User Reviews

On the surface, this legal drama by David Mamet (based on a play by Terence Rattigan) is as straightforward as it gets: in early 20th century Britain, cadet Ronnie Winslow (Guy Edwards) is accused of theft and expelled from the naval academy; his family, led by father Arthur (the great Nigel Hawthorne), starts a legal crusade to prove the boy's innocence, hiring famed lawyer Sir Robert Morton (Jeremy Northam).

Mamet and Rattigan operate a deconstruction of the genre in both structure and themes. Court scenes are almost nonexistent; what we do see are preparations and aftermaths in the Winslow household, and the fallout of the case on the family's welfare.

For every character, there is something more at work than the pursuit of truth. Is Arthur Winslow motivated by paternal devotion and sense of justice or merely by pride? Does Sir Robert care about the case, or he just fancies Ronnie's spirited sister Catherine (Rebecca Pidgeon)? Catherine herself, the idealist, at one point appears ready to drop everything to save her imminent marriage with a conservative officer; the mother (Gemma Jones) worries about their waning wealth; the other son (Matthew Pidgeon), forced to abandon his studies, becomes eager to join the impending conflict and will probably end up on the trenches of WWI a few years later.

Even sneakier, is Ronnie truly innocent? The movie seemingly implies he is, but leaves a trail of breadcrumbs leading in the opposite direction as well. There is no explicit "Har har I did it!" twist - but, at the very least, it leaves you wondering. But maybe Ronnie's innocence is truly besides the point, as illustrated by his casual reaction to the final verdict - the family goes through a legal crusade, putting everything at stake, and the central figure of the whole case is just a boy oblivious to all the brouhaha.

Hawthorne and Northam are great; the movie is worth multiple viewings.

7/10

A drawing room, period, study of manners, domestic drama, if you will... The drama is admittedly light, centring on the impact of a teenage son's expulsion from naval college and the truth or otherwise of this occurrence. Strangely enough, you never get to learn whether the boy was actually guilty or not of his "crime" - although he gets off, it's never fully resolved and could be attributed to the superior advocacy of his attorney - sadly still a predilection in modern society. However the dramatic content could have been increased with some kind of courtroom climax, or confession, but now I'm arguing with the original play, hardly the fault of David Mamet or his actors. The Edwardian, pre War "golden - era" is nicely evoked with the big house, coterie of servants and upper - class manners of the family, although contemporary influences such as suffragetism (strongly) and the approaching war (mildly) are referred to. I'm not sure Mamet properly and fully brought home the "sensational" aspect of the Winslow case on the British public, even as I appreciated his subtlety in demonstrating this via newspaper hoardings, contemporary cartoons and the like. He does however marshall his acting troupe well. Nigel Hawthorne shines as the patriarch who sacrifices the wants and needs of his wider family for the sake of clearing his son's name. I didn't get the impression that it was the family name he was defending and genuinely believe it was for his youngest son's future which concerned him, which is as it should be. I'm not quite sure however that Hawthorne seems just too old to have fathered the boy. The rest of the cast play very well although some of their roles seem stereotypical and perhaps more could have been made of the interfamily tensions...but again that takes us back to Rattigan's source material. Mamet this time, quite rightly eschews all opportunity to contemporise the play and his cinematic devices are subtly reined in, no overlapping dialogue or sharp cross-cutting here. I liked the utilisation of the swinging garden gate at the start of the film, letting in the "bad" from outside, which recalled to mind J.B. Priestley's "An Inspector Calls". How often English dramatists seemed to write about the so called idyllic society of the upper classes breaking down...nothing lasts forever it seems. Anyway, in summary, a wordy piece, well shot, well played but ultimately probably best enjoyed as a stage play.

The English legal system does not concern itself with such fine conceits as guilt or innocence,concentrating instead on the minutiae of interpretation,precedent,case-law,acceptability of evidence,and,most of all,the eloquence of the barristers.They are,after all,lawyers arguing points of law devised by other lawyers in front of another lawyer whose opinion may well be contested by another group of lawyers at a later stage.So it is in "The Winslow Boy",a relic of the pre "kitchen sink" era of the British Theatre,one of the last hurrahs of the complacent middle-aged men before the angry young men had their brief revolution. Their breath of fresh air soon became a gale of fetid air and the complacent middle-aged men soon had their slippers back in the hearth -some of the former A.Y.M.joining the ranks of the reactionaries. Mr Terence Rattigan's story of the boy accused of theft and his family's extraordinary campaign to prove his innocence is open to the same questions of interpretation.Ronnie Winslow's guilt is never considered by anyone except his prospective counsel,and,in a rather melodramatic scene,he too appears to be convinced that a miscarriage of justice has taken place.Or does he just take on the case to get closer to the boy's sister?Is it the film's premise that no price is too high to pay nor is any cause more noble than establishing the truth - or is it that truth becomes irrelevant in the battle between two opposing lawyers or in the escalating juggernaut of publicity? Set in the uneasy peace preceding the first world war,"The Winslow Boy" examines that most excoriated of institutions,the middle class family. Gruff but loving paterfamilias,supportive wife/mother,strong-willed independent-minded daughter,charming,polite but slightly rakish older son and the eponymous younger son.The dynamics of such a group of people are skilfully portrayed in a number of short well-written scenes that establish their relationships.Mr Nigel Hawthorne and Miss Gemma Jones are outstanding as the parents,she having the more difficult task of seeming slightly subservient and at the same time the real strength of the family and the one holding it together.Mr Hawthorne starts off the epitome of male rationality and at the end of the film has become obsessed by his campaign perhaps even to the edge of madness,whilst Miss Jones despite her emotional involvement with her younger son becomes more pragmatic as the campaign goes on.Driven to virtual bankruptcy by the costs(echoes of "Bleak House" here)the Winslows are driven closer together by the experience. Miss Rebecca Pigeon plays Kate,the rebellious "New Woman",cigarette smoking supporter of womens' suffrage.She is completely believable in the role and I can only think that the severe criticism of her is of the "sour grapes" variety.Her brother Matthew plays her brother and it works very well.There is a subtle interplay between them that reflects their real-life relationship and enhances all their scenes together. Kate supports vaguely leftish causes that are anathema to her father and is ambivalent about briefing the eminent barrister Sir Robert Morton,scourge of the Trade Union movement(the devastatingly handsome Mr Jeremy Northam) but he wins her over by declaring his belief in her brother's innocence after a cross-examination in his office. As the family's money is gradually drained away Kate loses her Lifeguards officer fiancé but doesn't seem unduly bothered despite declaring lifelong love for him to her mother"I love him in every possible way a woman can love a man",she told her discomfited parent.

The family solicitor (Mr Colin Stinton) her devoted swain for years is gently rejected and her relationship with Sir Robert Morton slowly develops from confrontation to co-existence with room for development. At the end of the court case the two have a loaded conversation and the final exchange is worthy of Oscar Wilde. Guy Edwards as Ronnie Windsor recalls the kind of boy who once rolled hoops along the banks of the Serpentine under Nanny's careful eye. The change from fierce denial to apparent disinterest in his fate is well-observed.From a slightly sanctimonious prig he turns into a readily recognisable somewhat bemused teenager whose priorities in life have inevitably altered.Only Mr Hawthorne's steely determination remains unbending and he has paid for it not only financially but also with his health.Whether it is a price worth paying is the question at the heart of this film.