Living in Europe, I had never heard of this film until recently until my Mexican fiancée said she'd seen it over there ( in Mexico ) on their television. Surprised that Mexican TV would actually show this kind of film, and fascinated by the subject matter, I tried to acquire it here - with no success - and indeed only can it be found in the USA on a fairly expensive DVD which I just received and viewed this very day ! My sentiments on the film are mixed - I have never been anywhere near Canada in my life - but the sets do appear to be dreary cold and dismal. Picture quality is not that brilliant and unfortunately the DVD has no subtitles, a bit of a problem when much of the dialogue, especially in part 2 is unintelligible. I am referring notably to the two brothers who have grown up, and Czerny's wife. She didn't even appear to be speaking English and sounded like an East European. The DVD unfortunately does not contain any bonus or extras and I would have appreciated a documentary explaining the basis for making the film, as was the case with the "magdalen sisters".
On to the actors' performance and may I say that the whole of part one and the last 15 to 20 minutes of part two were brilliant and throat-gripping. The rest of part two I found rather more boring and slow and felt that the interviews with the psychiatrist could have been reduced in length. True, they give us some insight into Lavin's character but I found them too long. Secondly, the episode of one of the boys taking drugs or "snow" singularly bored me. I'm just not interested in drug-taking nor films about it and don't see the relevance here. I thought that the "grown-up" Kevin was far more plausible than the grown-up brothers and fully admired the actor's performance in his reticence to testify first of all and then his coming out and taking the bull by the horns, so to speak at the end.
As to the good bits of the film, I have nothing but praise. Czerny's performance is absolutely magnificent - mixing the right dose of cruelty, sensitivity, perversion and rectitude. The character is totally plausible from beginning to end and he is not painted as a purely evil character although there is no doubt as to his irresponsability, violence and paedophile tendencies.
I was also pleased with the actual quantity of violence, shown sex and implied sex. I had been afraid that none would be shown, and in reality there was just the right mix of implied and actual sex plus of course some terrifying violence. Female viewers of the film will no doubt cringe at these scenes as they have a maternel instinct which fills them with horror at the sight of cruelty or abuse to a child.
As a male, I do not have this maternal instinct and therefore do not cringe and I think it is necessary to show these scenes ( correctly dosed, of course ) as they are part of the reality. I find the scenes immoral, powerful, realistic and necessary. I don't believe in showing everything, a part must be left to the spectator's imagination, but enough must be shown to leave an impression of shock with the viewer !! Sorry if that sounds complicated.
The final question I had was "How Close was this to Reality". In France and the UK, at present, there is a sort of anti-Church or anticlerical racism presently rife to the effect that all priests or brothers are paedophiles. This is stupid, incorrect and inexact. I myself was educated first at a De La Salle Brothers College and then at a Jesuit Boarding School and never once encountered problems with these men of God. I never had any friends who spoke to me of this and whilst admittedly there are black sheep everywhere, even in religious communities, I do not subscribe to the theory that they are all paedophiles or homosexuals.
What I did find frustrating in the film was that the matter was not dealt with by the police on the spot when it happened and why one had to wait 15 years for the facts to be exposed. Why was the police report doctored ? WHy were the church authorities not more ruthless with the offending brothers. Why was there collusion and cover-up between the police and the church. I notably felt very angry with Noseworthy's superior who invented some story about losing his memory due to a prostate operation and the Minister of Justice who reportedly knew nothing about the investigations at the time. These were the real guilty parties.
The film is heavy-going and grave and deserves praise for the acting and the way the subject matter is treated. But it should not serve as a yardstick for judging all religious institutions and orphanages. It is important to keep a sense of proportion but also necessary to mete out justice swiftly, competently and ruthlessly as SOON as the need arises.
On to the actors' performance and may I say that the whole of part one and the last 15 to 20 minutes of part two were brilliant and throat-gripping. The rest of part two I found rather more boring and slow and felt that the interviews with the psychiatrist could have been reduced in length. True, they give us some insight into Lavin's character but I found them too long. Secondly, the episode of one of the boys taking drugs or "snow" singularly bored me. I'm just not interested in drug-taking nor films about it and don't see the relevance here. I thought that the "grown-up" Kevin was far more plausible than the grown-up brothers and fully admired the actor's performance in his reticence to testify first of all and then his coming out and taking the bull by the horns, so to speak at the end.
As to the good bits of the film, I have nothing but praise. Czerny's performance is absolutely magnificent - mixing the right dose of cruelty, sensitivity, perversion and rectitude. The character is totally plausible from beginning to end and he is not painted as a purely evil character although there is no doubt as to his irresponsability, violence and paedophile tendencies.
I was also pleased with the actual quantity of violence, shown sex and implied sex. I had been afraid that none would be shown, and in reality there was just the right mix of implied and actual sex plus of course some terrifying violence. Female viewers of the film will no doubt cringe at these scenes as they have a maternel instinct which fills them with horror at the sight of cruelty or abuse to a child.
As a male, I do not have this maternal instinct and therefore do not cringe and I think it is necessary to show these scenes ( correctly dosed, of course ) as they are part of the reality. I find the scenes immoral, powerful, realistic and necessary. I don't believe in showing everything, a part must be left to the spectator's imagination, but enough must be shown to leave an impression of shock with the viewer !! Sorry if that sounds complicated.
The final question I had was "How Close was this to Reality". In France and the UK, at present, there is a sort of anti-Church or anticlerical racism presently rife to the effect that all priests or brothers are paedophiles. This is stupid, incorrect and inexact. I myself was educated first at a De La Salle Brothers College and then at a Jesuit Boarding School and never once encountered problems with these men of God. I never had any friends who spoke to me of this and whilst admittedly there are black sheep everywhere, even in religious communities, I do not subscribe to the theory that they are all paedophiles or homosexuals.
What I did find frustrating in the film was that the matter was not dealt with by the police on the spot when it happened and why one had to wait 15 years for the facts to be exposed. Why was the police report doctored ? WHy were the church authorities not more ruthless with the offending brothers. Why was there collusion and cover-up between the police and the church. I notably felt very angry with Noseworthy's superior who invented some story about losing his memory due to a prostate operation and the Minister of Justice who reportedly knew nothing about the investigations at the time. These were the real guilty parties.
The film is heavy-going and grave and deserves praise for the acting and the way the subject matter is treated. But it should not serve as a yardstick for judging all religious institutions and orphanages. It is important to keep a sense of proportion but also necessary to mete out justice swiftly, competently and ruthlessly as SOON as the need arises.