My Zinc Bed

Not quite sure what the film is trying to convey, but if it is implying that you have two choices - a life without passion in AA and life of passion and desire without AA and with active alcoholism, then that is incorrect and misleading. I don't understand why it is implying that joining AA to treat alcoholism is just a grim life of saying no to everything and denying yourself things out of fear of being triggered. That is not what AA is about. The goal is to be happy and functional. To flourish in all aspects of life. Some achieve it, some don't. The suggestion is to follow the tools of the program as fully as you can to achieve the maximum results. There's a reason they say "stick around for the miracle". People's lives improve in ways they never thought possible. Their lives get bigger.

The grim life is either being an active alcoholic or gritting your teeth in abstinence but still being dysfunctional and miserable - a dry drunk. AA helps with much more than just stopping drinking. The real work begins after you stop the craving and stay sober. Then you use tools to maintain sobriety and deal with life "on life's terms".

How can someone write about AA just by having friends in it, going to a few meetings or reading about it? If you don't get it, you don't get it. But it feels like someone saying probably all psychiatric medicine makes you a zombie and it's no life. That is not true either. Medicine can change and save lives. But you have to take it.

Is this film positing that AA removes all possibilities in your life except a grim sobriety? It just isn't true. There is much joy, laughter, support and growth in AA. There is a whole syndrome behind alcoholism beyond drinking that is helped in AA: isolating, not asking for help, destructive behavior ("character defects"). Something feels very creepy in this film. As someone said elsewhere, if this film gives a suffering alcoholic a distrust of AA and causes them not to seek help, that would be an awful result.

This film is about a psychological tug of war between a rich guy and two recovering alcoholics.

The first half of the film is just plain dialogs between people who do not even have any body gestures. To make matters worse, the scenes were shot with a statically positioned camera. The dialogs are probably meant to be sharp, crisp and challenging, but they turn out to be dull, repetitive and pretentious. Furthermore, the whole plot is so monotonous, pointless and narrow. It only repetitively talks about Paul's desire to stay abstinent despite Victor's challenges. And why did Victor challenge Paul in the first place? The filmmakers should have at least spend a little effort on character development.

"My Zinc Bed" is a huge waste of time.

I missed this when it was on BBC2 last year because I forgot to set the video, or rather I messed up setting the video and recorded something else instead. It took till recently to get the chance to see it again and so I did. The film is based on a play about addiction and sees recovering alcoholic and poet Paul Peplow interviewing millionaire businessman Victor Quinn. The interview is a flop but it leads Victor to employ Paul in a job that Paul quickly learns is unimportant and not something he is suited for. As with the interview, Victor continues to needle Paul about his addiction and his supposed cure. Later Paul meets Victor's wife Elsa, herself a former addict, and the two fall for one another behind the back of this powerful man.

Although I have not done a particularly good job of capturing it, this film did sound interesting to me and the cast especially seemed to offer much. At times the film appeared to be hitting this potential, with the tightly scripted and fast-paced dialogue that reminded me of David Mamet. Certainly the subject appeared to be of interest but yet somehow I found myself more interested in the occasionally pattern of speech rather than the characters or what was going on. In essence the subject of addiction and desire appears to be being discussed while also running it through the narrative but in reality it doesn't ever make it work as a discussion or a theme because it never feels real and never convinced me as a viewer to the point where I would have cared. We never really understand the motivations of the characters or the relationships between them – everything happens to fast or without any real reason, whether it is the probing/tempting of Paul by Vince or the sudden love between Paul and Elsa. This sort of atmosphere continues until the film reaches an end, which itself is quit unsatisfactory.

This is not to take anything away from the performances though because they are roundly good and it is only the material that lets them down. Considine, Pryce and even Thurman all play their parts well and they deal well with the pace of the dialogue. In each of them there is enough to suggest to me that they knew their characters and understood what was happening behind and beyond the words – however this is not something that they are able to bring to the screen and, as such, the film still struggles even though it has an impressive trio in what is essentially a three-hander.

It is a shame because the quality appears to be there and the potential is certainly there but the film cannot make it work. Maybe I would feel the same about the play, I'm not sure and may never know but certainly here nothing really ever rang true for me and the "discussion" in and around the nature of addiction wasn't strong or interesting enough to engage me, mainly because of the lack of any sort of clarity or focal point. Interesting for the flow of dialogue but flawed as a film.

A quiet but tense piece, definitely not for those who hope for blatant excitement, being more a study of characters, each in his/her own privately nightmarish situation. Essentially a three-hander between Pryce, Considine and Thurman, all of whom turn in excellent performances of a solid script with many well observed turns of phrase and personality. Main weakness is how it dwells, for around 70 minutes, on alcoholic addiction to the exclusion of most else; but, if you know that going in, maybe you can handle it. Conversion from stage to screen works okay.

FWIW, the end credits show it as co-production of BBC and HBO.

I just want to state that I could not take my eyes off the screen until the very end of this fine drama. I had a vague recollection of having seen it before but fortunately no clear memory of how it ended. The ending actually is somewhat anti-climactic given the intensity of the previous scenes.

Dialogue is quick: more often seen in a theatrical production than in a feature film. But this is not surprising given the source material.

A true gem that took me out of time for just over an hour.

Gee, I am short of the minimum ten lines ... So what else can be said?

Well, Uma Thurman's accent was a bit odd but not enough to spoil the drama.