Sammy und Rosie tun es

This biting social/sexual satire from the same team responsible for 'My Beautiful Laundrette' may be too comprehensive for its own good, ranging far and wide over Margaret Thatcher's England but never quite achieving the kaleidoscopic effect it strives for. Racial tension, sexual revolution, recreational drug abuse, and inner city violence (complete with police brutality) are all part of the interchangeable backdrop for its two unlikable title characters: a swinging London couple whose marriage is less open than they'd like to believe. The arrival of Sammy's father, a Pakistani politician with a secret, fascist background, is the hook on which writer Hanif Kureishi hangs his colorful but didactic screenplay (his characters too often trade clever observations and aphorisms instead of credible dialogue). The style of the film certainly shows plenty of kinetic energy, and repeat viewings help bring out some of the depth and compassion in the story and characters. But the self-consciously hip and trendy attitude doesn't sit well with such an unreal depiction of counter-culture idealism: cuddly ragamuffins in a fairy tale, open-air commune.

OK, I'm predjudiced. I love English cinema. This might not be the best, but I"ve watched it a few times, and I like it better each time.

Hanif Kureishi the chronicler of Indians, Pakistanis, and their love/hate relationship with England, can't be blamed for all the confusion. Stephen Frears and his editor come in for some of the blame. And I wonder how the actors go about their jobs? I mean, we see the final print, and get some sense of what the writing and directorial team had in mind, But sometimes the actors get only their scene to learn; some later scenes are filmed first, probably to save money on certain location shots, and some of the actors are doing theatre gigs and are only available certain times. You think you have problems? This is basically your average bleeding heart liberal 60's/90's epic. The poor are pushed to violent revolution by an uncaring conservative government that sends them checks every week, so they can dress in garish costumes, march in parades, playing instruments they never bothered to learn... why trouble a child with lessons and practicing when all these hippy darlings want to experience, is the pure joy of a child the first time it is given an instrument? The cast is peopled with the great actors from India who would be better known if they had Anglicised names. I've seen these guys a lot and I apoligise to them, but there's no way my attention deficit mind can remember their names. Anyway, it's a beautiful mess that begins to make sense after two or three viewings.

Stephen Frears intended for this film to make war on the politics of Margaret Thatcher, which he believed were responsible for a breakdown of English society. The film touches upon all of the major issues of England in the 1980s, some would say without covering any of them sufficiently. The figures of Sammy, Rosie, Anna, and Danny (or Victoria, as he calls himself) do their best to come to grips with the world around them, while Rafi and Alice, members of an older generation, can do little more than observe and mourn. Rosie's lesbian friends look at her lifestyle and pronounce: "This is liberalism gone mad", not realizing that she is merely living up to the egalitarianism they espouse. Some would have problems choosing a central character, but I choose Rosie. She is linchpin and catalyst, and at times utterly unreadable.

I think that for the movie to make any sense, you have to have some knowledge of what's going on politically, culturally, historically, etc. Most of the detractors I've seen appear not to know the background. It's set during Thatcher's time in England. Sammy and Rosie are a hip urban couple. Their politics are progressive, and they live in a rough, racially mixed area of London. Sammy's father, once an important politician in his home country, has come to the London of his youth to retire; he'd gone to school there. His arrival upsets the balance of earnestness and hypocrisy in their lives.

One of the reasons I love movie is that no one gets off the hook-- it's challenging. People who seem politically correct and sincere have gaping flaws when their surface is scratched.

It's got one of my favorite scenes and lines ever. Sammy's father Rafi visits his great unrequited love Alice, played by the great Claire Bloom, and consummates his love, but she ultimately lambasts him, telling him he could have had her, but instead he must "content (himself) with having introduced flogging for minor offenses, nuclear capability and partridge-shooting into your country."

This art film and commentary on England's severe adjustment pains after decolonization is at least interesting. It was purposely made to be a decentralized movie, but it seems that it could easily be argued that Rafi is the central character. This makes me wonder if the author's point actually was communicated accurately.

I agree that the sex scene was a bit much and very unnecessary (although I love how it was put sarcastically to a rag-tag chorus singing "My Girl"). However, other scenes make up for that relatively miniscule part of the movie (such as Sammy listening to "Erlking" while Rafi is scared for his life--one of the funniest and most intelligent scenes I have ever seen). The attraction to this movie is the imagery, cinematography, and writing. This movie has attracted a cult following amongst sociologists; they claim that the movie is arguing that postmodern identity formation is more fulfilling that modern identity (don't worry if you're not acquainted with these terms, it's all garbage and only fulfills their egos). Rafi is the most certain about who he is, but this results in him being the most ignorant out of all of the movie's characters. Whatever. I think that they are reading too much into the movie. To me, this movie is an exaggerated attempt to reveal what it is like to be a "former colonized" individual trying to live in your colonizer's country, as well as how the decolonized country (in this case Pakistan) ended up as brutal as the colonizers were (England). It was necessarily exaggerated and therein the absurd and violent scenes created hammers this point home. Would I reccommend the movie? Only if you haven't better things to do, like wash your dishes or play parcheesi. If you want to see some nifty camera work, by all means rent the movie. If you're looking to be easily entertained, forget about it.