A Handful of Dust

I will admit, I was not a fan of this film during the first fifteen minutes when it nearly went into the "Period Film Sleeping Bag" category, but after you get through this first hump (which is to wean out the naysayers) this is a very disturbing and thoughtful film. In fact, I loved it. It took me awhile to think about it after the first viewing, but I was very impressed. Not only did this film break the boundaries of the dreaded "Period Piece Snore-fest", but also the standard of some films dating after 1988. When I watch films from the 80s, I normally do not see this caliber of writing and intensity. While it may have been around, most films were not ready to dive headfirst into it yet, but apparently Charles Sturridge has no fear. Instead, he gives us a biting story about social decline and satire, while all the while luring us deeper into this very depressive world. Amazing actors, an extremely powerful story, and an ending that will knock your socks off, A Handful of Dust was an unexpected, yet much needed, surprise.

Feeling like a combination of Requiem for a Dream and Angels & Insects, this period piece film offers more than just torrid love affairs and snobbery, it gives us this brief, yet powerful, glimpse into a world turned upside down by the squandering of a woman. I don't mean to sound sexist, but Sturridge does paint a picture where Kristin Scott Thomas' portrayal of Brenda does not paint a pretty picture of the perfect marriage. When Tony is left time and time again with John Andrew while Brenda is off gallivanting around London with John Beaver, our emotions are not placed within Brenda's arms, we care about Tony and his reaction if he were to ever discover the truth. Unlike other period piece films, we sympathize with the husband in this case, and ultimately open so wide to him that when the dramatic, and bizarre, ending occurs, we are left flabbergasted. It almost doesn't compute, but then you think about it and realize that Sturridge is a brilliant director using techniques well beyond his time.

Kristin Scott Thomas does a great job with the material that she is given. Her puppy-dog eyes seem to flutter and keep James Wilby's Tony at bay. I think that is what fascinated me about her character was that she portrayed this feeling of innocence, yet she was in complete control of the situation. That is why I think Rupert Graves' character was the most under-appreciated of them all. While some will see him as the villain of his film, I saw him as just a random person that happened to fall in love with a woman that reciprocated back, and happened to see the advantages of falling in love with her. He wanted to get rich quick, and this was his answer. Thomas could have stopped at any time and went back into the arms of Tony, but she chose not to, even with all of her innocence. Guinness surprised the daylights out of me with his role in this film, well, I guess he always does. Then there was Wilby, the most multi-layered character of the film. He showed us all the true love does exist, and that good husbands do as well. He did nothing wrong during the course of this film, yet somehow felt life hit him the most. The events that happen during this film continually to the ending happened directly to him, not really to anyone else. That surprised me. Here was a man that had all the money in the world, a gorgeous house, and a family, but found that luck was never on his side. Together, these three powerful plays hurdle through a tough film to give some genuine thought-provoking performances.

Then there was Sturridge who did his homework secretly in the darkness of his own basement to help bring this film to the silver screen. Most of Hollywood would have probably changed the story to bring about some final satisfaction. This is not the case with Sturridge who keeps the mood and themes of the film in constant view of us. We consider these people high society, with their hunting moments and huge houses, but the reality of it is that they face the same troubles that we, the normal person, do daily. They may have money, but they are human, and that is what Sturridge keeps with us during the course of the 118 minutes. He captures your attention with the characters, throws in some Twilight Zone scenes, and allows your imagination to work overtime. Anytime that a director pulls your mind into a film, the battle is already half won. This was my kind of film.

Overall, I was very impressed. This film broke me of my feeling that all period piece films were bad and dull, and had me drooling for more. While I know that not all will be like this, I cannot wait to see what other directors will dive headfirst into this untapped pool. The cinematography was pure 80s, the actors did their parts, and Sturridge brilliantly colored the themes and satires. I was surprised (and still shocked) by this film and cannot wait to show it to others … now that is the true test of a great film.

Grade: ***** out of *****

My summary is NOT to tell you not to watch the film. Instead, it's a warning to people who want a nice film where everything ends happily....none of this is the case. It's a sad story and even sadder because in the end, it's all for nothing...hence the title of this story, taken from an Evelyn Waugh story.

Tony and Brenda (James Wilby and Kisten Scott Thomas) are married and should be very happy. After all, Tony has a lot of money, a large manor in the country and they have an 8 year-old son. But despite this, Brenda cheats on poor Tony...who really is a pretty nice guy. Oddly, she chooses a man who is pretty much disliked by everyone and appears to be interested in her because of her money.

When their son dies in a tragic accident, Brenda immeidately makes it clear to Tony that she is having an affair and wants a divorce...and that everyone but Tony seems to know about the affair. Brenda claims to want a reasonable settlement and Tony is a bit of a sap, as he agrees to pretend to be the one having an affair. But when her lawyer reveals that she is going for A LOT of his money, necessitating Tony to sell his beloved estate, Tony refuses to cooperate and won't grant a divorce either. Then, he disappears for what he says will be six months traveling abroad...which actually means going on an expedition with a lousy explorer who ends up getting them lost in the South American jungle. What's next for Tony and Brenda? See the film...or not.

The acting is good but the story is pretty depressing to watch, as is Waugh's original novel. This does not mean you shouldn't watch it, but it can be tough going. Overall, a rather well made but bleak little film.

An 18th-century English writer, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, once wrote (putting Alexander Pope in his place): "Satire should, like a polished razor keen, wound with a touch that's scarcely felt or seen". This is exactly what Evelyn Waugh's novel A Handful Of Dust does and the film, in my view, fully does the novel justice. Waugh's satire here is very underplayed, very understated and very funny, but none the less utterly lethal for all that. Charles Sturridge and his fellow screenwriter's have, as far as I can see, stuck extremely close to the novel, which is no bad thing as Waugh was an extremely economical writer and there would be little point in trying to gild the lily. Although Waugh wrote his novel as a young man, his thorough dislike of modernity - which he regarded as insincere cant - in every shape or form is already apparent and he mercilessly sends up its more vicious aspects. But Waugh was too intelligent just to hate for hate's sake: it was the loss of admirable qualities in favour of 'progress' which upset him. So in the novel and film Tony Last behaves well to everyone despite a great many people, not least his 'modern' wife Brenda, treating him appallingly badly. He is loyal, values tradition, honest, accommodating and indulgent and in return loses everything. Brenda is conventionally sweet but is simply a self-centred monster who lives without a thought for anyone, and always gains what she wants. One reviewer here complained that 'nothing' happens in the film. Not a bit of it. A great deal happens but everyone is so polite and well-brought up that no one, not even Tony, questions the huge injustice of it all. If you are reading these reviews while considering whether to see this film, bear in mind the quotation with which I started my contribution: Satire that's 'scarcely felt or seen'. That will give you the key to enjoying a very good film indeed. (NB The full quotation putting down Pope runs: "Satire should, like a polished razor keen, wound with a touch that's scarcely felt or seen. Thine is an oyster knife, that hacks and hews, the rage but not the talent to abuse.")

At the end of this film, one wants to wash one's hands of the unmitigated cruelty pervading the atmosphere. The deliberate pace of the thirties setting (beautifully portrayed using the right houses, and suitable sets and costumes) ensures that every nuance of behaviour is clearly understood by the audience, and this is the great strength of the film. As I haven't read the book, but believe this is a faithful adaptation, I can commend both Charles Sturridge and the superb actors for translating what must be a difficult, but brilliant, novel by Evelyn Waugh, not only into an impressive film, but one that conveys thirties morals and social privilege in a way that rings true for today's 21st century attitudes.

I think this is the best performance I have ever seen by James Wilby. Cuckolded by his wife (Kristin Scott Thomas in a fantastic debut performance), suffering from the death of his only son, he turns from a kind and gentle husband to one who wreaks revenge on his wife by cutting off all financial support. His agony over his son is exactly restrained in the manner of the period, his embarrassment over setting up the grounds for divorce by being caught in flagrante, his bewilderment when one would think he should be released from torment but is trapped by a vindictive eccentric (Alec Guinness, as usual, quite amazing) in the middle of the jungle, after nearly dying of fever, is a tour de force. This is his film, but Kristin Scott-Thomas (who was the original reason I watched this film in the first place), is simply delightful as the spoil, bored wife who can't resist Rupert Graves's boyish charm and dilettante lifestyle. No wonder Robert Altman chose her for Gosford Park; she is made for these roles. Her character's brittle insouciance, total selfishness and insensitivity, her lack of concern for her husband and son while she pursues alleviation from boredom with Rupert Graves, is reminiscent of Daisy Buchanan's behaviour in The Great Gatsby. Kristin Scott-Thomas shows a sophistication and acting aplomb which is breathtaking.

Rupert Graves is convincing as the shallow man-about-town sponging off others but seducing charming to the ladies; Judi Dench gives a lovely cameo as his bourgeois mother; Cathryn Harrison is good as Millie, who is supposed to provide the evidence for the divorce; and Alec Guinness in one of his final roles, is chillingly menacing.

I recommend this movie to anyone who enjoys a good story well told, excellent acting, and a period setting.

I decided to watch this purely on account of the magnificent cast, not realising it was another Evelyn Waugh adaptation. Maybe if I'd known, I wouldn't have bothered because I absolutely HATED Brideshead Revisited, also directed by Charles Sturridge. Perhaps the necessary compactness of a film adaptation compared to the lumbering drawn-out length of the Brideshead TV-series is what made it work for me.

What a magnificent film this is: sensitively directed, beautifully shot and the amazing cast absolutely spot-on. The understated performances of James Wilby and Kristin Scott Thomas as the two doomed main characters are just perfect to make this strange story come to life. The stellar supporting cast all add up to a feast of fine acting.

In my opinion, AN UNDERRATED MASTERPIECE.