work and love - which the terse, uptight and eternally defensive Pansy hasn't. Visually, too, the contrast between the two households keeps the film lithe and lively: whenever we tire of seeing a woman hunkering down in a dismal rut, Leigh can cut to one of the girls on an afternoon run and keep things moving. What Leigh appears to have learnt from his recent experiences is the importance of flexibility, particularly as one gets older: looking beyond one's usual horizons, going out and meeting people, giving yourself a break. Hard Truths teaches by example, in this respect.

It would be easy to imagine a film directed by a grumpy middle-aged Mancunian, on the lives of Black British characters, which fell somewhere between a condescending and reactionary disaster. Instead, Hard Truths emerges as a triumph, for reasons that hinge on the difference between filmmaker and central character. A model of entrenchment, Pansy struggles to change - but Leigh has changed, or at least allowed himself the possibility of some wiggle room through close, attentive collaboration. We should credit casting supremo Nina Gold with furnishing the director with these excellent, largely unfamiliar actors, but it's Leigh who's finally allowed them their head and given them their due. To highlight one example among many: note how Pansy's syntax sporadically slips from aggrieved South Londoner into something more Caribbean; to pursue a hairdressing pun her jolly sister might appreciate, her roots keep showing. Leigh may just have had the character down as someone who's fallen victim to a very British depression, but Jean-Baptiste inhabits Pansy and subtly delineates a woman in the throes of a full-on identity crisis: one who wasn't given much encouragement in her formative years, spent the bulk of her life being drained of all hope and purpose, and now finds herself with nowhere to go but back to bed. (One measurable achievement here: we get all this information from spending fewer than 97 minutes in her company.) Pansy isn't entirely beyond recovery and rehabilitation: she'd be much in demand as a commercial cleaner, for one, and would even make a brilliant, wounding critic. But she is, like a lot of things about modern Britain, messed-up and deeply complicated: increasingly, watching her, we don't know whether to laugh or cry. (She doesn't, either, if a climactic outpouring is anything to go by.) She is at her most heartbreaking in the film's closing moments, where collectively Leigh and Jean-Baptiste show us how hard it is for some people to try and live a normal life, to exert some agency over that life, when the pressures from outside are so great and you have this much baggage weighing down on your back. But that's where we all are in 2025, and that's why Leigh ends the film as he does: with a sitdown standoff between two crumpled figures in a whole heap of pain. They could conceivably support one another, hold each other up; equally, though, they could never speak again. The present tense of a Leigh film has rarely felt more present, nor more urgent, as Hard Truths comes to underline the one question no senior British statesman has yet managed to convincingly answer: where the hell do we go from here?

Hard Truths is now playing in selected cinemas.