Adrift in Soho

An adaptation of Colin Wilson's 1961 novel, following the lives of a group of intriguing characters, some real, some not, as they strive to discover the true nature of freedom. This atmospheric movie, set in London's Soho in 1959, is also a homage to the 1950s Free Cinema movement in which then up-and-coming moviemakers like Lindsay Anderson, Karel Reisz, Tony Richardson, Claude Goretta and others took their Bolex cameras out onto the streets, and into the cellars, of post-war London filming what they saw. Depicting some of the major events of the time, like the first CND march to Aldermaston, this mesmerizing mosaic of a film rewards multiple viewings. Highly recommended.

Confession : This film lost me within the first two minutes due to my own personal dislike of highly stylised imagery in movies. Still, I wanted to like it and tried to give it a fair chance. It IS set in 50s Soho, after all - a place I know well, although long after its 50s & 60s heyday - and it purports to be something of a philosophical exploration of the intellectual and cultural scene there at the time. Surely there would be something there to win me over?

Nope. Firstly, the outdoor scenes look like... well... anywhere but Soho. Secondly, it fails almost completely to evoke the 1950s. There's no attempt to conjure up the atmosphere of time or place. Thirdly, erm... who are the characters again? Thirty minutes in and we barely know who they are or if we're supposed to like/hate/admire them, or even just find their dialogue interesting. It would be unfair to put that down to bad acting - it's more a result of bad writing and directing. The director knows what he's trying to create, but completely fails to communicate it to the audience.

Thirty five minutes in, and I'm reduced to fast-forwarding just to get the ordeal over with. I'm not familiar with the novel - it's probably vastly more interesting than this, and one day I might give it a try. If you've read it then you may get more out of the film than I was able to, but for anyone coming to it 'cold' then it's just uninteresting, self-indulgent, inept drivel.

I have to agree with Sebastian Noyes this is an awful adaption of the book. After hearing about the film I tried to see it. It took me over a year to track it down. It seems it was extremely hard to sell to a distributor and Behrens was extremely overprotective on who released it. ... I now know why.

The direction by Behrens is inept and lacks any form of atmosphere that you find in the book. The book has real characters. This does not. The direction of the actors was awful and most performances are not only wooden but not in the least entertaining. Trying to follow the character's story was like walking through treacle.

The cinematography was extremely poor for a film with a 2 million dollar budget. This is what you get for 2 million can you believe it? I felt sorry for some of the actors because I have seen some of them in other films and they are actually good actors and they acted well and convincingly in their characters in the other films but not in this film with this director.

In this film, it is hard to feel any empathy for any character. It drifts along in ineptitude. "Adrift" in Soho ... ironic.

Those who gave it 9/10 or such scores must be in it or work for Behrens. I cannot think of any other reason. It is interesting that some of the phrases used in the reviews are used in the press releases.

Use the 100 minutes of your life to do something else. AVOID.

This film is a clumsy, ugly adaptation of a beautiful, vivacious book. The story and characters, Soho circa late 1950's, are infinitely cinematic on the page of Colin Wilson's book yet paradoxically this film is devoid of any discernible atmosphere and the story is delivered with absolutely no performance value, the cast are possibly the most inept ensemble ever seen. The cause of Free Cinema is hitched to the narrative, it seems the director misconstrues this as a license to make a bad film, which is exactly what this sprawling, inarticulate mess is.

This is a very clever film. Set in 1959 in London's Soho "village" it chronicles the history of the place from its faded grandeur of the past through its literary centre of excellence during the era of the "Angry Young Men", on into its descent from a gentle Bohemian laissez-faire to the sharper, more harsh culture of drugs and sex, a further contrast between the birth of CND and the exploitative commercialism of TV advertising and ultimately the self-destruction of the spirit of the area.

Played out through the eyes of an ingénue writer juxtaposed with a louche, vulnerable and ultimately destructive bohemian actor, it is kept rattling along through the medium of an on-going documentary on people and life, and the film never lets up. With a visual style that emulates the gritty reality of the time, this film informs, challenges and shocks in equal measure. It is fascinating in the traditional art-house style and has moments of exquisite cinematic beauty.

The players execute an engaging screenplay effectively, given that in no case, due to the nature of the film, is there any character development beyond that which is before you. These are not easy characters and for me the actors involved, both leads and supporters did an excellent job. But the film is not really about them. They merely serve to point the viewer along the chronicle of the piece.

It is different, intelligent, engaging, challenging and miles away from the mainstream churned-out film-making that is so prevalent today. This harks back to the true art of cinema verite and I loved it. Yes, a bigger budget could have provided a bit more padding, but to say that is to miss the point of the film.

The title is misleading as it points to the ingénue. But ultimately it is Soho itself that is adrift.