An unexpected treat - a film review

Its been a while since the I last wrote a film review, mostly because I suck at it. Couldn't bear to read the stuff, after I had written it!

But every once in a while, a film surprises you, and you feel compelled to pen your thoughts. It doesn't necessarily be about the movie either. It could just be a trigger for something inside you to come tumbling out. 

I've had My Policeman on the watchlist for a while now - not sure why - I don't read reviews to the end, but usually rely on flashes of comments I see on various websites, or as is the case recently, on Twitter(I refuse to call it X), which in this case left me thinking this was one I would want to watch.

Directed by Michael Grandage, based on the book by Bethan Roberts, "My Policeman" boasts of the extraordinary acting talents of Gina McGee (hadn't seen her since "Four Weddings.."), Linus Roache, David Dawson, Emma Corrin(sent me down a rabbit hole of discovery this one-completely unrecognisable from her take as Cassandra Nova on "Deadpool and Wolverine"), and best of all Rupert Everett, whose name I saw in the opening credits, and didn't realise I was watching till very much later. And yes - the man who the PR was mostly about - Harry Styles.

The plot is simplicity itself - It is the later 1950s. Girl likes boy, isn't sure he likes her, but they are "a couple", then he introduces her to another boy, who also seems to like her, they get on like a house on fire. So far, usual conventional love triangle. Then girl pushes first boy to admit to liking her back, and he promptly kisses her and proposes marriage. Everything is fine and dandy, except for a rather uncomfortable sex life. That, among other things, gets clarified when boy 2 arrives to cook them a wedding dinner, and she later catches both boys kissing in the tool shed.

Flash forward to the present, Boy 2 is now an invalid old man, whom a stroke has rendered without the ability to speak. Irascible, haggard, seemingly on the point of death, he is brought back into the "happy couple"'s lives by the girl, now older woman. Boy, now older man, wants nothing to do with him. These scenes unfold at the beginning of the movie, so the tale is to be told in what else -the flash back.

There are several themes running in the film, and it is remarkable how neatly the story is knit together from patches of love, yearning, life in the late '50s, art, and the social stigma of the "wretched times" for homosexuals. These themes are not new, and they are perhaps expressed in more evocative terms in several earlier movies - but this one felt fresh, new, empathetic, judgmental, non-preachy.

The film however tries to offer the view from the 3 chief characters

Patrick(boy 2) played by Dawson and Everett, becomes the fulcrum around which the film spins. Desperately seeking a way to just live his days, his struggle is only alleviated by the moments he snatches with his lover Boy 1(played by Styles and Roache). He has the best lines in the movie, and at one point when he says - I pity those who dont feel love this way - you cant help wonder if the one to be really pitied (completely wrong word for this) is those who can never own up to the love they feel. the need to live a lie, the need to keep lying, just to keep up an appearance of "normality", to avoid censure and the accusation of being "a pervert". The moments of unabashed love that are few and far between may be worth it in the telling of the story, but you wonder - how much of this tortuous double life - the watching of your love in the arms of another - must chip away at the soul.

"His" policeman Tom is also a complex yet simple character. You recognise in him all the people you knew who lived closeted lives, never came out, seemingly even to themselves. Societal pressures is the reason he latches on to - to his discredit, he marries out of readily available compulsions - his career depended on it. His justifications for simultaneously having his cake and destroying two other lives in the bargain seem lame, but socially acceptable - even to his wife, who can claim the 'most wronged individual' in this equation. His refusal, years later, when times have changed to acknowledge the past, show the sedimentation of cultural tropes deep in his psyche. When he burns his police uniform after Patrick is arrested and punished for his depravity, it feels like an attempt to kill his former, unclean self.

The girl in the equation(yes I know I'm re-using, sorry) is Carol - a schoolteacher looking for love and a simple normal life. Her struggles to maintain the picture perfect marriage go beyond just keeping the husband happy. Even after discovering that her man is in love with another, she perseveres to keep the marriage afloat, convinced she could change her man. This seems more like a device to represent societal reprobates that opined that homosexuality was a disease that could be cured. It also forces an uneasy revelation from a best friend at work coming out as a lesbian. Slightly forced, I thought, but well, the point had to be made. Years later when she rescues Patrick from a care facility, you wonder what she hopes to achieve. The damaged relationships seemed beyond redemption, but perhaps in one unselfish last push, she hoped to bring back the true lovers together - to recompense for the lives (including her own) that she herself was instrumental in putting in harm's way.

I don't know much about scriptwriting, and screenplay, so won't comment on it. I thought the scenes fitted well together, kept me watching without a lot of alt-tabbing (except in that one scene when Tom and Patrick get drunk during the wedding dinner, where I felt myself drifting). The scenery around the seaside of Sussex and the moody landscapes seemed appropriate for the setting and themes. Music too.

The performances were top notch. Styles, Corrin, Roache and McGee are reliably efficient, Styles definitely fit the role like a glove, and Corrin is surely the Foster, maybe even Streep of the future. Rupert Everett, once I emerged from the shock of realising it was him, is brilliant with so little to do in the movie. For me though, the standout performance was from someone I knew nothing about - David Dawson shines in his role - Patrick's courage, his vulnerability, his myriad of emotions, all conveyed with the minimum of fuss. I hope I see more of him in the future.

My Policeman is a movie that can't fail at evoking a response. It is a small, but sharp cry - one that is as important and as relevant as one wants it to be. And I for one, am glad to have listened to it.  

Looking beyond Bruno

 I should get the usual disclaimer out of the way at the outset. I'm not an expert at the game of football. Sure - i've played it, know most of the rules, have been a fan - of the game, and then for the last 2 decades - of a club. But I can't lay any claim on being a tactician supreme. Can't say I know my second balls from my inside channels.

I know how gross that sounds, but given that these are legitimate expressions used in football media, any puns here are well intended, and have no other connotations than the strictly non-sexual, pro-sporting ones.

With that out of the way, let's come to the topic at hand. Why I think Bruno Fernandes is the main reason Manchester United will not make any progress as a team - a footballing force. This opinion - in a week that saw the man score twice, add an assist in a game that United needed to come back after falling behind twice, against bottom dwellers and soon relegated Sheffield United - would seem like utter nonsense. In a failing team of constant under performers, here's someone who has played every single game that he was not suspended or (on one occasion) not nursing a slight niggle, has given it all, is the highest scorer, has been the only person who seems to give a shit, and is constantly coming up with man-of-the-match performances. And he's the reason we are not progressing? Yes - IMWO...(W standing in for worthless, in case someone in 2427 finds this while trawling for United related content and finds this).

Why?

Reason 1: I can't really tell the position that he's meant to play. He professes to perform best in the no. 10, and always seems to start there, but as the game progresses I've seen him roving around - 6, 8, 11, even 9 (true and false). One of Bruno's best characteristics is his anticipation of where the ball will be, and 70% of the time, he's not very far from where it ends up. If you drew a heat map of Bruno's position in juxtaposition to where the ball is, I'd be willing to bet he's not far off every single second of the game.

So he roves around a lot, and that makes it difficult for a coach to devise strategies around him, or to frame tactics around other positions. One commentator said recently, he plays anywhere he wants, and while that is fine these days, and is precisely the brand of football that Guardiola plays at Man City- it just brings more unpredictability (and not in a nice way) to an already chaotic style (if there is one) of play that Erik Ten Hag is trying to enforce.

Reason 2: There are better no 10s in this United team. We bought one in the form of Mason Mount last year, and one of the reasons we have not seen the best of this fine Chelsea import is the fact that he is not being played in the position Bruno hogs. So Mount plays at an improvised 8, sometimes along with Bruno, and they's often competing for the same ball when playing together. Maybe Mount is not that great off the ball, but he's a more direct, better passer through the central lines that Bruno is, and he would be a better foil for Hojlund, setting up more chances for him, rather than the indirect methods Bruno employs - squirt the ball to the flanks for Garnacho or Rashford, who then try to cut in rather than cross it to the Danish no 9. Not that crossing to him is of much use - the success percentage of that sort of play is negligible, and Hojlund doesn't win a lot in the air.

Reason 3: Bruno's short passing isn't the best. I don't have the stats, but I'm sure he's had more accurate long passes than short ones. And his tendency to rely on fancy flicks, side-boots, jinxy leaves often leads to losing possession in the most critical phases of the game, and the worst possible positions on the pitch.

Reason 4: I dont know if ETH will continue in the new season, but even with someone new, i think the challenge is to define a style of play that revolves around Bruno and his role. Unfortunately, years of giving him a free rein means that it's difficult to now define a role for him. In all the discussions previous managers have had with him, I'm sure Bruno has insisted on being able to decide where he wants to play - or has simply ignored any instructions to the contrary - like C Ronaldo used to do. so with the midfield pivot not in control, its difficult to piece together a coherent strategy for everybody around him. At the beginning of the season, I had dreams of Rice coming in before he eventually pitched up at Arsenal, but I think he would have been lost in a system where Bruno poached into his territory amongst others

In some ways, Bruno is the sweet poison that seems to revive a flagging body, but is actually just causing other parts of the body to rot away and die...like CR7 in a lot of ways. the guy would score, but was effectively killing off United's ability to really form a strong team around him.

If this sounds ungrateful, and entirely out of touch with reality - and I don't deny it could very well be - I would agree...but a large part of me wants Bruno to be out for a while so we can try and see what we can build without him in the team. We would probably lose a lot of games before it started to work, but I think we would start seeing other areas of the pitch wake up and start to shine. 

I've never had regrets of the club having signed him - there's no one more hard working, with a better work rate, or having more influence on the game than Bruno. He has over the last 4 to 5 years been the most effective players in the club whether it was in terms of creating chances, or with his record of always being available to play. But I think in the season of renewal, if this club is to change its trajectory to a winning one, we may need to have a lesser role for the man.