The Homecoming

Max (Paul Rogers) is a surly pensioner who alternately venerates and vilifies his dead wife. Sam (Cyril Cusack), his brother, is a supercilious chauffeur. Lenny (Ian Holm) is a smiling, snake-like pimp. Joey (Terence Rigby) is a thick-witted, would-be boxer. These four men live together in a North London flat, the site of their perpetual sadomasochistic battle of words and sometimes physical violence. And then after nine years, Max's third son, Teddy (Michael Jayston), a philosophy professor living in California, comes back home for a visit. He brings his wife, Ruth (Vivien Merchant). She is immediately drawn in to the family's ugly psychological games and quickly proves a worthy opponent. Soon, the game involves both of Teddy's brothers taking extreme liberties with Ruth, as the coiled Teddy obstinately refuses to spoil the malicious fun by objecting.

At first the dialogue in Harold Pinter's play, little changed for this American Film Theatre production, seems arbitrarily elliptical and the characters' behavior perversely unmotivated, but the thing is so compelling that we realize there must be something more. There is a mad method to the characters' madness. The actors know what their characters are up to. Pinter knows what they're up to. They just don't hand us all the answers on a platter. Maybe Pinter is saying something about families and maybe he's saying something about women, but I think he simply created a set of very real characters and let them do their thing without bothering with a lot of explanations.

The director, Peter Hall, does a good job at staying out of the play's way. His camera does a few clumsy things that draw attention to itself, but mainly he gives the play the space to be what it is. This movie proves yet again that the confined space of a play can often be an advantage on the screen and doesn't necessarily need to be opened up.

My three main attractions of most of the films of the American Film Theatre series have been the casts, the directors and the plays adapted themselves. They are the three main attractions here in 1973's 'The Homecoming'. Peter Hall was better known for his stage work, but seeing him directing a play for film intrigued me a lot. Harold Pinter is to me one of the great playwrights of the twentieth century, though not all will agree as his style is polarising, and the cast is another talented one.

1973's 'The Iceman Cometh' was a great start for the American Film Theatre' series and 'The Homecoming' from the same year is equally great. Like that film, it is one of the few films of the series to be my definition of great. The play is one of Pinter's best, with the prose typically sharp, insightful and intelligent though with a darker tone, and this film adaptation does it justice. Of the Pinter film adaptations, 'The Homecoming' is to me among the best and is proof that directors that specialise more in theatre work can direct for film.

Do agree that the scene outside the flat didn't feel necessary.

'The Homecoming' ranges between highly successful and brilliant everywhere else however. The setting is very intimate, but not in a way that comes over as too confined or stagebound (potential big problems with intimate settings and when the director was better known for his stage work). The photography has atmosphere and feels opened up enough to avoid it from being static and stagy, it's simple but gets the atmosphere right while looking good. Also capturing the story's bleakness perfectly..

It's also impeccably directed by Hall. It may not be what one may consider cinematic directing, but it does very well in letting the drama resonate and not swamping it and it was good actually that he stayed true to his stage roots. Spirit-wise, when it comes the drama, 'The Homecoming' as a film is as faithful as one can get without being too faithful that it loses life. The character dynamics are spot on and the last half an hour is especially well directed and emotionally devastating.

Pinter's dialogue is masterly, it's talk heavy but the emotional complexity and insight shine. Loved the storytelling, it is deliberate but never dull and it is bleakly comic in a macabre way, chillingly menacing and at times hauntingly moving. The characters admittedly are not likeable (true actually for most plays adapted for the American Film Theatre series) and can be quite unpleasant, but to me they are more deeply flawed with difficult situations but compelling in their realism. As said the character interaction is nailed and all the performances are superb. Ian Holm and Cyril Cusack are formidable presences, but it is the unforgettable Vivien Merchant that the viewer most remembers and lives longest in the memory.

Concluding, absolutely excellent. 9/10.

Michael Jayston brings his wife and mother of their three children, Vivien Merchant, to meet his father, uncle and two brothers in the film adaptation of Harold Pinter's Tony-winning play.

It's a fine adaptation of this one-set play, and director Peter Hall leaves it in that set - there is one shot where Miss Merchant steps onto the street for a walk. He does move the camera around for a constant variation in viewpoint. The actors, who include Cyril Cusack and Ian Holm (the role won his m a Tony) is superb.

I have some aesthetic issues with Pinter's works. Like Albee's WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? this is an exercise in revealing the ugly sides of people in a constant storm of abuse. The plot, therefore, consists of the revelation of character to the audience, rather than the more usual arc of character change. I also wonder - probably irrelevantly - about Pinter's home life. The IMDb claims that Pinter's family was close. Why then did he write plays about the miseries of being in a family?

I think that if you wish to see what it looks like when you grind five thousand feet of misery, this is a fine movie. Me, I think I'll watch a comedy.

I do think the film is cinematic, and the editing, photography, and art direction all put this in the realm of suburb film making.

Yes, it is Pinter at his peak, and most of the cast knew the play well (the new cast members probably only added freshness) from done long runs years before. Having seen most of them, I would say this must surely be the jewel in the AFT crown. Unlike the Pinter directed "Butley" it has grown rather than diminished by the years.

This is one of those film plays (Glengarry Glen Ross may be another) does commit the crime of doing the play so well that it pretty much makes further productions useless. The film of "The Caretaker" done some years earlier is also very strong.

As the above comments reveal, this is a wonderful, deeply disturbing, but also riotously comic play. I did it for English 'A' level which was pure madness - difficult enough getting my head round it at my now considerably more advanced age. Having seen Ian Holm give a riveting performance in London as Max, I really leapt at the chance to see this as the local arts cinema and it was gripping. Ian Holm was fantastic, with more than a touch of the Del Boy about him (re-watch the play and see its Only Fools and Horses connections- the grotty flat, the brother-uncle-father dynamic, the dead worshipped prostitute mother etc) and Teddy was played with a wonderful swagger. The scene where all four of them stand in a corridor lighting their cigars was comic and tragic and menacing in the best way. But I really wonder how cinematic any of this was? You have the feeling of watching theatrical performance preserved in aspic rather than a film. The scene outside the flat was contrived and unnecessary and other than that pretty much all the action took place in one room. I feel we lost rather than gained from the live experience of watching a play. But, not having been alive when this film was made, it does mean I get to get a glimpse of a towering production of an amazing play. And that can't be a bad thing.