ÉVALUATION IMDb
6,7/10
2,2 k
MA NOTE
Ajouter une intrigue dans votre langueA young man ushers an older woman into a dark exploration of her past - back to the time when, as a young girl, she met a stranger who affected her life forever.A young man ushers an older woman into a dark exploration of her past - back to the time when, as a young girl, she met a stranger who affected her life forever.A young man ushers an older woman into a dark exploration of her past - back to the time when, as a young girl, she met a stranger who affected her life forever.
- Nommé pour 1 prix Primetime Emmy
- 1 victoire et 6 nominations au total
Freya Berry
- Beautiful Girl
- (uncredited)
Jessica Blake
- Party guest
- (uncredited)
Lily Brown Griffiths
- Party guest
- (uncredited)
Kate Burdette
- Charlotte
- (uncredited)
Lexie Lambert
- Parlour Maid
- (uncredited)
Silvia Lombardo
- 1960s Party Guest
- (uncredited)
Luke Lynch
- Man Leaving Pub
- (uncredited)
Avis en vedette
Hard not to argue with all the 1 and 2 star ratings. This is not a Hollywood-type movie. My take is a little different from those who believe the film is about power over others or miss spent youth. In trying to understand why this movie was made, and why many seem to think that there is not plot - I suggest the following.
Greville never existed. He symbolically, was Mary's past, which she never fully escaped from.
Greville was the representation of those times. He understood the horrors of the class system and power, but insisted that elitism is the better choice over the unwashed masses. That much is clear, that is, his attitude. Why did Greville need Mary's help? Because Greville was dying, that is, his power waning, his generation losing influence. That is, he is clearly depicted as representing his times in his unchanging attitude and even his 'symbolic' refusal to dress to the times. He knew many secret things, but no one really knew who or what he did, again symbolic, not really a man, but an incarnation of the theme - the passing of a generation.
But how could have Mary helped this 'symbol'? She was a writer, and could have written/influenced the course of social change. She lost her job, as it was stated, because her 'voice of youth' had already become passe. Mary, again as stated, was born between what was coming of age and what was dying socially. Somewhere along the way she lost her voice, her inspiration. Greville, wanted her to be his partner, he could help her professionally, meaning that by writing favorably of the past, of those mores, beliefs, and class system, those still in power (albeit waning) could support her.
Greville, the symbol, didn't directly have Mary fired. It was a plot device. Mary, as was stated, simply lost favor as the times moved on. Mary was torn between the past and her uncertain future. She dressed the part, again as stated, but she really didn't belong to the changes coming.
I believe, if you see Greville as a plot device, a symbol of Mary being lost between generations, then we see the sad story of a women who was lost. She was at her best when she was young, criticizing the mores of class and status. But then that grew tiresome, and meaningless, being on the leading edge, that type of criticism was soon to be common place.
The Greville, inside of her, wanted her to support what was refined in society, even if the gild often covered over ugliness just beneath the surface. Greville haunted her, when she wrote, she always ended up in the wine cellar, a symbol of the elite.
Why couldn't she surrender to Greville, that is, the voice in her representing, belonging to the past? That is a hard question to answer, and I would think could only be answered subjectively. I can venture to say that she recognized the ugliness of the past, but also could not accept how social change was pushing society towards also becoming ugly, common. Consequently, she was lost between two worlds. One the one hand a world her youth rejected, and the other which she becomes common herself, and wrote about antiques.
Greville never existed. He symbolically, was Mary's past, which she never fully escaped from.
Greville was the representation of those times. He understood the horrors of the class system and power, but insisted that elitism is the better choice over the unwashed masses. That much is clear, that is, his attitude. Why did Greville need Mary's help? Because Greville was dying, that is, his power waning, his generation losing influence. That is, he is clearly depicted as representing his times in his unchanging attitude and even his 'symbolic' refusal to dress to the times. He knew many secret things, but no one really knew who or what he did, again symbolic, not really a man, but an incarnation of the theme - the passing of a generation.
But how could have Mary helped this 'symbol'? She was a writer, and could have written/influenced the course of social change. She lost her job, as it was stated, because her 'voice of youth' had already become passe. Mary, again as stated, was born between what was coming of age and what was dying socially. Somewhere along the way she lost her voice, her inspiration. Greville, wanted her to be his partner, he could help her professionally, meaning that by writing favorably of the past, of those mores, beliefs, and class system, those still in power (albeit waning) could support her.
Greville, the symbol, didn't directly have Mary fired. It was a plot device. Mary, as was stated, simply lost favor as the times moved on. Mary was torn between the past and her uncertain future. She dressed the part, again as stated, but she really didn't belong to the changes coming.
I believe, if you see Greville as a plot device, a symbol of Mary being lost between generations, then we see the sad story of a women who was lost. She was at her best when she was young, criticizing the mores of class and status. But then that grew tiresome, and meaningless, being on the leading edge, that type of criticism was soon to be common place.
The Greville, inside of her, wanted her to support what was refined in society, even if the gild often covered over ugliness just beneath the surface. Greville haunted her, when she wrote, she always ended up in the wine cellar, a symbol of the elite.
Why couldn't she surrender to Greville, that is, the voice in her representing, belonging to the past? That is a hard question to answer, and I would think could only be answered subjectively. I can venture to say that she recognized the ugliness of the past, but also could not accept how social change was pushing society towards also becoming ugly, common. Consequently, she was lost between two worlds. One the one hand a world her youth rejected, and the other which she becomes common herself, and wrote about antiques.
Maggie Smith was the drawcard for watching this oddity that sounded like it may have had something to say. Writer/director Stephen Poliakoff keeps the viewer waiting to see if his story will develop into a profound revelation or simply avoid the issues being seriously suggested. This treatment is nothing more than a filmed stage play & these usually leave the patient viewer wondering why they bothered to stay through to the end - 'Mary', proves to be just another . In the 60's and 70's a movie like this might have been produced by the B.F.I. as a 30-40min short story and would have been interesting all the way but, being stretched for over 100mins kills sustained interest & is quite infuriating. Poliakoff's grandfather had associations with the company that supplied hearing aids to famous people i.e. Winston Churchill - so it's possible some stories of a 'personal' nature may have been overheard or known.
There are stories involving political and royal dignitary's, movie makers, and socialites, ugly enough to nauseate and make the skin crawl - this story dramatically hints of many such people being implemented in such evil occurrences, but then rattles on, going nowhere. It appears 'Mary' is the second part of an earlier movie titled 'Joe's Palace' - If this overlong HBO/BBC spin-off is any indication - then might just be best to stay away from both. Disappointing.
There are stories involving political and royal dignitary's, movie makers, and socialites, ugly enough to nauseate and make the skin crawl - this story dramatically hints of many such people being implemented in such evil occurrences, but then rattles on, going nowhere. It appears 'Mary' is the second part of an earlier movie titled 'Joe's Palace' - If this overlong HBO/BBC spin-off is any indication - then might just be best to stay away from both. Disappointing.
The performances by Maggie Smith and David Walliams was excellent, as expected. The filming was beautiful as well. However, I have absolutely no idea what this movie was about. There was no point that was made.
I feel like I wasted 100 minutes of my life. What a fail!
I feel like I wasted 100 minutes of my life. What a fail!
A superb follow up to Joe's Palace, Danny Lee Wynter had done a great job bringing Joe to life and giving the house a strong character. Those characters once again combine and tell a totally different story, so different in tone to Joe's Palace.
Visually sublime, it's a drama that makes you think outside the box, it doesn't conform to any of the usual rules, it isn't confined by today's classifications. It's just Stephen Poliakoff doing what he does best, making you lose yourself in a story.
It manages to be both creepy and engaging. I've always been a fan of David Walliams, but in this serious, slightly odd role, he gave what I see as his finest performance, he's charismatic, somewhat unnerving, quietly chilling. When Maggie Smith is on screen you can't help but watch in awe, she is outstanding, as is Ruth Wilson as her younger self.
Mr Poliakoff you've done it again. This was exceptional, 9/10.
Visually sublime, it's a drama that makes you think outside the box, it doesn't conform to any of the usual rules, it isn't confined by today's classifications. It's just Stephen Poliakoff doing what he does best, making you lose yourself in a story.
It manages to be both creepy and engaging. I've always been a fan of David Walliams, but in this serious, slightly odd role, he gave what I see as his finest performance, he's charismatic, somewhat unnerving, quietly chilling. When Maggie Smith is on screen you can't help but watch in awe, she is outstanding, as is Ruth Wilson as her younger self.
Mr Poliakoff you've done it again. This was exceptional, 9/10.
Please....Please......Please....Someone please help me recapture the wasted time and brain space this terrible movie stole from me.....I have been on IMDb website thousands of times and have never left a review.....this was so bad that I was motivated to sign up solely for the purpose of warning people....if I can save one person from the torture of this atrocity, I will be quite content....Take your remote control.....Close your eyes.....push any buttons.....and you will do better than choosing this train wreck......I think I need a couple hours of South Park to get the taste of this movie out of my mouth.............Peace
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesCompanion piece to Joe's Palace (2007), which is the first movie.
- ConnexionsFeatured in The 62nd Primetime Emmy Awards (2010)
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et surveiller les recommandations personnalisées
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Capturing Mary
- Lieux de tournage
- 38 Hill Street, Mayfair, Londres, Angleterre, Royaume-Uni(Mayfair mansion exteriors)
- sociétés de production
- Consultez plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant