O Sentido Do Fim

Rhitesh Batra's film 'The Sense of an Ending' is based on a Booker-prize winning novel by Julian Barnes. Oddly, I've read almost the entirity of Barnes's oevre, but nor this work, which tells of an old man suddenly reconnected to his distant past. His enthusiasm for revisiting his old life might partly be due to his present-day loneliness, and partly due to his own capacity for re-imagining his history through a lense of nostalgia and heroism (indeed, his self-justifying self-absorption goes a long way to explaining exactly why is he now alone). So he begins a journey that will take him to uncomfortable and unexpected places. But in the film, the character (played by Jim Broadbent, possibly not the optimal choice for the role) is so obviously bumptious and narcicisstic that our sense of shock is undermined; he learns things about himself (in the specific) that were (in the general) already obvious to us. Another limitation is that although the adult characters are fully formed (and the two female leads in particular are well realised), their younger selves (who appear in flashback) remain thin and weakly sketched. I still quite enjoyed the movie; but it made we want to read the book where I suspect Barnes might have managed things better.

If you've ever said (or done) something to a friend and regretted it later, if you thought you knew the way things were (and found they were not that way), if you've found, as you get older, that things you thought far in your past have resurfaced, you might be as impressed with "The Sense of An Ending" as I was, watching it in an advance screening tonight.

Then, even if those things are not true for you, you might enjoy the cast and their acting, the writing, the London settings and many other things about this film. A good one.

The movie, adapted from a slim novel by Julian Barnes, is a tale of memory, guilt and regret. At the centre of the story is Tom, a divorced man in his late 60s, who leads a life of oppressive sameness. He receives a letter from a solicitor and Tom's routine is interrupted.

From flashbacks to the 1960s, we learn he was involved with a lass called Veronica and met Adrian, a charismatic student. A thoughtless act leads to, or may not have led to, tragedy.

How much of Tom's history (shown in the flashbacks) is true and how much is a distortion of his memory, is open to question.

Meanwhile, Tom's life in the present continues. His daughter is close to giving birth which means regular meetings with his former wife. This gives Tom an opportunity to discuss the past. By staying alert and listening in to the conversations closely and watching the flashbacks carefully, clues emerge for us to discern the truth.

Six fellow film fans and I saw the movie together and met for lunch afterwards. Our interpretations differed. An indication that we'd seen an exceptional film.

There were things we agreed on: the ensemble cast was outstanding; the editing was first-rate; the music unobtrusive; and the director's touch admirable.

Various actions of the major characters and possible actions not actually shown on screen were raised and analysed with the results agreed to by some, rejected by others.

It's not a film for everyone … but for those who enjoy a movie where clues are given but interpretations are left to the viewer, this one's for you.

It's a movie that stays with you for days.

Something rare in British cinema these days; a highly intelligent, highly literate film based on a highly intelligent and literate book by Julian Barnes, (it won the Man Booker Prize). It's one of those films in which people think everything out before acting on their feelings, sometimes shelving their feelings altogether in favour of a purely intellectual approach. It's mostly told in flashbacks by Jim Broadbent's cynical old curmudgeon to his ex-wife Harriet Walter as he recounts the events of his past and his relationships with a potentially unstable girl, her family and his best friend.

Dramatically not a great deal happens and yet, as they say, all human life is here but it is so well written, acted and directed you cling to every word and it's a real pleasure to hear such good dialogue delivered as beautifully as it is here. Broadbent hasn't been this good in years and Walters is wonderful as his ex-wife while Charlotte Rampling, in what is really just a cameo, is her usual outstanding self as the older version of Broadbent's first love. The younger players are also very fine; Billy Howle as the young Broadbent, Joe Alwyn as the friend, Downton's Michelle Dockery as a heavily pregnant daughter. It's also very touching and very funny; something of a real treat in fact.

After somewhat iffy reviews and some discouraging interviews I was really pleased by this movie. The novel has great depth and touches on weighty topics, leaving certain unresolved issues in its wake. Payne (scriptwriter) and Batra take on a very challenging job and with the help of a stellar cast they make as good an adaptation as anyone could reasonably expect. Broadbent is magnificent as the male lead and all the female ones are excellent. The cinematography is outstanding with some exterior shots that take your breath away, indeed Batra lingers on them a bit too long, though one can see why!

There is a good deal to admire. The interweaving of past and present is highly skilled, the recreation of sixties milieus authentic. The school scenes rang true - I went to an all boys grammar school in the sixties and they get it right with the exception of the swearing. Incredible as it may seem to some people, swearing was unusual fifty years ago. I loved the way the painful weekend at Chislehurst - central to the mystery - was handled.

There were a few lapses of judgement and taste but overall I would rate this as one of the best movies I have seen in the past year. It deserves awards.