The Deep Blue Sea

I admit that I fully expected this film to be boring. So, I was pleasantly surprised to find it not only engaging, but the first film I have seen about an adulterous affair that I think actually qualified as a love story. Yes, the film is very slow. But I never found it boring. That is largely due to the powerful performances of the three main actors: Weisz, Hiddleston and Beale. They captivate from the first to the last. The film has an unusual structure that works well for the themes explored. It opens with Hester about to commit suicide, and recalling via flashback what transpired to get her to this point. Like true memories, they don't necessarily come in clearly, or in order, and it can be challenging for a viewer to follow at first. The movie is ostensibly about the affair between Hester and Freddie, but also subtly addresses the mystery of depression to those who have never experienced it, and cannot understand it. Hester's husband loves her; they have money and privilege, yet she is painfully unhappy because they are no more than friends. Along comes Freddie who, after surviving the Battle of Britain, is living life to the fullest with little thought for tomorrow - and she falls in love for the first time in her life. But, Freddie is unable to give her everything she needs either. It would have been easy to make Freddie the "villain" here, and I am glad the director did not. Freddie is insensitive and occasionally cruel to Hester. Yet, he never misled her on who he is, or what he could be for her. He is as trapped in his life as she in hers. One scene in the museum shows that she can be cruel to him in turn. Hester is caught between two men: one she cares for, respects and enjoys as an intellectual companion, and one who gives her the passion and joy she has been missing. With such a disastrous set-up, I was somewhat amazed that the film ended with a note of hope. The film is beautiful to look at - visually lush and very appropriate to the time period. And the score fits so perfectly it actually tells the story for long stretches when there is little dialog. This is not an "entertaining" film in the traditional sense, and those looking for escapism will probably be disappointed. Yet, it is a very moving film about love, rebellion, and finding oneself. I enjoyed it immensely and will watch it again. The extras are also quite good for an indie film. They include an interview with Weisz, and one with Hiddleston. But, the two featurettes were the most interesting. Terence Davies' Master Class, in which he spends about an hour addressing what looks to be an actual class of students, was superb - delving into his motivations, the actual process of how he directs, what he felt about certain scenes, and the actors. This would be of particular interest to film students, even if the film is not their cup of tea. The DVD also includes director commentary of the film, but I personally don't like those. Overall, 4.5 stars, and it has encouraged me to look for other films by this director.

This film of Terrence Rattigan's play might as well have been shot right on the boards as it was originally seen. I feel as though I am sitting in the theater watching the actors circle one another in a tightly reined production. It's glorious. There are scenes that I thought could have been paintings or sculptures, capturing the moment in three or four frames. The post-coital shots are works of art. Great direction. Cinematography is also good. From pub scenes to bombed-out rubble playgrounds to the sadly shabby apartment where the lovers live, all is compact and richly detailed. Contrary to some reviews I've read here, the story is not about an adulterous affair that ends badly. It's a love story. These people hurt each other. Hester loves her husband and she loves Freddie, but she hurts them. And vice versa. It's not that they do not love each other; they do. But each one is inadequate in fulfilling the other's desires, expectations. Listen carefully to Hester's dialogue about what love means to her. That's pretty much the conflict in the story. It's a beautiful story and rings true as bells. That was Rattigan's magic. But the triumph of the film is in the performances. Rachel Weisz is magnificent. Breath-taking. The camera captures every measured gesture, every shift in expression, every subtle movement; we know we are seeing an actress at the top of her game. If she didn't win an award for this role, she should have. Simon Russell Beale's performance as the staid, respectable, impeccable judge is a masterwork in his long resume of great performances. I wanted to slap his silly, vapid face. I wanted to cry for him. Tom Hiddleston shows here why he is remarked to be one of the best actors of our day. His Freddie is wonderful. The character is a WWII decorated flyboy whose clipped wings in peacetime Britain has left him without purpose, without fulfillment, without dignity. Hiddleston plays the role with braggadocio and pathos. I wanted to slap his silly, vapid face. I wanted to cry for him. In fact, during the penultimate scene, I was crying. Not because of how the story ends, but because of the utterly brilliant performance Hiddleston gives at this point. I saw this film twice before purchasing it. It's one of those unforgettables.

Decent period love story with nice eye candy. Interesting story. A good watch.

T・ヒドルストンさん目当てで購入致しました。 届いたばかりなので、本編は少しだけしか観ておりませんが、 映像がとても美しいです。 ・・・ですが、レイチェル・ワイズさん演じる ヘスターが吸う煙草の臭いと煙が 鑑賞ているこちら側にまで漂って来そう・・・。 購入前に知っておりましたが、 表紙裏表紙込みで20ページ程のブックレットが入っています。 因みに、T・ヒドルストンさんの写真は少ないですが。 載っています。全体的に文章が多いです。 米国盤Blu-rayですので、勿論日本語の字幕ありませんが、 ブックレットにインタビュー等の特典映像も入っていて、 米国からの発送なのに、 送料込みで1200円程度で購入出来るなんって(新品です)、 日本盤の「愛情は深い海の如く」(DVDのみ)は、 特典映像も日本語版予告編のみなのに、 お値段が高過ぎと思いました。

Was kann man über diesen Mann denn schreiben außer: spitze, erstklassig, super... Ich bin ein eingefleischter Fan von Tom Hiddleston und daher eigentlich nicht objektiv. Der Film ist schwermütig und zuweilen auch langatmig. Man versucht, die depressive Stimmung der Hauptfigur (Rachel Weisz) einzufangen und das geht dann schon mal zu Lasten des Erzähltempos. Wer die ersten 6 Minuten grauenhaften Geigengedudels über sich ergehen gelassen hat und trotzdem noch weiterschaut, ist ganz klar ein SEHR großer Fan der Darsteller. Wer Filme wie Der englische Patient, Sieben Jahre in Tibet, etc. mag, der wird diesen Film wohl auch genießen können. Wie gesagt, ich bin Hiddleston-Fan und der Film gehörte einfach zu meiner Sammlung :)

We’re on tricky ground here, a dizzying place where we might not keep our balance. How do we live passionately without being destroyed by the passion? An ancient question shown here in a modern context, if postwar Britain in 1950 is still considered modern. Hester Collyer has never been deeply loved, if depth means intensely, passionately, erotically. She has never expressed herself fully as a woman, never been with a man who appreciates her need for such expression. Were all the best men, those who were daring, destroyed in the war? Where are the brave men now, if they still exist? Hester is lonely, unfulfilled. She grew up cloistered and protected, a clergyman’s daughter. A good girl, she was loyal and obedient, her narrow path set for her, a path on which there seemed no possibility of crisis. She was beautiful and intelligent. Her future would be secure. She would not stay unmarried. What man would not have her as his English rose? The man who took and married her was Sir William Collyer. Unlike her, he is not so young. He is maybe 45, she just 27, at most. The gap in age for him is unimportant. She’ll always be fresh and young for him. He’s successful, formerly a barrister, now a judge. He comes from the gentry, from a respected family with good name. Hester, the clergyman’s daughter, is humble by comparison. Though we’re not certain why she married him, we can imagine it. He was probably kind to her, doting on her. He was proud and happy to have her, to have caught her. She added to his sense of self, his success. Her father may have been happy too, his daughter marrying into the respectable establishment, the wife of a judge, no less. Conventionally the picture looked fine. But a picture is only an illusion, an interpretation, a thing with many readings, shadings, perspectives. Her life was meant to be set, yet it isn’t. She cares for her husband but can’t love him in ways she wants to be loved. His love for her is formal and mannered. She will never be fulfilled by him. No one knew it, perhaps not even she when she married, but she knows it now: she wants a man to love, a lover, not a kind and benevolent caretaker to watch over her. She isn’t a child anymore and resents being treated as one. Her womanhood, now precious to her, is being wasted. She is slowly dying in the shell of her protected life. Freddie Page in 1940 was probably 20 years old. He lived on the edge of something rare and special: life and death, a hair’s breadth apart. He flew in the R.A.F. and fought off the German menace. He was, as Mr. Churchill said, part of Britain’s finest hour. His life at that time, lived in fear and excitement, was measured from moment to moment. He had never felt so alive. 1940 was like a favourite phonograph record for him, a thing to be played over and over again in the mind. 1950, by comparison, was dull, drab, pointless. His life was mostly illusory now, concealing what he felt inside — emptiness, uselessness. His time had come and gone. Echoes in the film come from many places: “Brief Encounter”, Lady Chatterley, Madame Bovary. Passion is the elixir and blood of life. Without it, you sleepwalk and pretend. With it, you live. Freddie in the cockpit of the Hurricane had lived. Hester, sheltered and protected, never had. Where did they meet? In the local pub. Hester was there with a girlfriend that night. Freddie and an ex-flying mate were there too, giddy, playful, funny; just about three sheets to the wind, too, still flying high in their Hurricanes. Drinks were ordered. The table of two became a table of four, and, by and by, one thing led to the next. It wasn’t that Hester was actively looking, but she had always been looking and Freddie knew it, sensed it, wanted what she wanted. They got it in spades. Freddie in Hester’s arms was in the Hurricane again. She in his was in the arms of love for the first time. Their moments were ecstatic. Life was good and true. It did not cheat by withholding passion from them. They were alive and knew it, their love an affirmation of it. One day death would come as it does to all, but they would die knowing their lives had been complete. Now that Hester had found it, she couldn’t easily relinquish it. She threw, or would throw, everything away for it. So the film is also a study in this, in what passion can do. What’s remarkable is how sympathetically all three main portraits are drawn. We see everything through Hester’s eyes, so we know her best, understand her mind. But we also see how the two men who love her love her. Both are pure, authentic in their loves. Freddie the fighter pilot is daring, adventurous, uninhibited. Sir William, the barrister and judge, is restrained, protective, doting. Both men, in their ways, are devout. Hester means the world to them. But she can’t have both. She must choose, and much of the drama hangs on her decision. Britain in 1950 still looks war-torn, parts of London crumbling. Gutted buildings, rutted streets; food scarce, rationing ongoing; clothes mended and darned; rooms cluttered, unkempt. Strange for a victorious nation to look so defeated. But that’s war for you, victory an idea, a formality and convention amid so much ruin. The colours are beautifully muted. A primary colour such as red is rare among all the browns and greys and the black nights. Hester’s red dress is more than a dress. It’s a statement on several levels. Freddie’s eye is good. The eye of a fighter pilot has to be for him to survive. He sees and understands, immediately reads the situation. It had to be. They had to be together. And if they are not, if something sunders them? This question, too, makes the drama rich. Terence Rattigan wrote the play on which Terence Davies wrote the screenplay to make the film. The title is clear when we remember the phrase to be “caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.” Damned if you do, damned if you don’t is another way of putting it. How are untenable situations to be resolved? Usually with great pain and suffering. Art films seldom appeal to the general public, a public too busy with other things to notice. They are usually nuanced and subtle, their two worst enemies cliché and the obvious. They invite in sensitivities for interpretation of the film. It’s why they can be so life-like, authentic, honest. They descend from the theatre, where honesty is also a trademark. Think of Chekhov, Ibsen, Edward Albee or Tennessee Williams, playwrights who never lie to us. The two Terences — Rattigan and Davies — have given us a work of art to savour and appreciate. It’s slow and deliberate, but I loved it.

Great acting by Rachel Weisz and cast

The deep blue sea è un'opera teatrale scritta (nel 1952) dal commediografo/sceneggiatore britannico Terence Rattigan. Questa versione per lo schermo è eccellente, fatta di continui flashback che ricostruiscono gli avvenimenti e il percorso emotivo della protagonista, e che non disturbano il dipanarsi della trama. Tutto ruota intorno ad un avvenimento, che sconvolge e ribalta improvvisamente lo svolgersi della storia d'amore tra i due protagonisti, una Rachel Weisz intensissima e commovente e un Tom Hiddleston sofferente e fragile. Anche gli altri attori sono di grande spessore. Lo sfondo è il secondo dopoguerra, la cui ambientazione è resa perfettamente dalla scenografia e dai costumi; la guerra è anche l'altra grande protagonista, che stravolge irrimediabilmente la vita degli esseri umani. Consigliabile per chi ama le storie ambientate nel passato (non così recente) e le grandi storie d'amore, sofferte e conflittuali. L'edizione Regno Unito è chiaramente in lingua inglese, con sottotitoli in inglese.