The Deep Blue Sea

I've been putting off review The Deep Blue Sea. Terrence Davies' remake of the 1950′s film based on the stage-play is a curious piece which I'm still struggling to get my head around.

It's a strangely polarising beast which split me between annoyance and er enjoyance

Here's the deal. On the one hand. It's a self-consciously old-fashioned portrayal of love and life in 1950′s London. Rachel Weiss plays Hester trapped in a flat and dull marriage she finds physical and emotional release in the arms of Freddie (played by Tom Hiddleston) a magnetic yet damaged WW2 pilot who is struggling to adjust to post-war life. The story is stylistic lavish with intimate set-pieces, evocative lighting and a mood of emotional frustration. What's not is as important as what is not said. There's evocations of Brief Encounter and Powell & Pressburger. An impressive meditation on love in all its forms and the damage it can cause.

On the other hand. It's an out-dated throw-back from a director who is stuck in time with a Britain that never really existed. Pampered hoity-toity, plummy-types (Hester? Freddie? Oh, 'k off!) moping and whining while the salt of the earth "Cor Blimey" types are just busy getting by. Posh types mope. Look out of windows. Smoke. Mope a bit more. Look out of more windows. Have a bit of a row. Cry. Look out of even more windows. Gah! Hester treats her husband like rubbish. Freddie treats Hester like rubbish. Hester treats herself like rubbish. It's so mannered and drenched in stylistic devices and cinematic tropes that they become at best distracting, at worst like a cinema school project with a budget.

So where does that leave us? Nostalgic meditation on love? Or stylised bore-fest of posh-types gagging for it? To be honest I'm still stuck between a rock and a hard place. Between, the devil and the . hmmm hang-on . it's suddenly occurred to me that maybe that's the point. Christ, I think I need to watch something stupid to clear my brain.

Overindulgent and somewhat stuffy romantic drama that is saved single handedly by the Oscar caliber performance of Rachel Weisz, who gives a very complex and realistic look at a women whose self destructing over her choices in life in post war Britain in the 1950's. Weisz so good that she brings a lot of life into a somewhat lifeless screenplay that is more into atmosphere than substance. Both of her leading men are fine and lent great support to the vibrant Weisz, who is keeping this film afloat almost by herself while the movie gets a bit claustrophobic towards its climax. The film does have some great moments ( The pub scene and the intimate moment between Weisz and leading man Tom Hiddleston while dancing) but that's more the credit to Weisz and the cast than the film itself. Rachel Weisz has always been one of the most gifted and versatile actresses working today, not being afraid to do different characters and being unlikeable and raw in the process. In this film, she gives in my opinion the best female acting performance in the last few years, giving a complex and rich performance with a character that could have easily been botch by even a great actress, especially with a screenplay that is more into itself than the audience watching the movie. Weisz proves in this movie that she's more than a great actress, she proves that she is one of the best actresses we ever had.

Her phenomenal performance alone is the real reason to see this movie.

Yes, the film is depressing. Yes, it is very long (or it feels rather longer than it is). But, it is good. After viewing it, I couldn't get it out of my mind. It's utterly haunting. There are many things that were less than great in this film. But I've narrowed it down to 1: The Pacing. If this one flaw were corrected, it would have made an excellent film. But, rather than focusing on the negative, I will write about the positive aspects of this particular movie. First, the cinematography is excellent. Those ultra-saturated colors serve the film and the period which it represents very well. I've covered the editing (in the negative) but I will say that there were some surprisingly beautiful camera movements in the piece, that were noticeable, yet served the mood of the story very well. However, if you ever see this film, I would recommend it for the wonderfully subtle performance of Rachel Weisz, who has grown into one of the best actors of her generation. Everything you need to know about the way her character is feeling is not always in the dialogue, but on her mesmerizing face. Weisz makes you not necessarily relate (it is, almost always un-relatable, because of the period and the character that she is playing), but she does make you care. There is no question that this is not a film for everyone. It is slow, it is internal, but it is also worth giving it a try. I moaned and complained all the way through, but in the end, I was unable to stop thinking about it. And, that alone is a testament to its power. It slowly gets under your skin, and you won't even notice it!

The Deep Blue Sea is a dramatic romance which takes place around the post-war (WWII) period where the young wife of a British judge starts having a love affair with a royal air force pilot. The confusion and complexity or their situation puts their love into some strong tests. Mostly for their own self-challenge. Rachel Weisz is mature and amazing as a leading actress, and then comes Tom Hiddleston who unveils a beautiful supporting performance and freshens up a little bit the foggy mood of the film.

Terence meets Terence and a wonderful theatrical film comes to life. T. Davies wrote the screenplay and also directed the movie based on a love story play by T. Rattigan. The cinematography is absolutely theatrical. Feels like a never-ending stage. Therefore, expect some -not very long- slow scenes accompanied with instrumental classic music. The story leads you to expect and understand the outcome as it is.

If you want to see a good drama, this romantic one may be it.

After watching the Terence Rattigan DVD collection (with most of the adaptations being from the 70s and 80s) when staying with family friends last year, Rattigan very quickly became one of my favourite playwrights and he still is. His dialogue is so intelligent, witty and meaty, his characterisation so dynamic, complex and real and the storytelling so beautifully constructed.

'The Deep Blue Sea' may not be among my favourite Rattigan plays ('The Browning Version', 'The Winslow Boy', 'Separate Tables'), but it's still wonderful and distinctively Rattigan. The writing is 24-carat Rattigan and the story is timeless in its searing emotion and romantic passion. It's very sharply observant and witty at times too. Of the four versions seen of 'The Deep Blue Sea' (this, Penelope Wilton, Vivien Leigh and Helen McCrory), this one is my least favourite, the McCrory stage version coming out on top.

It certainly has its merits. Its best asset is the acting, with the creme De la creme being a stunning Rachel Weisz, a heart-breaking, passionate and sympathetic performance but with a dignity and strength that prevents Hester from being too passive. Tom Hiddleston brings charm to a very caddish role, while Simon Russell Beale successfully stops Collyer from being too one-sided and Barbara Jefford is suitably icy. Karl Johnson is a kindly Mr Miller and Ann Mitchell is solid as rocks. Weisz and Hiddleston have an intense and poignant chemistry together.

Visually, 'The Deep Blue Sea' looks beautiful. Especially the sublime and hauntingly atmospheric cinematography, which perfectly complements the sumptuous, evocative period detail. Terence Davies captures the passionate intensity and searing emotion of the story very well, there are some very affecting moments here and the tea scene at the mother's house is very well written and acted and the ending is powerful.

Rattigan's writing shines on the most part, heavy on talk (true of the play and Rattigan in general) but intelligent, sharply observant, thought-provoking and full of pathos and insight.

However, some aspects of 'The Deep Blue Sea' frustrate annoyingly. Too often, the film mood-wise takes itself too heavily and too seriously. The play has a serious subject, but Rattigan also in the play gave it his usual wit and verve that helped it not get too heavy. This wit and verve is completely lost here and as a consequence the film feels too dark in terms of mood and overly gloomy and the leaden pace in some scenes, which felt like it was stretched to pad things out, disadvantages it further.

Didn't know what to make of the music. With the pre-existing music, it is lovely music on its own but didn't fit with the film, being used in a way that felt overused and excessive that made the story more melodramatic than it actually is. Barber's beautiful Violin Concerto, played just as well by Hilary Hahn in one of the more famous interpretations of the work, is particularly true to this, on its own lovely, excessively melodramatic in how it was used in the film.

First 10-15 minutes were puzzling, with images that came over as very fragmented and self-indulgent and the flashbacks don't add as much as they ought and convolute the storytelling. Those unfamiliar with the play should not be put off and think the play is like how the story is presented here, with the messing around of chronology the story felt jumbled, disjointed and incomplete here whereas the structure and character motivations (which were not explored enough here meaning that the complex characters are not as complex) are much clearer in the play.

Overall, a lot of beautiful things but it was very frustrating when reminded constantly at how so much better the film could have been if told with more clarity and taken less seriously. 6/10 Bethany Cox