Classe Operária

The story is told by Novak's point of view. Jeremy Irons learns his Polish to play Novak in this story. He is a Polish electrician traveling with three other works to London, England before martial law was enacted in Poland in 1981. Well, anyway as a Polish American, they are believable but are seen as buffoonish and dumb even by Novak himself. If Novak had told his workers the truth, I think they would have gotten along or understood their dire consequences. Jeremy Irons gives a pretty believable performance as the working Polishman. This film resonates a quarter of a century later because many Polish men and women are legally in London and England seeking to better themselves. I understand the Polish mentality because I grew up with Polish immigrants and the notion of Poles coming just to work and earn more money in America. I could see this story actually happening but I don't think they give the other workers credit because we barely see them act as anything other than fools. It's kind of heartbreaking because Novak goes to so much trouble to spare them from the lack of money and the truth of the situation back home in Poland where he is the only one who knows only what's going on but doesn't tell his employees under his command that Poland is in political turmoil. You can't help but wonder what happens when they do go home. Can you imagine walking 6 hours to Heathrow Airport? You felt pity and foolishness for Novak's actions at the supermarket and the stores. Of course, Poles are good at surviving and I know this from my personal experience. They have survived 2 World Wars and communism. Poles' biggest problem is living and to stop worrying about money. The stereotypes of Poles like Novak trying to stretch each pence is to survive nothing more. They didn't complain about the 30 miles to Heathrow. You felt that they were out of place there. Novak wondered about his wife, Anna, and the possibility that she was probably being seduced by his employer who sent him to London in the first place to fix up the apartment. With telephone services cut down and money tight, Novak does everything he can to protect himself and his men from the dangers of the police, immigration, and even Polish government under martial law. We don't know what happens to them when they go home or if they ever do or if they are stranded in London. There are still many unanswered questions about their predicament.

"Moonlighting" is an engrossing film, made all the more unusual because of the

way it is treated. The basic situation is simple and somewhat routine; it's the way it unfolds that keeps interest high. The acting is fine, with Irons outstanding in the leading role. Unfortunately for me, I simply was not drawn to any of these characters by way of identifying with them. They seemed cold and self-absorbed, and in many ways quite pathetic. I felt as though I was observing rather than empathizing or becoming involved in their plight. Still, it is a very good film with strong production values.

This film is a mesmerizing and strangely addictive story about a man who buys a dilapidated condo in London and hires and transports several Polish builders to London to renovate it because they will work for a cheaper amount than the unionized English workers. Except for the foreman (in an early role by Jeremy Irons) none of them speak English and the foreman doesn't tell his employer or his co- workers when they overshoot the budget and run out of money.

Trying to figure out HOW he will get the job done and WHY he is going to such great lengths and pains becomes all consuming mental and emotional puzzles as you become sucked into this well written story and tour de force performance by Jeremy Irons. By the second half of the film, you can't bare to watch but can't stand to look away. (It's as if you meant to eat only a few peanuts to suddenly discover you've consumed the entire amount and didn't even notice) I think this film is best described as "Escapism" rather than "Enjoyment" but either way you won't be focused on anything else while you're watching it. In fact the "taste" of it lingered with me for days after I saw it. It's full of a quiet yet constantly building tension, with a capital 'T'. No car chases, big explosions, explicit sex, swearing or violence. Just a well constructed screen gem that seemed to have fallen through the cracks when it was released in the early 1980's.

My main reason for seeing 'Moonlighting' was Jeremy Irons. It was a film that was highly recommended to me being one of the few films of his that was yet to be seen despite meaning to, with those that recommended it saying that it was one of his best performances and films. And considering that he did a lot of fine work pre-'Lolita' (and of course including that performance, which was better than the film), it was something that could not be refused.

Can see whole-heartedly why 'Moonlighting' was so highly recommended, and would do the very same with fellow Jeremy Irons fans who haven't yet seen the film or with anybody looking for a non-UK/US film to watch. It really is deserving of all the praise it gets and is actually deserving of more in my view, actually know a lot of people who haven't even heard of it let alone not seen it and that really should not be the case. Always try to be subjective and hate it when so many people try to force their opinions onto others, but it does irk me sometimes when you have so many heavily marketed films that are sometimes mediocre at best or ones that are good but not that much. And then you have a film as great as 'Moonlighting', one of the best films of its year and of its subject, that despite critical acclaim is not marketed enough. In favour of films that audiences are more likely to see and have concepts and stories that they may be more likely to warm to perhaps. That should not have been, or be, the case, it deserved much better than that.

Yes the deliberate pace may test the patience for some, it is wholly dependent on the viewer, but to me that was not in any way a fault. Do think that the very end could have been rounded off a little more, though the climactic moments are powerful and the final shot is unforgettable.

Visually, 'Moonlighting' looks good. The setting has a lot of atmosphere that fits the tone of the film ideally and it's filmed with grit and style while bringing a claustrophobic edge that helped make things more powerful. Jerzy Skolimowski, exiled at the time, directs assuredly and never loses the vigour. Furthermore the script is an intelligently written one with some humorously satirical moments in deadpan fashion, and while more familiarity with the subject may help the story enthralled, entertained and moved, with a few disturbing twists in the mix like the identity of the only one who knows what's really happening in Poland. The shoplighting sequence is a major highlight, and there is a fair share of tension and poignancy.

Absolutely agree with anybody who says Irons' performance here is one of his finest, both pre-'Lolita' (and then his career became hit and miss when it became increasingly difficult to tell what to do with him or find enough roles that played to his strengths, that's my take though) and ever. It is graceful and understated but also full of authority and not many people are as good as Irons too when it comes to narration. The other performances are all great, but Irons is the one that the viewer remembers.

In conclusion, really great. 9/10

I noticed some time ago that many of the old "At the Movies" shows with Siskel and Ebert are posted on YouTube. Today I watched their Best of 1982 episode and was surprised that Gene Siskel thought "Moonlighting" was the best movie of the year...a film I'd never heard of and which was made very cheaply in the UK. So, I decided to give it a watch.

The story is about four Poles who come to London to work under the table rehabbing an apartment. Why? Well, Polish workers work for a lot less money than English ones and as long as they aren't caught, the scheme will pay off well for everyone. But only one of them (Jeremy Irons) speaks English and the rest spend much of the movie like the Darryls ("Newhart") or Harpo Marx...saying absolutely nothing. As the movie progresses, the more you see that this spokesman is very manipulative...and a most unusual character study of the man.

The story is told VERY economically...with little traditional incidental music and no fancy sets. It looks more like a high quality home movie than a big-time production. I am sure many will dislike the starkness and slow pace of the movie as well as the lack of emotion in the characters. They mostly seem depressed...which is understandable considering what eventually occurs in the picture. But it also makes viewing the film anything but fun.

Overall, this is an okay film which I didn't enjoy nearly as much as Siskel or some of the other reviewers did. Worth seeing? Perhaps...but not if you want a fun or traditional style movie.