The Winslow Boy (1999)

Simply A Masterpiece

One of my all time favorites.

Boring

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Set in 1912 and based on an actual event, David Mamet's "The Winslow Boy" is the story of an upper-class family whose 13 year-old son (Ronnie Winslow- a naval college cadet) is accused of stealing and cashing a five shilling postal order.Expelled from school, Ronnie returns home terrified of his father's reaction. But Arthur Winslow (superbly played by Nigel Hawthorne) isn't angry. Instead, he believes his boy to have been wrongly accused. And so with the help of his suffragette daughter (Catherine) and esteemed attorney Sir Robert Morton, Arthur sets out to clear his son's name.What follows is a beautifully written legal drama. But unlike "The Verdict" (also written by Mamet), there are no courtroom scenes here. No tense battles between lawyers or nail biting cross examinations, Mamet film revoking the usual legal maneuvers and opting instead to explore a family's determination to retain its dignity.But how can they remain dignified when their case becomes a nationwide news story? How can they remain dignified when their steadfast belief in their son is mocked by journalists and newspapers? How can they remain dignified when the British Parliament argues the case in the House of Lords? How can they remain dignified when the family suffers financial loss, much self-doubt, media scrutiny and even the break-off of Catherine's engagement to a status-sensitive snob (Aden Gillett)?"A fine old rumpus," the maid calls it all. And indeed it is. As Arthur's health deteriorates, his steadfast wife demands to know why he's sacrificing the family's well-being. "For justice!" he says. "Are you sure it's not pride and self-importance?" she counters.Of course, this being a David Mamet film - all Mamet's films are con games - "The Winslow Boy" is also a film about misdirection. On the surface, we're asked to wonder whether or not the Winslow Boy is really guilty, whilst below the surface, Mamet works in another layer of misdirection. On this level, every character is lying, every one of them misdirecting the audience by putting on a false facade.In this regard, every character's behaviour is precisely the opposite of their actual beliefs. So the father cares not for his son but rather his own family honour. The Winslow boy is guilty and stands embarrassed out in the rain. The older son is broke, hates his father and shall be shipped off to war, yet he accepts it all with cheerful good faith. Similarly, the maid, who always enters frame when there is talk of no money, is ambivalent to the fact that she will surely be fired soon. Then there's the three way relationship between the hotshot lawyer, the Winslow daughter and her fiancé. Her fiancé pretends to love her, yet leaves as soon as the case gains momentum, whilst she pretends to fight for women's independence (she's a suffragette) despite being entirely dependent on her family/men for her income. Similarly, the hotshot lawyer pretends to take the case because he believes the boy to be innocent, when in fact he's simply after the boy's attractive sister. When he confides to his friend that he has turned down a promotion to take the case, he does so knowing that this news will be confided to her, thus making him seem more appealing in her eyes.The entire film is thus an exercise in misdirection, the film communicating one thing while the truth sits just below the surface. The artifice is all a lie, a slick Edwardian card trick. End result: we're so busy looking for clues of the kid's innocence, that we don't realize that the whole family is guilty. 8.5/10 - Worth two viewings.

Good reviews, and seeing that David Mamet wrote the screenplay and directed, made me to see this film so I rented it and, of course, was disappointed. In a nutshell, it was boring and it feature a very annoying lead character in "Catherine Winslow" (Rebecca Pidgeon). Her feminist agenda was a little too strong to swallow, like Kate Winslet's super-irritating role in "The Titanic." It's not a bad film, just not interesting enough and one of those movies that after an hour, you realize you don't care about any of the major characters.One thing I did appreciate: the dry humor. In fact, it was refreshingly dry. (I've always appreciate sarcasm, unless it's too strong against by beliefs, of course!) It's also a period costume film, set in the early 1900s, an era I like.One question: why wasn't this the courtroom drama it was supposed to be? Instead, we get all this feminist agenda and stupid romance between two idiots. Also, it's supposed to also center around the title - the Winslow boy. Where was he? He took a backseat, far back in this stagy yawner. Mamet's "Hannibal," "The Spanish Prisoner," and "Ronin" are all far superior work to this one.

If you are a lover of English period pieces, the cast and synopsis of this movie is enough to create an anticipation of a pleasurable viewing experience. You may then find the first half of the film disappointing. The story engages the viewer only weakly, and there is a vagueness about the way the action unfolds. The actors' performances seem to have been captured a rehearsal or two short of a good take, or may be suffering from weak direction. The script is also patchy and pedestrian, suggesting it is fairest to lay the blame at the feet of director/screenplay writer Mamet. Such sterling actors as Nigel Hawthorne and Gemma Jones struggle to make an impression, with only the spirited Rebecca Pidgeon making much of her part. This is until the appearance on the scene of Jeremy Northam as barrister Sir Robert Morton. Northam is powerful in his screen presence and unerring in his delivery down to the smallest touch. His acting range as demonstrated so far may not be huge, but for this reviewer he can do no wrong. The subtly expressed and low key sexual tension between his character and Rebecca Pidgeon's character gives the audience something to be interested in, in this stodgy film. The final few exchanges are classic. Where was the sure touch demonstrated in the last few minutes, for the rest of the film? It's worth it though.

During the Edwardian period in England, a family is newly in turmoil. The youngest and very dear son has been accused of theft at his school and expelled. The boy swears his innocence to his father & family so the patriarch begins a court proceeding to clear his son of any wrong doing. A rising young attorney (Jeremy Northam) is found willing to accept the defense of the boy. The publicity is intense, making the older sister's wedding engagement in jeopardy. Will the family continue to try and prove their son's case or will circumstances make them give up the fight?This is a beautiful movie, in many ways. The cast is stellar, but, especially, the handsome and intelligent Jeremy Northam excels in his role as the attorney. The sister's role is also portrayed very well and her feisty yet genteel character is extremely attractive. The sets are lovely, the minor characters deft, and the costumes are superb. Mostly, though, the script and direction are of the highest caliber, showcasing what is good and noble in a family with exceptionally high morals. Do you want good character building films without any objectionable scenes, which are also highly enjoyable? This one should make the top ten list every time.