Went to see Shane Meadows’s much-hyped-by-the-critics “This is England”:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480025/ last night. What a piss-poor film it is. Poorly acted, poorly scripted, and hardly redeemed by some really clunking cinematography. The film would be kind of ok as a drama offering on BBC2 (or BBC4) but insightful socio-historical document it isn’t. The action all takes place on a bog-standard depressing-concrete housing estate with the standard row of depressing-concrete shops (plus free-standing Pakistani newsagents) and — for those who don’t know — gravitates around the tensions within early-80s skinhead culture between two-tone ska fans and racist knuckleheads. Young boy with father-killed-in-the-Falklands (Shaun) gravitates to the cool(ish) multiracial ska crowd but then becomes seduced by boastful-but-insecure racist psychopath Combo, the movie then plods along to its predictable violent “climax”. Thatcher and the Falklands lurk predictably in the background. Redeeming features? The National Front meeting in the pub isn’t badly observed, but, in truth, it can’t have been all that hard to set up a little cameo involving dopey skinheads, tatooed bikers and fat Nazis in bad suits. TiE goes a long way to showing that, just so long as you make a film with a certain kind of subject matter, critics will give you a good write-up. Sit at home and watch old episodes of _Shameless_ or rent a copy of _La Haine_ : both are better acted and both offer more insight into their subject-matters than _This is England_.
{ 25 comments }
Backword Dave 05.20.07 at 11:35 am
Sukhdev Sandhu damned with faint praise. Must say, the film didn’t appeal. ‘My Beautiful Laundrette’ should still be worth watching again, though.
Kevin Gillan 05.20.07 at 12:04 pm
What rot! The film has gritty realism by the bucketload, but thankfully lacks the romanticised excess of sympathy that often comes along with it. Which is why its set in a “bog-standard depressing-concrete housing estate with the standard row of depressing-concrete shops (plus free-standing Pakistani newsagents)”. It may seem poorly scripted but this is because much of the script was improvised, demonstrating that people don’t really talk in polished Tarantino-esqe dialogue.
This is England offers a highly ambiguous view of the subject matter, carefully avoiding either a kneejerk hate of the national front or an overly sympathetic version of ‘white boys are okay really’.
Fr. 05.20.07 at 2:53 pm
It’s that kind of movie which draws upon an exceptionally interesting series of historical events and cultures, but which still manages to fsck it all up.
Oliver Stone’s WTC is exactly the same to me: how can you make such a boring movie with this (emotional and historical) context?
ejh 05.20.07 at 3:19 pm
Did anybody think people do speak in “Tarantino-esque dialogue”? Would Tarantinio make such a claim? Do people normally speak like they do in Casablanca?
daelm 05.20.07 at 3:43 pm
chris, you must have loved The History Boys then. from your review, they sound like the perfect double act.
JMW 05.21.07 at 12:24 am
History Boys is the opposite of improvised, unpolished dialogue. Alan Bennett’s script is mostly brilliant.
paul 05.21.07 at 1:08 am
Chris, have you been to enough National Front meetings in pubs to recognise a good observation of one?
Chris Bertram 05.21.07 at 6:55 am
Um no. (Though I haven’t been to the 18th century either, but I’ll confidently praise Jane Austen’s powers of observation.)
ejh 05.21.07 at 9:07 am
Jane Austen wrote in the nineteenth century, surely?
Bob B 05.21.07 at 9:42 am
C’mon. This is England now according to recent mainstream media reports:
“According to the Office for National Statistics, unemployment among 16 and 17-year- olds has risen from 19.9 per cent when Labour came to power in 1997 to 25.3 per cent now. The number of unskilled jobs has dropped from 8 million in the 1960s to 3.5 million now.
“A recent Treasury report predicted that the number of unskilled jobs would drop to only 600,000 by 2020, making it almost impossible for unskilled teenagers to find work.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article1292132.ece
“Some 26 million adults lack maths or English skill levels expected of school-leavers. . . An estimated 5.2 million adults have worse literacy than that expected of 11 year olds, while 14.9 million have numeracy skills below this level.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4095153.stm
“One third of employers have to give their staff remedial lessons in basic English and maths, a survey suggests. Managers said staff needed to be able to use correct spelling and grammar and should be competent in simple mental arithmetic without a calculator. One in five employers said non-graduate recruits of all ages struggled with literacy or numeracy, the Confederation of British Industry poll found.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/5263812.stm
“Academics have challenged ministers’ claims of improved pupil performance in national tests and GCSEs.
“Government research obtained by The TES compares the results of pupils in England with teenagers in other countries. The findings weaken ministers’ claims that pupils are getting better at English, maths and science. . . The analysis found evidence that pupils who had achieved average results in key stage 3 tests in English, maths and science and GCSEs performed worse in the 2003 tests than those in 2000.”
Times Educational Supplement 18 August 2006
http://www.tes.co.uk/2270700
“Last year [2004], a report from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) revealed that Britain came seventh from bottom in a league table of staying-on rates for 19 countries. Only Mexico and Turkey had significantly lower rates of participation for this age group. Italy, New Zealand, Portugal and Slovakia have marginally lower rates.”
http://education.guardian.co.uk/gcses/story/0,16086,1555547,00.html
dsquared 05.21.07 at 2:55 pm
According to the Office for National Statistics, unemployment among 16 and 17-year- olds has risen from 19.9 per cent when Labour came to power in 1997 to 25.3 per cent now.
Almost certainly a result of lower labour force participation due to more 16 and 17 year olds being in full time education.
Pete 05.21.07 at 4:55 pm
“Unemployment” statistics usually exclude people in full-time education, dsquared – or are you trying to say that more employable teenagers are in education so a greater proportion of the rest are unemployed AND uneducated?
dsquared 05.21.07 at 6:09 pm
easy worked example:
100 teenagers. Of whom
75 are in education
20 in work
5 unemployed.
= 5/25 = 20% youth unemployment.
After a new programme is introduced:
84 are in education
12 in work
4 unemployed.
Youth unemployment is now 4/16 = 25%.
Chris Bertram 05.21.07 at 6:15 pm
Jane Austen wrote in the nineteenth century, surely?
Both 18th and 19th actually, but didn’t get published until the 19th.
Bob B 05.21.07 at 6:31 pm
Another recent news item draws attention to the growing number of NEETs in Britain – not in employment, education or training:
“A growing army of young people in Britain is being left behind. That’s the conclusion of a recent report by the Prince’s Trust, which exposed the crisis of ‘neets’ – young people aged 16 to 24 not in education, employment or training.
“Relatively low unemployment masks almost 1.3 million ‘neets’, a lost generation that has grown by 15% since 1997. The failure to tap their potential undermines social cohesion, damages the economy, and puts a growing strain on the exchequer. The report estimates the cost at £3.65bn a year.”
http://education.guardian.co.uk/further/opinion/story/0,,2063687,00.html
The fact is that the youth in Britain now are different from their peers elsewhere:
“THE death rate among young drivers has doubled in the past five years, prompting demands for greater restrictions on those who have recently passed their tests. The steady improvement in road safety across the general population is masking a sharp increase in the number of drivers aged under 20 having fatal crashes, despite a tougher driving test.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3223-2116254,00.html
“The British are Western Europe’s biggest binge drinkers, a new study has revealed. According to market analysts Datamonitor, drinkers in Britain consume 6.3 units of alcohol – equivalent of 2.2 pints of lager – each time they visit the pub.”
http://www.999today.com/health/news/story/3014.html
“The teenage pregnancy rate in Britain is the highest in Western Europe and dealing with the consequences costs taxpayers an estimated £63million a year.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=416077&in_page_id=1879&in_a_source=
ejh 05.21.07 at 8:03 pm
Dealing with the consequences of the Daily Mail comes at an incalculable cost.
kb 05.21.07 at 10:44 pm
“The fact is that the youth in Britain now are different from their peers elsewhere:”
“THE death rate among young drivers has doubled in the past five years”
Which still leaves british young drivers far less likely to die on the road than their european counterparts.
“consume 6.3 units of alcohol”
Gasp , a whole 0.4 pints more than the european average……, truly sodom and gomorrah writ large.
And anyone who regards 2.2 pints on a night out as a ‘binge’ deserves a good slap.
rea 05.22.07 at 5:41 pm
It may seem poorly scripted but this is because much of the script was improvised, demonstrating that people don’t really talk in polished Tarantino-esqe dialogue.
That reality is often dull and boring is no reason to praise dullness and boredom as desirable qualities in a work of art . . .
notsneaky 05.22.07 at 7:27 pm
“According to the Office for National Statistics, unemployment among 16 and 17-year- olds has risen from 19.9 per cent when Labour came to power in 1997 to 25.3 per cent now. The number of unskilled jobs has dropped from 8 million in the 1960s to 3.5 million now.
and
Almost certainly a result of lower labour force participation due to more 16 and 17 year olds being in full time education.
One can check that sort of thing you know. From:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/tsdtables1.asp?vlnk=lms
second quarter 1997, economic activity rate among 16-17 yr olds: 60.5
sept 2006 (one corresponding to the 25.3 statistic above) economic activity rate among 16-17 yt olds: 47.3
So dsquared is right, almost all the increase in the unemployment rate in this age group (more than 80% of it) has been due to the decrease in labor force particpation rate (which is what I assume “economic activity” refers to).
It’s also interesting to note that most of this change takes place after 2005.
Of course increases in education enrollment could signal a crappy economy (no jobs so might as well go to school for a few years) but I doubt that very much applies to this age group.
Greg 05.23.07 at 3:54 am
I admit I haven’t seen the film, but it strikes me: aren’t Rude Boys vs. the NF and racist skinheads a bit anachronistic in 1983? Maybe ’79-’80, but I think an accurate rendering of ’83 would have pitted Orange Juice fans against psychobillies.
josh 05.23.07 at 8:06 am
“…an accurate rendering of ‘83 would have pitted Orange Juice fans against psychobillies.”
God. What a choice to have to make.
ajay 05.23.07 at 1:44 pm
Ah, but you see, it allows the director to make Big Serious Point about Falklands War. (viz. it was Bad.)
PJ 05.23.07 at 3:23 pm
Interesting to note that many govt statistical insiders point to the census fudge that upped the population of young men (on the basis of very little hard evidence) for a lot of these scare stories now coming out – if they don’t exist it is obviously difficult for them to be economically active or in education.
Phil 05.24.07 at 1:25 pm
Big Serious Point about Falklands War
Which was in 1982, not 1983. I think even some of the reviewers who raved about it have picked up on that.
I’m not in the sunniest of moods as I type (just had a career-saving grant application turned down) but this review gladdened my black heart. In particular, this…
TiE goes a long way to showing that, just so long as you make a film with a certain kind of subject matter, critics will give you a good write-up
…rang a bell (labelled Vera Drake).
much of the script was improvised, demonstrating that people don’t really talk in polished Tarantino-esqe dialogue
It seems to me that you can go one of two ways with improvised drama. You can allow the actors to create tics, mannerisms and catchphrases that feed off one another, building up to create a weird stylised parallel universe (Mike Leigh at his best). Or you can keep telling them to act like real people reacting in real ways to a real situation… in which case you generally end up with a weird stylised parallel universe, only a dull one without any catchphrases.
carl 05.25.07 at 1:26 am
The film generates an accurate image of the visuals and sounds of the skinhead era, as i remember it.This though was 1980 and the timeline is total inaccurate.By 83 we were in the no mans land era between the new romantics and the Taccini wearing casuals or trendies.The movie has sold out as a historical statement so it can revolve around a lame script.As with most of these docusoap style movies its got the basics right but just lacks a plot.
Comments on this entry are closed.