Les Voies du destin

Last week I saw American HUSTLE and couldn't understand why the critics have so raved about it. Yesterday I saw THE RAILWAY MAN and can't understand why the critics have been so dismissive. It's a tense story about one of the great horrors of World War Two. Based on a true story, it's also a tale of love and redemption, two of the cinema's (and literature's) greatest themes. And it serves up a vivid reminder that the Japanese of the 1940s were, like the Nazis, from a different generation, almost from a different race.

David Lean's BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI casts a huge shadow over this movie. THE RAILWAY MAN lacks the "majesty" of Lean's famous epic, but I suspect that Alex Guinness's performance would seem very theatrical by the standards of screen acting today. If anything, Colin Firth gives a slightly under-powered performance (and Nicole Kidman's part gives her too little to work with), but Jeremy Irvine is intensely believable as the wartime Lomax, geeky and quietly heroic. The horrors of the forced labour that built the railway and the relentless brutality of the Japanese soldiers are both vividly conveyed, and the ending manages to be poignant without trespassing into mawkishness.

This is a strange movie, grim but highly watchable. Arguably, it could have been tougher, more savage, but then it might be harder to sit through.

Based on a true memoir of survival, love, retribution, and forgiveness, "The Railway Man" sets off from Edinburgh at a leisurely pace. The film slowly unfolds through flashbacks as layer upon layer of a World War II veteran's repressed memories are stripped away. A brutal, less spectacular cousin to "The Bridge on the River Kwai," the film centers on events that followed the British surrender of Singapore in 1942 and the subsequent Japanese use of British prisoners of war to construct a railway line from Thailand into Burma. Hidden secrets erupt from a rumpled domestic scene and unfurl in a bleak and monochromatic Scotland. However, in flashback, the cinematography shifts to warmer hues that imbue the tropical prison camp scenes shot around Kanchanaburi, Thailand, and the actual rail line that crosses the River Kwai.

The film's outer layer is a love story between an aging unkempt railway enthusiast, Eric Lomax, and a younger woman, Patti, whom he meets during a train journey. Once wed, Eric's suppressed demons from his war experiences surface, and Patti attempts to unravel her husband's mysteries and reclaim the man that she loves. Colin Firth portrays Eric in a restrained internalized performance that simmers with efforts to suppress harrowing memories, pent-up anger, and a thirst for vengeance. Unfortunately, Nicole Kidman's perfect complexion and carefully made-up demeanor work against any verisimilitude as Patti, the loyal, loving wife of an introverted man with dark secrets; once beyond her looks, however, she does an earnest capable job in the undemanding role. The rest of the film's cast is also fine; Jeremy Irvine does well as the young Eric, who convinces viewers that he could age into Colin Firth. Stellan Skarsgard has a short, but effective role, as Finlay, the mature version of Lomax's prison mate, who helps Patti delve into Eric's past. Tanroh Ishida and Hiroyuki Sanada are excellent in key roles as Japanese guard and interpreter.

Unlike the David Lean classic, "The Railway Man" is no action thriller, but rather a psychological examination of the lingering effects of war's brutalities on the survivors, both the victors and the vanquished. Colin Firth gives another powerful, if underplayed, performance in a still rising career of memorable roles; Firth alone is reason enough to see the movie. At times, director Jonathan Teplitzky is a bit too arty for the film's good; his wide-screen images are sometimes self-consciously composed; and holding the camera on static shots of characters thinking or remembering may be mesmerizing for some viewers, but tedious for others. However, despite pacing issues, most evident early in the film, patient viewers will be rewarded with a powerful heartfelt closing that should stimulate the tear ducts.

Words cannot do this film justice. There are no words to describe how amazing the true story of Eric Lomax really was, and I do not want to give away the entire story here. But suffice to say that I was fully engrossed in the film throughout its entirety. From the moment we see Eric and Patty meet to the emotional ending,I could not bring myself to look away or even to reach down for my drink in the cinema. Be prepared for some harrowing and intense scenes. But bear in mind that these are required for us to understand completely the dilemma faced by Eric at the end of his story. The actors portray their characters beautifully, with so much angst and emotion that I found myself empathising with them all the way through. If you are interested whatsoever in stories of war, survival, trauma, revenge, forgiveness and the ethical dilemmas wrapped up in them all, then this is a film you should definitely see. Tears rolled down my face as the credits rolled, and I found myself thinking about the movie long after watching it. Highly recommended.

Saw this as a test screening some time ago but wasn't allowed to post until it was released, consequently I've not seen the finished film but the test version affected me quite a bit. Based on a true story - Eric Lomax (Firth) - was building the Thai/Burma railway WWII as a POW. The conditions were horrific, treatment atrocious and Lomax clearly suffered PTSD, although it wasn't diagnosed yet - the film was set in the 70s. In an attempt to lay ghosts of his past to rest he travels back to revisit the sites of his incarceration and comes face to face with a Japanese officer from that time who was central to his torture.

It's a grey, period-style, sombre film, there's little in the way of humour and the only colour at the beginning is Nicole Kidman's (more or less extraneous) role as the "love interest." Her role was apparently meant to be played by Rachel Weisz and I think that would have been a better choice, and it bugs me that Kidman is first listing on the credits when Lomax' role is the titular role, and it's HIS book that the film is based on. However, the synopsis puts emphasis on her standing by her man and seeing him through his adversity and she does, and is good in the role she is given, and in that she was well chosen played down in her looks to given some small-town glamour.

It's a slow pace and if you like bells and whistles and CGI rather than real life and emotions then don't bother with this... it's a gripping, sad, heartbreaking and heartwarming tale or triumph over adversity, courage and strength of spirit with an ending that if you don't have a tear in your eye then you are dead inside.

Colin Firth, I think, is well cast and plays stayed, rather eccentric and dull due to his brokenness extremely well. He is fascinated by railways and trains (which is surprising) since his experiences and we meet his love interest on a train. His emotions turn erratically and he suffered terrifying nightmares, working through the pain/suffering of his character with a quiet studied grace. The star turn in my opinion... and all at the test screening agreed... is Hiroyuki Sanada who played Lomax' nemesis as an adult. He had a very challenging role and was superb. He played his role with so much calm that you could believe his conversion experience and he made the tale come alive and be very believable. Nothing he did was superfluous and even the tiniest nuances of his actions were obviously deliberate and perfect, his facial expressions were... oh enough to make me weep in places. I'd like to see him get applauded for it - and will look out for him in other films (eg 47 Ronin). Stellan Skarsgard (always excellent) was good in the role he played but at the test screening we all questioned why someone without a heavy English accent was cast for the role of an English soldier in his middle age when in his young scenes the actor who played Finlay was quintessentially British with no explanation as to why he is suddenly Swedish, "After the war he went to Sweden and has lived there" would have done - maybe they've done that now. His character too was a tragedy, also not coping at all with life after war.

The young actors playing the tough scenes in Japan building the railway had the hardest roles and Jeremy Irvine and Sam Reid did their older selves proud in some quite harrowing scenes, and oftentimes they really did look emaciated, thin and on their last legs. The film pulls no punches but does leave the terrible experience that Lomax suffered as a cliff-hanger to the last.

A powerful film, not for the feint or lighthearted, I fear, but certainly if you are interested in history, and enjoy good performance led character pieces you will find this an excellent cinema-going experience. I do recommend taking something to dry your eyes with and stay to the end to learn about Lomax and Nagase - the real people. The truth in the story adds so much more to the film.

As some readers may have noticed, I tend to like 'small' films-- independent movies made on small budgets that emphasize fine acting and excellent scripts as opposed to action and special effects. There are, of course, many exceptions. For example, I just saw a film that has terrific writing, wonderful acting and yet was made with some very familiar and high-priced stars--and, sadly, most folks didn't see it when it came to the theaters. Fortunately, "The Railway Man" was just released on DVD and Netflix brought it out this week--so you have no excuse not to see it yourself.

"The Railway Man" is based on a true story written by Eric Lomax about himself and his experiences following World War Two. During the war, he was a prisoner of the Japanese and suffered tremendous torture and privations. Not at all surprisingly, he suffered through the effects of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder for years and his way of coping with it was to ignore it and pretend that not of it every happened. He refuses to talk about it and instead seems to talk about many dull things (such as railway timetables) instead of what was destroying him inside. Not surprisingly, it threatened to ruin his second marriage. So, not wanting to continue living this way, Lomax set about taking his recovery seriously--and the first thing he planned to do was find the Japanese soldier responsible for brutalizing him when he was in the prisoner of war camp. What's next? See the film--I really don't want to tell you too much and spoil what is to follow.

The film stars Colin Firth as Eric and Nicole Kidman as his wife, Patti. I am not sure how the studio got the services of two talented Oscar- winners like these two, but regardless, director Jonathan Teplitzky's job was sure a lot easier given these fine actors--though he also showed a very deft hand with the film despite his relative lack of experience. As for the plot, the screenplay was, as I mentioned above, based on Lomax's book and really pulls you into his life and struggles. But, like many films, a few liberties were taken with his actual life story. In the film, Eric's first marriage and children were never mentioned, for example. However, the basic story is there and the film team managed to create a tremendously moving film--one that got better and better as the film progressed. While it might look like a romance, this is only a small portion of the movie and viewers should be warned--there are a few intense images you see in Eric's flashbacks--imaged of the ghastliness of war and war crimes. This is why the film is rated R, though I really think it is appropriate to show to teens provided you watch it with them and discuss what you've seen. All in all, a great example of a film with a bigger budget and some very big name actors who managed to impress me--though it somehow failed pretty miserably in the box office. Perhaps it wasn't marketed well, perhaps folks were put off by the idea of a man suffering with PTSD...all I know is that for Firth and Kidman, it's among the best work they've ever done and is an incredibly moving film. See this one.