O Mensageiro

The first time I saw this film, I was 18 years old. Now, almost thirty years later, I am still enthralled by its two atmospheres - a hot summery Norfolk, England at the turn of the century versus a cloudy, rainy, modern-day Norfolk. The juxtaposition between the two periods is stunning, and mysterious. The acting is superb, the sets and costumes are superior, and the haunting Michel Legrand score stays with you long after the film is over. I find the film to be quite elegant in its scenes of yesteryear, where the "old" England seemed dreamy, leisurely, carefree, and prim and proper, compared to the dreary, coldly realistic, grown-up, modern-day England, where the past is spoken about, and an explanation of what happened in the past is requested.

Although the movie ends on a tragic note, there is a hint of hope which I found oddly liberating, a feature I didn't notice 30 years ago. But like fine wine, this movie ages well. Enjoy, and go on a trip to the past "...{where it's} a foreign country...they do things differently there."

It's turn of the century in the English country. Young Leo Colston is spending the summer with his rich school friend Marcus Maudsley's family estate. He is taken with Marcus' older sister Marian Maudsley (Julie Christie). He encounters tenant farmer Ted Burgess (Alan Bates) who recruits him to deliver love letters between Ted and Marian.

Harold Pinter adapted the screenplay from a novel. It's a rather leisurely stroll through the country especially in the beginning. The plot is not that complicated. The tension is not raised until the introduction of Burgess. There is always a sense of danger beneath the generally loving character. This inherent instability within him is the most compelling part of the movie. Marian has one great scene. It's a two hours costumed romance. It's a bit slow with moments of great intensity.

I recently watched this film after having seen it as a teenager. Both experiences touched me but in significantly different ways. Not unlike the storyline in the film ironically.

The film is beautifully crafted and almost perfect in every way. All the actors are brilliantly cast and do a great job at hiding only slightly their true emotions and motivations. Those who know and love The Age of Innocence will appreciate the way the story unfolds.

At its core is the story of how class norms and rigid rules of behavior affect an innocent young boy, at what surely is his most vulnerable time of his life.

Some may find the pace slow. I did when I first saw it as a teenager. Please give this film time to develop. Resist those swift "5 minutes and I am out" rules so many millennials tend to apply today. Resist please. And above all, give your full attention to this small masterpiece. Watch for the small changes in tone and body language these great actors provide us.

Then, when young viewers are a little older and life has provided them a few joys and pains, please revisit this film as I did. I sense your emotions may bathe over you as mine did recently.

Enjoy this film.

This movie is the third joint venture paring writer Harold Pinter and director Joseph Losey. The other two are The Servant (1963), and Accident (1967). This venture, combined with a top-notch cast, makes for a great film: No. 56 of the BFI's Top 100. Yet sadly, the movie has not been restored, in its original aspect ratio for DVD, and I had to see it on VHS in the full screen pan-and scan version.

I've a feeling that this is one of those films that MUST be seen in its original wide screen format, since the photography of the English countryside setting is crucial to the movie, and anything less does not tell the movie's whole story!

Michael Redgrave tells the story, in retrospect. It begins as a 12-year- old boy, Leo (Dominic Guard), comes to spend the summer of 1900 at a large English country estate. He is a guest there, and his relationship to the family is never made clear. We don't learn much about his background except what we overhear: that his mother is a widow from the city. As he is introduced at the family dinner table, he tells them that he knows magic and has conjured up curses on people, but this seems a game between him and the other boy his age on the estate, Marcus.

As the two boys play, the rest of Marcus' family starts to emerge as Marcus tells Leo about them while pointing them out. We view their lazy hot summer's life as they attempt to occupy themselves with conversation, nature, art, culture, and games. Leo attempts to fit in with the family led by its matriarch, Mrs. Maudsley (Margaret Leighton). Leo also becomes attracted to Marus' older sister, Marian (Julie Christie), and develops a puppy love for her. (At one point he proclaims that he would do almost anything for her.) She, in turn, shows an admiration for him.

One day as the family goes out for a swim, they encounter their lower- class neighbor, Ted Burgess (Alan Bates), who is trespassing on their property by swimming in their lake. Leo later meets Ted and is gradually taken into his confidence. At Ted's coaxing, he starts to secretly deliver notes to Marian, and she, in turn, returns notes to Ted, through Leo.

Feeling 'out of the loop,' Leo wants to know more. He eventually asks Ted to tell him about sex ('spooning'). At almost thirteen and with no father to guide him, Leo has never been told the facts of life. Yet, he senses that he should know more and that Ted will explain it to him-- though he never really does. When Marian becomes engaged to an upper- class gentleman, Ted seems displeased. However, after a brief break off in communications; Ted and Marian begin their secret exchanges again with Leo still acting as their dutiful Mercury-like 'go-between.' Then, on Leo's thirteenth birthday, he suddenly learns the shocking nature of his carried missives.

This film, accented by Michel Legrand's score, has a mysterious, almost Gothic, feel about it. There seems to be something always missing, just out of view, waiting to be discovered. But, just as Leo is never made part of the secret, neither is the audience--until the surprising ending.

There is always at least one reason for wanting to see any film and 'The Go Between' had plenty. Harold Pinter to me was one of the greatest playwrights/writers of the twentieth century, his prose is so insightful, very intelligent, not heavy-handed and sharp even if his screenplays may be too talky for some. Have had a high appreciation for Joseph Losey ever since first seeing his 'Don Giovanni' (one of the best opera films ever made) over a decade ago. Love the cast too.

1971's 'The Go Between' on the whole didn't disappoint. Like their previous collaborations, it is very good if not flawless. Even if it is again very polarising, can totally understand why it may not connect with some but personally do understand the positive reception more. If you like fast and furious pacing, prefer rootable characters and are not a fan of sparse dialogue and a lot of pauses, it's perhaps best looking elsewhere. If you are fine with deliberately paced films and like films that disturb and move through atmosphere, 'The Go Between' is likely to appeal. It is hard to say which is the best between this, 'The Servant' and 'Accident', as someone who thinks they're equally very good in their own way.

By all means, 'The Go Between' isn't perfect. Personally did find the score ill fitting tonally, too much like Gothic spy thriller from the 70s whereas a more elegiac, quieter period music approach would have been more suitable. And it could have been used a little less too.

Do agree with those that say that there are some muddled time shifts where the film jumps about a little structurally. The first 20 minutes or so drag a little too much.

However, all that is overshadowed by the huge amount that 'The Go Between'. It is gorgeously filmed and the Norfolk locations are stunning too. Losey's direction is very atmospheric and accomplished, and Pinter's dialogue is unmistakable Pinter, not wordy or constant but very poetic and thought provoking. The story is deliberate, over deliberate to start with, and also tense and moving with its portrayal of the class system and divide being biting and insightful in how regressive and manipulative it was in the time period depicted in the classic source material.

Can't fault the acting, Dominic Guard's performance has garnered a very polarised response, to me he was fine. Julie Christie and Alan Bates smoulder beautifully in their roles, though Bates' character is underdeveloped due to the amount left out, with a chemistry that makes one believe in the romance. Margaret Leighton is also very powerful and commands every second of her screen time.

In summary, very good if not without flaws. 8/10.