The more you guys talk about this film, the more I appreciate it, but I still never want to see it again. I like to pretend I’m hip and can enjoy a well made movie no matter how dark it is, but this was just hard to enjoy. Not exactly hard to watch even, just hard to enjoy. Does that even make sense? I wasn’t cringing or having to look away from the screen, I just didn’t want to keep going at times. I don’t know what the difference is between something like this and, say, No Country For Old Men (and please don’t tear my comparison apart, it’s just the first thing that popped into my head and if it’s not apt for you, sorry), but this was just difficult to enjoy, no matter how “brilliant” a movie I realize it is.
I totally get what you’re saying.
I read you, generally.
Though this movie at least had a relatively happy ending, apart from poor Chum.
If there’s anything that depresses me about this film, it’s the realization that the real-life examples don’t get as much slack.
But it did play by the same rules.
As for why make Joanne pull the trigger-- because abusees become abusers? He thought he was doing the “right” thing just as much as his father did when he made Stuart eat the cigarettes.
I’m pretty sure having a sympathetic protagonist complicit in the rape of a child isn’t playing by any of the usual Hollywood rules. Unless, of course, you’re talking about Todd Solondz’ summer blockbuster Happiness.
-Tom
Well, if Todd Solondz had directed From London to Brighton, then maybe that would’ve happened, but in the movie I saw, our sympathetic protagonist remained sympathetic because she couldn’t stand by and let the rape of a child happen, so, uh, yeah, it still follows the usual Hollywood rules.
Unless you mean Derek was a sympathetic protagonist? Because I was pretty sure he was the bad guy.
Finally saw this last night. Not sure I would say I enjoyed it: it’s a grim, squalid, harrowing flight through prostitution and child endangerment and bloody murder that makes me squeamish the entire time. But since I’m pretty sure that was the intent, then kudos to the director and cast. It really is the anti-Ritchie film: there’s nothing clever or glamorous about this world of crime & grime, just damaged people trapped in an ugly world struggling to survive.
I agree with Dean that the plot is a bit predictable once enough of it is revealed to know what’s going on, but this is not a film you watch because of Surprise Plot Twists. Like he said, it’s about the journey, not the final destination.
I’m also not sure I agree with Tom’s assertion about how Kelly “uses sex as a form of empowerment,” but I’m always wary of any sort of “prostitution is empowering!” argument. What’s noteworthy about Kelly’s use of sex is that she’s doing it for selfless reasons; she isn’t earning money for herself and Derek, she’s doing it to help Joanne. I.e., it isn’t the act which is empowering or noble, it’s the intent behind it. Whoring is just the only way she knows how to make money. What’s fascinating to me is how Lorraine Stanley takes the “hooker with a heart of gold” cliche and subverts it.
I despised Derek: he’s a coward and a bully who manipulates people into doing his bidding through a combination of angry bluster and rough charm. The opening scene with him talking a young woman into becoming a whore (presumably for the first time) by exploiting her vulnerability and attachment to him established my distaste for him and it never went away. He’s motivated first by greed, then by fear. There are times where he seems uncomfortable with what he’s doing, but he does it anyway. Kelly’s arc is about how she atones for her part in Joanne’s suffering; Derek’s is about how he never helps anyone but himself. But it’s a credit to Johnny Harris that even though I found Derek repugnant throughout, he never stopped being human, either, and pitiable in his own way - kinda like Gollum, actually.
Georgia Groome is probably the most impressive child actress I’ve seen since, say, Dakota Fanning. She shows just an amazing amount of range here: from numbness to bravado to childish delight to palpably intense fear. One scene she’s cursing and smoking like a sailor, another has her romping in the Brighton surf, another has her pleading for her life. There are plenty of Hollywood starlets who have been acting for longer than Georgia’s been alive who don’t even come close to her ability. Has she done anything noteworthy since?
I found Sam Spruell’s Stuart to be unnerving yet fascinating, which considering he spends like 90% of the film with an enigmatic, almost vacant expression and a quiet monotone is impressive. When he hamstrings Derek and threatens to kill him, he establishes his ability for casual, even nonchalant violence. Yet by the end we realize he’s more complicated than he seems. He came across to me as the brutal criminal with his own twisted sense of honor. He feels almost duty-bound to avenge his dad (“My father is dead. Someone has to pay for that.”), yet there isn’t a trace of love or affection for him. His father clearly has a sadistic streak towards kids: we know he was going to torture Joanne and that he forced Stuart to eat a cigarette pack as a kid; God only knows what else he put his boy through, but it couldn’t have been pleasant.
As for the final scene where Stuart forces Joanne to shoot Derek: my view is it’s his way of teaching Joanne a life lesson, something along the lines of “This is what we do to people who hurt us.” There may also be an element of projection and wish fulfillment on Stuart’s part; when he yells at her, “Stop it! Stop crying!” - the first time he displays any emotion - he might well be yelling at his own younger self. But Joanne, despite all she’s been through, is still basically an innocent child: she doesn’t want to kill Derek or even Stuart’s dad for what they’ve done; she just wants to get away and go to Grandma’s house. [Which gives the whole thing a twisted-fairy-tale vibe not unlike Running Scared, IMHO.]
And the ending isn’t a whole lot less bleak than the beginning. Yes, the ladies survived and Joanne is hopefully safe at her grandmother’s house; but Kelly is back out on the streets (with nothing to suggest she’ll turn her life around without Derek) and Joanne is almost certainly traumatized by what she’s been through.
So in conclusion, it’s an impressively well-done gritty crime drama which I will probably never be able to watch again and I’m not sure I’ll forgive Tom for recommending it so strongly anytime soon.
I have to admit I was sympathetic, or empathetic might be a better way of saying it, towarks Derek.
Sure he was scummy to the extreme, but dammit he was likable. I could see myself drinking a pint with him down at some pub, assuming I didn’t know he dealt in child prostitutes that is. Seeing him struggle with greed(the reason he got involved in this situation in the first place), fear(of losing his life, scummy as it is), and guilt(he obviously has pangs about what he’s gotten himself into) went a long way in making this movie work for me.
I mean, he isn’t Darth Vader. He isn’t evil personified. He doesn’t force anyone to do anything really. The first girl allows herself to be sweet talked into prostitution, Kelly chooses to find the young girl, Joanne chooses to take part- Derek is just the middleman. But much like Marcellus in Pulp Fiction, he finds out what kind of price you can pay for living and prospering amongst the scum of the Earth.
I wouldn’t say the movie was predictable really, until you get to the moment where Derek and his friend are handed the shovels. When Stuart smirked that she stabbed his dad two times… as if he was thinking, “That’s it?” is what sealed it for me. It was like his face said, “It only took two stabs to kill that son of a bitch?” Though I did have doubts just about how grim the film was willing to let itself be.
Still, this was a great thriller that is exceedingly well done, with powerful performances. Unfortunately I don’t really have anything to add that hasn’t already been said by someone else better.
That’s a pretty tortured explanation. I don’t think he’s really concerned about where or how Joanne will end up in relation to his business.
There may also be an element of projection and wish fulfillment on Stuart’s part…
I think this is mostly it, except for a bit of flair for storytelling purposes only. It feels right, even if we’re not sure why he’s doing it.
…when he yells at her, “Stop it! Stop crying!” - the first time he displays any emotion - he might well be yelling at his own younger self.
I think this goes more in the tortured section. He’s telling her to stop crying because he finds the whole thing so damn funny and he wants to savor the irony of his Dad’s death and how it mirrored the irony of that moment which defined not only his relationship with his father but everyone else’s too. Some little girl crying about it ruins his mood.
Unlike most of you I suppose, I found it hard to despise Derek… sure, he’s a deplorable pimp, but it’s what he does to get by. He doesn’t seem to be on a power trip or doing it for pleasure, on the contrary, he’s always stressed and squirming by the hard place he’s stuck in… merely making the money he needs to rent his shitty apartment, pay his accomplice, and stay in business. He’s not doing well by any means, having to borrow a gun, commenting on how lucky his friend was to won a nice flat. I didn’t like the guy, but I felt he was also a victim living a life of shame, just like the girls… he was just higher up the pyramid.
If you want a villain, it was definately the son of the rich man, who knew his father’s death was purely a result of his hiw own depravity, and yet still hunted down all parties and killed, of all people, the two middle men. Derek brings up a good point, “if I don’t find him a young girl, someone else will”… putting him in the dangerous position of knowing an unscrupulous powerful man’s needs who could want him silienced if he refuses to play ball. I especially didn’t think derek’s partner deserved to die. The only character who can actively decide to break the cycle of violence, who has true freedom of choice, is Stuart; and despite the fact he leaves the women alive, he seems to learn nothing, only that the rich and powerful can continue to get away with everyting and anything as long as they keep the oppressed afraid and desperate.
Derek is pretty much a perfect study in banal evil. He’s not trying to be a bad guy. He doesn’t particularly enjoy cozening women into a life of prostitution, or strongarming 11-year-old girls into a rich man’s bed, or killing those same little girls when they fight back. He doesn’t enjoy it, but he does it all the same, because each step in the chain just makes it easier for him to slide on to the next one.
Look at his justification for pimping out an 11-year-old in the first place: He isn’t scared that Allen will hurt him if he doesn’t do it. He’s scared that Allen will take his business elsewhere.
Derek is a sad, sordid little mess of a man. He’s an utterly pathetic excuse for a human being. And, yes, he’s sympathetic–but make no mistake, he’s probably the truest face of evil in the movie. Duncan Allen may be a sick fuck who gets off on raping little girls, and Stuart Allen may be an emotionally dead sociopath with not the slightest shred of empathy in his soul, but neither of them would be worth anything if it wasn’t for the silent support of an army of Dereks.
A question: Was Joanne really the one who killed Allen? The flashback when she was telling Stuart what happened showed Kelly holding the knife; I wasn’t sure if we were supposed to suspect Joanne was lying about who actually did the deed.
Joanne’s definitely the one holding the knife. Stuart’s dad knocked Kelly down and she was lying on the bed. Then Joanne stabbed him.
I guessed what was going to happen on the farm when Stuart’s driver ordered Derek to follow them. But I couldn’t help but feel a bit bad for the two of them as they were digging. I’m not sure why - they’re pretty despicable but I still kind of wanted them to live. I’m surprised they didn’t really suspect that they were digging their own graves.
Watching this during the week of Thanksgiving sure makes me feel pretty damn thankful that I don’t have to resort to what Derek and Kelly did to get by in life.
Yeah. Another great illustration of this is the way he’s introduced, easily slipping in and out of the… “You’re so beautiful, we have a future together” line to get that gal to sleep with his friends/customers. It’s a nearly robotic performance by the character of Derek, but she’s in such a terrible place she buys it. And just as easily, goes back to eating his cereal and watching TV. The way the director splits the screen with the corner there is excellent.
Of all the horrible things in that movie, for some reason that hit me the worst. Just completely broke my heart.
I don’t disagree with you on how reprehensible he is, but I do actually think there was more than profit to consider on this deal in his mind. It felt to me like he thought it was dangerous knowledge to have of an unscrupulous client who might not take kindly to being turned down, and considering how the story turns out, I think that’d be right.
Yeah, I think he was doing it because he was afraid of physical harm more than fear of losing business. He seemed a bit squeamish about it during the conversation with Kelly. But of course he still went through with it.
Yeah, I really don’t think it was about business at all - he didn’t seem to know Duncan except by reputation and clearly his usual line was not in underage prostitutes or he would have had one ready and waiting. He was trying to justify things to Kelly by pointing out that someone like Duncan would be able to get someone else to do it if he didn’t, and at least this way he gets paid / makes a positive impression rather than being in the unenviable position of refusing the bidding of someone that powerful.
Sure, it’s the wrong thing to do. But he abandoned doing the right thing a long time ago.
After seeing Tom rate London to Brighton higher than Bull in his recent thread, I decided I should start with the stronger recommendation. What a dark slice of social realism this is. I saw another film a while back about someone unwillingly forced into sex work that uses Brighton Beach as a brief reprieve from misery and poverty, Pawel Pawlikowski’s debut Last Resort, but this was more powerful thanks to the incredible performances and its fixation on the class divide. My favorite moment is when Derek, a desperate pimp with a sadistic streak that spends the movie in excruciating pain, is convincing a fancy lad to let him borrow his family’s shotgun. He quietly shares with his partner that he always loved the fancy flat their in, and wistfully calls the guy they’ve called on “a lucky cunt,” without it playing like conventional jealously or bitterness.
The actress who plays Kelly is the standout. One of the most unglamorous, brave performances I’ve seen. Thanks for highlighting the film, Tom!
I was so intrigued by your response that I started reading the original post. I approached the OP with trepidation because I didn’t want to accidentally spoil anything, and then I realized … I’d already seen this movie, discussed it in the thread, and totally forgot I’d seen it.