The play is an adaptation of the Italian comedy play, Servant of Two Masters or Il servitore di due padroni, written in 1743 by the Venetian playwright Carlo Goldoni. One Man, Two Guvnors is set in Brighton in 1963, replacing the Italian period setting of the original, and follows the mishaps of a man named Francis Henshall (Gavin Spokes), who is easily confused. Francis accidentally becomes separately employed by two men – a local gangster by the name of Roscoe Crabbe and Stanley Stubbers (Patrick Warner), an upper class criminal.

Francis frantically attempts to keep the two from meeting, in order to avoid each of them learning that Francis is also working for someone else. However, Roscoe is actually revealed to be Rachel Crabbe (Alicia Davies) in disguise, her twin brother having been killed by her lover, Stanley Stubbers. Also thrown into the chaotic mix is Pauline Clench (Jasmyn Banks), who was originally meant to marry Roscoe but who in fact wants to elope with her over-the-top amateur actor lover, Alan Dangle (Edward Hancock).

Gavin Spokes gives an outstanding performance as the instantly-likeable Francis, his hilarious monologues to the audience about his mounting confusion and gnawing hunger reaching a whole new level of hilarity when one well-meaning member of the audience offers him a sandwich. His reaction when he learns that the sandwich filling is, in fact, hummus, is so outrageously funny, the play almost came to a stop for a good five minutes, the audience roaring with laughter along with him. Spokes also proves himself a master at spontaneity, showcased to perfection during his interactions with audience members on the front row.

The rest of the cast are absolutely fantastic also, especially Emma Barton as Dolly, the busty bookkeeper who tickles Francis’ fancy, who isn’t quite used to her full potential in the first half but is absolutely phenomenal in the second. Patrick Warner as Stanley is wonderfully daft, as is the character of Alan, played to hilariously prentuous heights by Edward Hancock. Jasmyn Banks as the ditzy blonde Pauline is a pleasure to watch, whilst Shaun Williamson is straight-faced and dry-wit funny as Pauline’s father and two-bit gangster Charlie ‘the Duck’ Clench, whilst Alicia Davies puts in a great, gruff performance as Rachel Crabbe, disguised as Roscoe for the majority of the play.

The inclusion of a skiffle band by the name of The Craze, made up of band members Philip Murray Warson, Oliver Seymour-Marsh, Richie Hart and Billy Stookes, is genius, providing the audience with entertainment throughout and during the various scene changes, with guest appearances by some of the cast towards the end of the play, which work brilliantly. The show’s music, written by Grant Olding, is absolutely fantastic, perfectly capturing the 1960′s Brighton vibe with boundless energy.

a href=”https://theatrefilmandtv.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/20140519-133910-49150750.jpg”>

It is unclear how much of the play itself is scripted and how much is improvised, especially given that some of it will depend on who gets grabbed from the audience, but that’s all part of the fun of it. This is never more true than during a slapstick set piece set in a pub restaurant which has the audience gasping in disbelief as the laughs come thick and fast through the fish, flames and foam. Alongside the improvisation is a large amount of physical comedy. Michael Dylan as Alfie, an eighty-something waiter, has an unbelievable ability to bend himself backwards at right angles with ease and slide down walls. We see Spokes as Henshall somersaulting over a chair and catching a sweet in his mouth (to rapturous applause); and the scene in which he argues and fights with himself to the point of unconscious is performed fanatically well, half-ballet, half-slapstick.

One Man, Two Guvnors, is, quite frankly, an absolutely phenomenal show. A cross between Carry On and pantomime, the show is full to the brim with physical comedy, slapstick, audience participation and some fantastic breaking of the forth wall. The entire cast look like they’re having an absolute blast onstage and why wouldn’t they be? One Man, Two Guvnors is an absolute hoot and the most fun you can have at the theatre. This is one touring production you do not want to miss!

One Man, Two Guvnors is on at Sheffield’s Lyceum Theatre until Saturday 24th May 2014, then touring the rest of the UK. For more information and ticket details, click here.

*Photos courtesy of Sheffield Theatres, with credit to Johan Persson.

Words by Katy Roberts

Adapted by Paul Allen and based on a screenplay by Mark Herman, this touring production of Brassed Off, based off the 1996 film of the same name, ends it’s tour run, very aptly, in Sheffield. Set in the fictional village of Grimley (which itself is based on the South Yorkshire village of Grimethorpe) in 1992, Grimley Colliery is under threat of closure and the future of the colliery brass band hangs in the balance. The miners are torn between redundancy packages of £23,000 and the picket lines, and with the national brass band competition drawing ever-nearer, band-leader Danny’s hopes of winning seem like nothing more than a distant dream. But the arrival of flugelhorn-playing Gloria Mullens shakes up the tightly-knit community, bringing romance, hope and controversy as the Grimley Colliery band faces collapse.

Directed by Damian Cruden, this is a story which resonates deeply with many people, proven by the sold-out audience at Thursday night’s performance. The group of miners are played wonderfully by a range of actors, but it is Andrew Dunn and John McArdle as Phil and Danny, respectively, which give the production it’s real heart. Phil is a man who is torn between providing for his family, and pleasing Danny, his father, who values the success of the Grimley Colliery band over all else. He is a sympathetic character, and easy to empathise with, especially during the play’s darkest moments. Similarly, McArdle’s portrayal of Danny is heart-wrenching to watch, because there is nothing the audience wants more than to see Danny’s dream come true, after all these years, and all his effort.
Rebecca Clay as Sandra, Phil’s wife, also puts in a fantastic performance as we see her fall into despair over her husband’s actions, and her desperation to want to be able to provide a better life for her children. Clara Darcy as Gloria is also wonderful, capturing the character’s devastation at being ostracised from the community due to a case of misunderstanding over the pit’s closure. The one jarring aspect of the production is the inclusion of the character of Shane, Sandra and Phil’s eight year old son, played by Luke Adamson, a 24 year old actor, in a narrator-style role. The role feels unnecessary and superfluous to the production, and the age gap between the actor and the character being portrayed just feels odd.

However, it is the Newstead Brass Band who make this production truly shine. With all of the songs so well-loved from the film, the first time the band strikes up in the first rehearsal scene of the show, the emotion throughout the audience is palpable, especially during Gloria’s flugelhorn solo which was mimed in the 1996 but is played for real onstage by Darcy. Truly a goosebump moment. And these moments continue throughout, every time the band perform, showcasing just how wonderful brass music can be. The production’s finale, ending with a rendition of Land of Hope and Glory as in the film, is hugely emotional and really hits home the gravity of what the pit closure means to each and every member of the band, and what winning the National Championships means to them, too.

Like the film, Brassed Off is a heartwarming production which examines the impact of the closure of the coal mines during the mid-1990s and the impact it had on whole communities and families, using relatable, likeable characters, which makes their plight all the more emotional to watch, and their successes even sweeter. But it is Newstead Brass Band who are the stars of the show here, lifting a great story to even greater heights, packing a real emotional punch within a story that resonates with thousands of people across South Yorkshire and beyond.

Words by Jess Peace

Dirty Dancing was one of the biggest films of the 1980′s and remains one of the most iconic love stories of our time. If you enjoyed the film, the stage show is a must! Set in the summer of 1963, President Kennedy was still alive, Beatle-mania was yet to hit America and Kellermans was the place to be…

Frances ‘Baby’ Houseman (played by Roseanne Frascona) is a well-mannered, innocent young woman who sees the world and wants to make it a better place. Up until now, Baby’s favourite man has always been her Father; a good doctor and an even better man. Johnny Castle, who was played by understudy Lewis Kirk on press night, is an entertainer who provides the ladies with dance lessons. Dirty Dancing is a coming of age story, where Girl meets Man. Their worlds collide unexpectedly and they learn from each other.

The transition from screen to stage is never an easy one to make, especially when the film is such a hit with viewers to begin with. I was full of doubt myself; would it be too cheesy as a musical? How could the characters live up to the great Jennifer Grey and Patrick Swayze? How could the dancing be dirty without being too dirty? Creator Eleanor Bergstein had all this covered.

The casting is superb; with Colin Charles as Tito, and Mark Faith as Mr Schumacher, the show was packed with tasteful, comedic value. Set designer Stephen Brimson Lewis definitely eases this change of medium which his incredible designs. Paired with Tim Mitchell’s use of lighting, the scenes created are beautiful and believable. From the iconic scene of Baby and Johnny practicing lifts in the water, to their final number with a complete dance crew – each scene was authentic, keeping to the feel of the film.

The dancing throughout was amazing; echoing the rebelliousness of underground, dirty dancing back in the sixties. Penny Johnson, portrayed by Claire Rogers, is every bit the sexy and sassy Penny we remember from the film and this is really shown in her dancing. Of course, Baby and Johnny stole the show, with Men and Women alike in awe of their hip-shaking! Put that in your pipe, Elvis. The whole cast – including the very talented live band – gave a brilliant performance from start to finish, bringing to life one of the most memorable scenes throughout movie history; the final scene. Protagonist Johnny, had everyone erupt in applause with the classic line ‘no-one puts Baby in the corner!’ – with a well-timed heckle from my boyfriend’s Mother.

If you get the chance to see the show, then I would definitely recommend going. Dirty Dancing is at the Lyceum Theater, Sheffield, until Saturday 3rd May – so grab your tickets now. You may just have the time of your life.

Words by Heather Gibb

Performed as part of the Yorkshire Festival 2014, a cultural celebration marking the 100 days lead up to the Tour de France’s arrival in Yorkshire, Kes is a dance-theatre adaption of Barry Hines’ novel, A Kestrel for a Knave. Adaptor, director and choreographer Jonathan Watkins grew up with the novel and wanted to bring the story to life in a new, much more expressive way than the previous film adaptation and so chose to do away with words entirely and tell the story with movement, music and puppetry.

The story of Kes centres on schoolboy Billy Casper, growing up on a housing estate in Barnsley in the 1960s. To escape the tedium of school – where he’s bullied by both teachers and pupils – and his home life, with a brutish older brother and a mother who pays too much attention to other men and not enough to her sons, Billy finds a baby kestrel in a nest and takes it home to hand-rear it. Billy has found something to nurture and in doing so finds a freedom and joy he didn’t know existed. Set designer Ben Stones has created a unique and beautiful set which captures Yorkshire’s strange harmony between the industrial and the wild. A flying landscape of hilly grass hovers above the stage from between the proscenium arch, framed with metal scaffolding which hints at the mining industry Barnsley was built on, whilst a misty backdrop revealing silhouettes of chimneys and high-rise flats gives a great sense of never-ending depth. Talking about his design, Stones said, “We wanted to show that there is a landscape and beauty in Barnsley and the North, and that at the centre of our story, behind all the industry, is a fragile, living thing”. The stage itself is covered with scuffed, worn-out wood panel flooring – familiar to many as the standard school hall floor, setting the scene for where Billy spends most of his time.

When the play begins, the set reveals its hidden ingenuity as four performers walk steadily onstage from underneath the flying hills wheeling on a bed within a basic metal framework. This becomes Billy and his brother’s bedroom for the opening scene as they toss and turn under the covers. More of these frameworks hold the set pieces for the rest of Billy’s house and later the school classrooms, the working men’s club, the bookies’ shop and more. Each time they are wheeled out by members of the cast with a slow and deliberate walk so that even the scene changes become a part of the action and the audience’s attention is never lost.

The performers themselves are mesmerising, bringing each character, no matter how small, to life with endless energy and attention to detail. In a very short scene in which Billy searches for a book about kestrels in the library, he clashes with the librarian whose sharp, staccato movements and jabbing finger convey better than words that this is a woman possessive of her books and picky about who so much as touches them. Later, we see the mother and brother drinking with friends at the local working men’s club in a sequence of movement which grows steadily more exaggerated and seemingly out of control. The performers move in complete harmony, falling over each other and gesturing wildly, perfectly conveying the chaos which accompanies drunkenness. Rachael Canning, the show’s puppetry designer and director, manages to bring not only the kestrel to life but also uses sheets of newspaper in the hands of the performers to perfectly create a flock of birds in flight. As the dancers leap and twirl, the newspaper flaps and soars around the stage to the delight and awe of Billy and the audience.

Laura Careless is the puppeteer for most of the scenes between Kes and Billy, and manages to move the simple wire and feather structure with such conviction that the young bird seems genuinely wild and fearful when flapping about his cage. Alex Baranowski’s original score sets the pace and tone for each scene, blending so perfectly with the show as a whole that it is easy to forget it is there. It ticks like a clock in scenes of school boredom and frustration and then soars with Kes in flight to create truly uplifting and heartbreakingly beautiful moments. It also acts as a more straightforward storytelling device in a scene in which Billy and his brother are waiting to hear the result of a horse race as a radio broadcast commentary plays within the musical score.

Laura Caldow shone as the mother, captivating the audience with her solo dance pieces and seeming almost fluid when dancing with a partner. A moving sequence following a fight between her sons leaves Caldow restless, shifting between the house set pieces which, every time she pauses, begin to close in on her. The metaphor is clear as she becomes trapped by the framework, echoing the frantic flapping of Kes in his cage. That said, the whole cast is outstanding and there wasn’t a weak link to be found, proving that age is no boundary as the cast ranges from school age to middle aged.

There are too many ingenious, moving and beautiful moments to mention within this production and it is one I hope goes on to tour in the future as it is truly a sight to behold.

Words: Liam Hathaway
Director: Gareth Evans
Cast: Iko Uwais, Oka Antara, Tio Pakusadewo, Julie Estelle, Yayan Ruhian, Donny Alamsyah
Certificate: 18
Running time: 150 minutes
Image: Latino Review

Cast your mind back just over a year… you may remember the release of A Good Day To Die Hard – the fifth instalment of the Die Hard franchise. What an unwarranted monstrosity of an action picture that was! After almost entirely augmenting the action picture in 1988 with the original, to then see it dead in the water twenty-five years later – reduced to the usual dismal, soulless, 12A corpse of a movie that the majority of mainstream action pictures had unfortunately become this century – was shattering. But, in actual fact, this did not matter one jot for the people who had seen The Raid: Redemption just months prior, as they were still basking glowingly in the knowledge that someone out there DID still know how to make a decent action movie, and that someone was Welshman Gareth Evans.

The much anticipated sequel kicks off merely a few hours after the events of the first film – having taken down a tower block full of bad guys almost entirely with his bare hands, our protagonist – Rama (Iko Uwais) is immediately thrown back into brutal and treacherous circumstances. With the events of the first film unveiling a level of corruption in his police department, Rama is now coerced into going undercover in order to pervade a merciless crime organisation and lead him to the core of the corruption to protect his wife and child.

Suited and booted for some criminal ultra-violence.
Image: Latino Review

With the first Raid essentially being ‘Die Hard with martial-arts’, fans will perhaps be surprised by the scope of this sequel – boasting clear influences from crime-dramas such as Heat, A Bittersweet Life and perhaps even Donnie Brasco, not to mention a run-time which nears two-hours-thirty-minutes! It is a sequel that does not so much expand on the premise of its predecessor, but further eschews it in a different direction entirely. This does mean that the oppressive Assault On Precinct 13-inspired claustrophobia and tension which propelled the first film has been purposefully shed – for The Raid 2 is dead set on not repeating itself in terms of scale and plot – something which befalls so many current action sequels. What is familiar however (and unanimously expected) are the ferocious and protracted fight scenes which have thankfully remained as stunningly impressive as the first feature – resembling the choreography of a blood-soaked rendition of Singin’ In The Rain. With the action taking place outside of narrow corridors, it is now allowed to let loose in the form of a lengthy car chase – one of the film’s most impressive set-pieces.

Tellingly, reality has clearly been heightened up a notch from the first film; the diegesis this film exists in now hints at obvious comic-book elements by occupying elaborate characters that seem to have leapt from the pages of a Frank Miller graphic novel. A crime boss with a limp, a blind female hammer-wielding assassin and a thug who kills with a baseball bat and ball to name but a few. As colourful as these characters sound, they are generally not explored much more than they have been described, whereas in the first film, characters like ‘Mad Dog’ and ‘Tami’ were allowed to come to life with plentiful screen time. Here, such visually striking individuals serve as mere obstacles rather than fleshed-out characters – perhaps The Raid 2 is guilty of sometimes having a little too much ambition when its focus strays from the main narrative thread by spreading itself too thin.

Rama faces off against new and familiar faces.
Image: Latino Review

One aspect of the film that has already stirred critics and audiences alike is the ‘increased level of violence in the film’. Close-ups tend to detail the more reprehensive scenes of bodily devastation this time around, and the film warns you of this less than two minutes in as a character had his head blown off his shoulders in close proximity via a 12 gauge. Whether this would deter you as a potential viewer is purely subjective, but the film is classified 18+ for good reason. Later on, the film is wise to interject dots of subtle humour to counteract (what may be for some at this point) the marginally burdensome scenes of violence combined with a hefty run-time.

As a sequel, The Raid 2 is a success – its aim was not solely to top its predecessor, but to apply an actual progressive narrative on top of what already made it an outstanding film and it does so competently. In that sense it’s also exciting to see what Evans may be capable of outside of his usual action-orientated realm. Also, it is refreshing to see such a film keeping it primarily physical as so many (Machete, The Expendables) have resorted in using CGI for effects as simplistic as blood-splatter or bullet ricochets. What ever happened to squibs?! It may be a tad overlong and markedly over-ambitious – but you cannot deem this film as the geriatric, regressive garbage that has sadly become of most contemporary actioners. The Raid series is still flying the flag as the most proficient and exciting action films of the decade.

Words: Stewart Thorpe
Director: Phyllida Lloyd
Cast: Meryl Streep, Jim Broadbent, Richard E. Grant, Anthony Head, Alexandra Roach
Certificate: 12
Running time: 105 minutes
Image: 20th Century Fox

The film centres around two characters: Margaret Thatcher, the controversial yet inspirational leader of Great Britain, and Margaret Thatcher, an aged, senile and lonesome lady of past greatness. These characters are explored through a series of flashbacks which highlight the major moments of her career, from the Falklands War to the Miner’s Strikes and the IRA.

From the offset, shown shopping at her local convenience store, its clear present day ‘Maggie’ lingers in the shadow of her previous greatness: shocked at the outrageous price of a pint of milk, the youth’s lack of consideration for the elderly and the bombings broadcast on the front page of a newspaper. It’s almost as if she’s stepping out into society for the first time in a decade.

Upon arriving back at home, Margaret settles around the presence of her husband, Dennis, who curbs her frustration at the price of milk by teasingly suggesting they should sell the car. All seems well until housekeeper, June, enters the room and the audience realise Dennis is in fact dead. Dennis has been dead for years. That Margaret Thatcher suffers from dementia and that her defiant, unaided trip to the shop was perhaps indeed her first in a decade.

Thatcher (Meryl Streep) flanked by her police entourage.
Image: 20th Century Fox

Margaret Thatcher is portrayed by two actors, Alexandra Roach who depicts Thatcher during her principal political years and Meryl Streep who does so for the remainder. Roach’s role is largely minimal, allowing Streep to make her mark with her characterisation of Baroness Thatcher which has rightly been recognised across the board as something sensational. The two may have not looked alike but Streep’s performance is utterly convincing. During Thatcher’s prime years, Streep is a battle axe: confident, strong-willed, arrogant and abrasive, whilst during her later years she is patient and multi-layered, immersing into her character at every turning. Back in 2011, her performances won Meryl Streep an Oscar, BAFTA and Golden Globe for Best Actress, widespread recognition for an astounding performance.

At 105 minutes long, The Iron Lady does a good job of including a catalogue of events and issues affecting Thatcher’s life. None, except from the death of her husband Dennis, are allowed much screen time which becomes quite frustrating with some of the meatier issues, but allows the film to cover personal events such as her the influence of her father, the relationship between Margaret and her daughter Carol, Dennis’ wacky eccentricity alongside her professional issues revolving around the events of the day. The combination of these subjects gives the viewer a great insight into the life of Thatcher. Unfortunately the modern-day events prove quite ineffectual as the hallucinations become despondent, bleak and depressing and the series of events is eventually rather anticlimactic. All the same, The Iron Lady proves to be a brilliant peek into Thatcher’s life.

Everyone who lived during her reign as Prime Minster has an opinion on Margaret Thatcher and although the film attempts to provide a neutral perspective, it does shine a positive light on her overall, especially with the inclusion of her later, frail and vulnerable state which humanises a woman often depicted a monster. Although this elderly form is one of weakness, the film stresses Thatcher was a highly motivated lady, a great lady, a fierce lady, an iron lady.

Words: Jamie McBride
Director: Morgan Neville
Cast: Darlene Love, Judith Hill, Merry Clayton, Lisa Fischer
Certificate: 12A
Running time: 91 minutes
Image: collider.com

Done through interviews, archive footage and present day footage following the lives of the backup singers mainly focused on, ‘Twenty Feet From Stardom’ looks at the careers of a number of black female backup singers, all working in R&B and soul – think The Supremes, Motown etc. – and interestingly looks at the general life of being a backup singer. First off, Neville is obviously a very good filmmaker. He gets great, insightful interviews out of each of his interviewees, especially those whose careers are the main focus of the film, and creates a fantastically warm tone for the film that doesn’t just allow the audience in easily but welcomes them with open arms. The women that Neville follows are obviously joyful personalities and he captures that well – an example is Merry Clayton’s first few seconds on the screen, where she and Neville are already joking with each other, which is really nice to watch.

The cast and director receiving their Oscar for Best Documentary.
Image: nydailynews.com

But a special mention must be given to the look of the film – the camerawork is good, but what really stands out is the effects that are used intermittently, like the montage of the covers of failed solo records made by each of the backup singers interviewed.These visual aids only pop up a few times in the film but they’re so pleasing to watch that they need mentioning. As does the editing for the film, which is obviously expert. A fantastic moment that blends two separate interviews to give real insight into the song ‘Gimme Shelter’ (insight that I’d never even considered) is a real joy to watch, so I won’t ruin it by giving each detail, but it’s a really great point in the film that shows the ability and insight of those behind this film. But this great editing extends to the blending of interviews and archive footage as well, putting present day interviews next to old footage of the early performances of these now experienced backup singers, which is really interesting to compare.

Neville’s focus doesn’t just stick with the singers reminiscing about the great times they had though, in fact it touches upon some of the darker aspects of the industry, like the sexualisation of some of the women. That he touches upon these issues shows that the director isn’t just making a feel-good nostalgia film but really does look at each part of the music industry and in particular its treatment of the people working in it and has created an insightful piece of work. The film even looks at the historical and political context of the singers’ careers, giving a nicely rounded view of the world of backup singing. The one flaw that did strike me however was the fact that the film did tend to occasionally go from one point to the next quite quickly, not giving as much time to one as it would the other. Whilst this does make sense, I felt myself wanting to hear more about certain points that were covered in a few minutes, but this is a minor issue.

Words: Jamie McBride
Director: Jason Reitman
Cast: Kate Winslet, Josh Brolin, Gattlin Griffith, Tobey Maguire, Brighid Fleming
Certificate: 12A
Running time: 111 minutes
Image: Paramount Pictures

Set on the US holiday Labor Day weekend, Labor Day is a sentimental yet tense drama that follows the interactions of Adele (Winslet) and her son Henry (Griffith) with an escaped convict, Frank (Brolin), as he stays in their home for the weekend following his escape. Over the course of the film they learn more about him and it would seem there’s a deeper side to his character than what Adele and Henry expect. First off, the cast of the film do their best and are successful in their character portrayals – Winslet plays the meek, despondent divorcée very well and this contrasts well with Brolin’s consistently moody expression, although his character of the ‘misunderstood rogue’ is at times bordering on a bit clichéd. Griffith also does well, always having a blankly depressed look on his face and in his body language that really gets across the lack of happiness in Henry.

Sinister or sentimental? Brolin and Winslet prove their acting credentials.
Image: Paramount Pictures

The film has some really nice points, like it’s camerawork and general visual feel – it has a nice look to it all the time and a really fantastic focus on moments of delicacy that’s enjoyable to watch, and Reitman uses flashes of other cutscenes at random points to slowly build up a second story and to give the audience more information on the ever tough to place Frank. And the soundtrack works well, having at times a traditional American countryside feeling with the gentle guitar and at other times a more tense feeling with its use of slow, gradually building strings. But this brings me to the major flaw in the film – the fact that it can’t choose exactly what kind of film it exactly is. Even at the beginning the soundtrack is tense but the images onscreen are of traditional American suburbia which worked well at first, but as the film goes on it becomes slightly difficult to know whether to be feeling sentimental and touched or tense and unnerved, especially with Frank who makes a very quick switch from threatening stranger to ‘complex, possibly loveable rogue’.

Reitman creates an interesting story that explores the deeper issues of Frank’s guilt but it’s a film that also focuses on Henry’s coming-of-age and on the relationship between Adele and Frank, as well as other minor issues. All of these come together but they don’t really hold, as the film has brought up a lot of interesting points but doesn’t give time to actually explore any of them. There’s also a strange sexual undertone to the film (I’d assume linked to Henry’s coming-of-age) that’s interesting, but when a peach pie is used in one scene to symbolise tradition and in the next as a sex symbol the tone gets just a little confusing and creepy rather than thought-provoking. The film has real potential and at points I did find myself touched by some of the scenes, but once the plot and the directing are actually thought about they don’t really stand up. Likewise, it’s good that the characters’ manners don’t really change, given that the film is set over only five days (a fact that surprised me when I realised it, as the tone makes it seem so much longer) but, without spoiling anything, the thought of the film’s events happening over just five days is just a little bit preposterous and this lack of credibility is hard to ignore.

Starred Up is the new prison film on the block. Nominated for eight British Independent Film Awards last year, director David Mackenzie successfully delivers a fresh take on the well-trodden ground of prison dramas.

Leading the cast is Jack O’ Connell who plays violent delinquent Eric Love. Best known for his role as ‘Cook’ from E4’s Skins (2009-13), O’Connell gives a nail biting performance of a young offender who is bumped up to an adult institution two years early as he is deemed such high risk.

Jack O’ Connell has recently been cast
by Angelina Jolie to appear in the Coen Brothers
scripted Unbroken.
Image: Film4

The first five minutes of the film follow his transfer, where he is strip searched and chaperoned through the eerily quiet prison. The audience is held in suspense as we watch him, solitary in his cell, pour baby oil all over himself. Little do we know, Love is pre-empting a violent run in with the wardens and is oiling himself up to prevent restraint.

Despite his aggressive and threatening demeanour, Love is the ‘new kid on the block’ and is ignored by fellow inmates. In the prison yard he is approached by a man whose presence separates the crowd of gathered convicts. His name is Neville Love, he is Eric’s father.

Eric Love (Jack O’Connell) and his father Neville (Ben Mendelsohn)
Image: indiewire.com

Ordered by prison king-pins, Neville, played by the versatile Ben Mendelsohn (Place Beyond the Pines) is assigned with keeping his son under control and out of trouble. But this proves to be easier said than done, as buried feelings of resentment and abandonment boil over in the claustrophobic prison environment.

Following bursts of wincing violence where Eric melts a razor blade to a toothbrush and slices an inmate’s face and a shocking scene where he bites a guard by the testicles, Eric is referred to the softly spoken anger management volunteer, Oliver Baumer (Rupert Friend).

Oliver tries to relate to Eric’s feelings of rejection, by comparing his upbringing at boarding school to Love’s upbringing in care. He is rebuffed: “I sloshed a paedo with boiling water and sugar once. How many sugars do you take you f***ing nonce.”

The film reaches a climax when corrupt guards try to oust the mighty force of the Love duo. Eric is taken to solitary cells and strung up by the neck in a staged suicide. Neville bursts into the cell and Eric is saved by his father. He sobs uncontrollably to his father’s chest and the exposed vulnerability really brings an authenticity to the film.

The film ends abruptly with the pair, both handcuffed, making a powerful exchange at the prison gates. Head to head, nose to nose, we see the true vulnerability of Eric Love, a boy who desperately needs his father.

Words: Liam Ball
Director: Jonathan Glazer
Cast: Scarlett Johansson, Paul Brannigan, Lynsey Taylor Mackay
Certificate: 15
Running time: 108 minutes
Image: StudioCanal

Under the Skin sees the long-absent British director Jonathan Glazer breaking through in terms of style and substance, taking many more risks than with his previous works Sexy Beast (2000) and Birth (2004). Both of these movies were full of great ideas, yet they pandered too much to existing cinematic conventions to become truly distinctive pieces of work. Where Skin succeeds is in Glazer’s complete disregard for audience expectations, resulting in a highly original and visually arresting experience.

Skin takes many liberties with the story of the Michael Faber novel on which it’s based, including the removal of its lead character’s name. As that would tend to suggest, the movie is shrouded in enigma as it follows the alien seductress (Scarlett Johansson) on her travels around Glasgow, carrying out an unexplained (and probably unexplainable) tasks set by higher powers, supervised by equally mysterious and malevolent recurring figures.

All we can really make out about what she does is that it includes picking up male hitchhikers and luring them back “home” with the promise of a good time. At this point, the film shifts from its social realist aesthetic into placeless settings that have the clean, perfectionist construct of a Kubrick movie. The switch in environments is unnervingly surreal, and is aided in no small part by Mica Levi’s stomach-churning soundtrack.

Johansson as the nameless protagonist.
Image: StudioCanal

There is also a shift that occurs around the midpoint of the movie after the alien picks up a man with a facial disfigurement. Initially concerned with what lies ‘under the skin’, this particular encounter makes her more aware of her own body, leaving her depressed by her physical limitations. One of Skin’s main focuses is on the human form, its trappings and our perceptions towards it; the alien appears fully naked at different points in the film, initially oblivious towards the body she’s in and then intrigued by it after the shift occurs, standing in front of a full-length mirror, observing, scrutinising.

Moreover, the film establishes the idea of humanity being watched during its opening, where seemingly random shapes fall into focus and we realise it’s an eye staring directly at us; the alien later spends a lot of time monitoring human life in the streets and shopping centres of Glasgow. As such, the longest sequences of Johansson’s nudity are not particularly erotic, but strangely detached; Under the Skin is an exploration of what it means to be human as seen through the eyes of an extra-terrestrial witnessing western culture for the first time.

Resultantly, the Kubrick comparisons lean not towards 2001 or The Shining as you might expect (though there are definitely shades of both), but rather Full Metal Jacket and Eyes Wide Shut. Glazer doesn’t have a whole lot of cynicism regarding the society that Skin’s alien finds herself in, but he simply uses the idea of a displaced being observing a completely new environment, emphasising the mundane in a way not at all dissimilar to Jim Jarmusch. In an increasingly busy culture such as ours where everything moves at light-speed, Under the Skin is refreshing in that it slows down and focuses on our most routine actions, turning them into something weird and perplexing.

More of Johansson’s commanding presence.
Image: StudioCanal

Adding to this is the fact that a lot of the hitchhikers the alien picks up are played by non-actors; the conversations and come-ons were largely captured by hidden cameras, and the consent for usage in the film was sought afterwards. Interestingly, not once do any of them notice that it’s Scarlett Johansson who’s flirting with them, given her disguise of black hair and the English accent but also due to her misplacement from the cinema screen, where we are familiar with her, to everyday surroundings, where we’re not.

While the footage assembled provides an admittedly narrow representation of Glasgow, the use of documentary tactics is part of what is so jarring about the shift to the immaculate and bizarre place the alien brings her men to, and is also the reason these otherworldly sequences leave such a resounding, eerie tone on the film after it reverts to ‘normality’.

Ten years after the release of Birth (nine of which were spent making Under the Skin), Glazer finally hits mostly strong notes with his latest outing. Abandoning the dialogue-centric cool of Sexy Beast and the challenging whimsy of Birth, he instead goes for free-form visual poetry, deep silences and striking sequences in a movie that is as related to Breaking the Waves as to The Man Who Fell to Earth. Given that Under the Skin is seen entirely through the alien’s subjectivity, there are few answers provided, only observations to make of what you will – and especially in the stranger sequences of the film, the ellipses are the main source of its power.