dahkraut Just saw the 1948 movie, The Winslow Boy. In scene after scene, the staging, script, and even the gestures of the actors were copied in the 1999 remake. So much of what I thought were dialogues written by Mamet and Mamet's direction is NOT original. The original play and screenplay are more than 95% of what you saw in 1999. Even more disappointing to me was that Mamet cut some very good scenes and dialogue that provided the perspective of the barrister's reasoning, for why he took the case. The cross-examination of the boy is much more cogent in the 1948 version. A detail concerning the boy's smoking is played out among the other characters, a beautiful subtle detail that Mamet eliminated. So, see the 1948 movie and enjoy Robert Donat and the other actors. Then, wonder as I did, how this remake came to be a "Mamet" play.

tieman64 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.

verna_zzz 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.

adoniel This outstanding film focusing on issues of justice in England, is both very well written and extremely well acted. It is taken from a Terrance Rattigan play of the same name (if you are not familiar with him, watch The Browning Version, especially the older black and white). It is 1911 and the middle class is expanding it clout in the final days before the Great War (after which all was lost for decades in wars, depression and loss of empire). Thirteen year old Ronnie is accused of being dishonest and scrubbed from an elite boys school operated by the British Navy. His family is quick to defend his right to a trial, etc., although, oddly and unfortunately, the boy, so central to the plot, has little say in all the events that happen to him or the political and legal battles fought for him. While really a play in movie form, the quick paced witty dialog, the well crafted shots and the excitement of the outcome allows this story to more than holds its own, making the film a pleasure to watch. The older black and white version is regarded as a classic as well. Interestingly, the actor who played Ronnie in the 1948 version plays the head of the Admiralty in this one.