My Boy Jack

I don't remember why I added this to my DVR; sometimes I go on a PBS binge and record all kinds of "edifying" material. From the little summary on the DVR screen, I expected a family-conflict drama mixed in with some heroic war scenes and rousing patriotism.

It did have rousing patriotism, family conflict, and heroic war scenes, yet it was not at all what I expected. When the film finished I could see past and future echoes of this family, of all families who send a son or daughter to war. Somewhere in America today there are parents just like Mr. and Mrs. Kipling in the film, and there have been for generations past.

This is a movie to see when your everyday grind has sapped your humanity.

As a Kipling fan from the age of 8, 50 years and more ago now, I was knocked out by "My Boy Jack." David Haig, as writer and actor, is beyond brilliance, and though I found Daniel Radcliffe a bit stiff and modern, he too was excellent.

Kim Cattrall: surprisingly good. But I was totally distracted by her American pretending to be English pretending to be American bizarre accent. Let her use her natural speech (and yes, I know she was born and spent time in England) or else hire a good dialogue coach.

Though the whole production was gorgeous (Bateman's!) and moving in its interrelationships, the bookending of the scenes with friends King George V and Rud just tore my heart out. The King having just lost a "boy Jack" of his own (young Prince John, an epileptic, subject of another fantastic Masterpiece series, "The Lost Prince", some years ago), Rudyard recites the poem he wrote for his Jack. I sobbed through the whole recital, and was still weeping when I went to sleep a few hours later. Staggeringly wondrous. And cathartic in the sense in which all tragedies should be. Fine, fine work by all concerned.

Masterpieces are rare, but every so often a film such as this comes along and delivers.

The story is of the son of the famous writer Rudyard Kipling during the first world war. Jingosim is the main subject of this story and Rudyard Kipling transformational arc on his views of sending his son to war.

Despite this being made for TV its at a standard that puts many blockbusters to shame, The screenplay is impeccable and the performances astounding. David Haig as Rudyard Kipling is perfect. Daniel Radcliffe despite being the famous face of Harry Potter makes the role his own as Jack. And Kim Cattrall proves shes more than being the slutty one from Sex And The City.

Thought provoking and emotional without being Cliché i feel i cannot give this film anything but a perfect score, a truly beautiful film.

I hope this film receives the attention it deserves.

I found his very interesting, not least because it fascinated me, one who generally finds programs about war repetitive, distasteful and untrue of reality. This film seemed so hopeless because you know he has no chance but really it is not about the boy in many ways, it is about the father and his conviction and his choking pride that takes precedence in the film. Daniel Radcliffe, unfortunately, did not play a totally convincing role as Jack, the son, but since he was much younger and far less experienced in the world of serious acting I think he was simply out performed.

The main character of the film was Rudyard Kipling and everything you feel is aimed at his loss and guilt for pushing his son to do something where he was destined to underachieve in, due to his "disability" (poor eyesight). I think this rigid but heartfelt performance was brilliant. The score was orchestral and built up atmosphere and sadness throughout, while the camera-work was inventive, intuitive and well shot throughout, including some rather experimental frames.

I think that the film as a whole really captured the feeling of grief and guilt that many must have felt at that time, the sense of irretrievable loss of something so precious. I think this is a great achievement as a film. I recommend anyone should see it who is interested in any aspects of film, it gives its best in all areas.

If the point of Brian Kirk's television film, adapted by David Haig from his stage play and starring Haig as the writer Rudyard Kipling, was to show just how much of a horse's ass Kipling actually was and just how awful it is to send young men, some merely boys, out to fight a war, any war, then it succeeded in spades. But I'm not quite sure that was the point and its screening on Remembrance Sunday was no coincidence. While we were certainly there to weep at the loss of Jack, Kipling's son, drummed into the army by his father's jingoism, as well as the hundreds of thousands of others who died in The Great War, I think we were also meant to applaud their bravery, if not their foolishness, then and now. Parallels to present conflicts are unmistakable.

Of its kind, of course, it's well enough made. England was a green and pleasant land, certainly on Kipling's estate. Unfortunately it was also a bit like Neverland with Kipling coming over as a cross between J M Barrie and Gandolf. And the trenches weren't much better. The rain and the mud had a sanitized look about them. We never really got away from the studio and I always think that sort of thing looks better in black and white.

What finally distinguishes it are the two central performances. Haig makes Kipling a splendidly priggish boor proving he is a much better actor than he is a writer. As his sacrificial son, Jack, that sprogget Daniel Radcliffe, (he isn't very tall, is he?), finally shook off the mantle of Harry Potter with a marvelously nuanced study of a boy forced into manhood before his time. (Radcliffe turned eighteen during filming just as his character turned eighteen prior to his death). It was a touching, exploratory piece of acting that seemed to me to be as much about Radcliffe as it was about Jack. Both players add a dimension to the drama that it lacked elsewhere and if it finally moved me, and it did, it was due to their performances. In every other respect it's just a typical made-for-television costume drama.