Ryan McNeil
Some people of faith believe that we are all worth more than our worst mistake. They believe that the path to paradise is not only walked by those seeking redemption for their sins, but by those willing to grant them clemency. Unfortunately, not every person of faith believes that. Some believe the word of God to be absolute, and that those who dare cross it are to be severely punished. How a person of faith lives between these opposing viewpoints is what ultimately shapes them as a mortal soul…and it’s what ultimately shapes Stephen Frears’ new film, PHILOMENA.
This film is the story of Philomena Lee (Judi Dench). When we first meet her, she is 18 years old. After a tryst with a handsome boy at a carnival, Philomena gets pregnant. With few options before her, Philomena turns to a convent for help, which takes her in as an indentured servant. There she gives birth to her son – Anthony – a childbirth both mother and child are lucky to survive since she is given no painkillers, and he arrives into this world breach.
After the birth, Philomena works in the convent laundry, looking to repay her debt. However, her convent is also an orphanage, and as it happens, her son is one day put up for adoption right out from under her.
Fifty years later, Philomena’s daughter approaches a man at a party. The man is a recently sacked government advisor (and former journalist) named Martin Sixsmith (Steve Coogan). Philomena’s daughter tells Sixsmith the story, inquiring as to whether he’d be interested in covering the story and helping her mother find the long-lost child. At first, Sixsmith is hesitant, claiming that it’s not the sort of journalism he does. In short order though, Sixsmith relents. He’s been adrift since getting canned, and this might be the sort of project that will allow him to move forward.
When Sixsmith and Philomena pick up the trail, it starts at the convent where she worked and her son was given up. Where it leads, neither one of them could predict: to America, where her son’s adoptive parents took him, and where he ultimately lived out his life.
At the heart of PHILOMENA is a story of faith and forgiveness.
As a Catholic, Philomena has always had faith that God and her church will show her the way. Whether in times of trouble or in times of tranquility, she has remained a loyal member of the flock. When one looks at what she went through, it’s hard to understand why she holds tight to her faith. Now, the women of the church did take her in when she was an unwed pregnant teen and had nowhere to turn. In that respect, they embody the sort of charity that Christianity is supposed to embody. For all we know, that one moment might have given her enough to hold on to for the rest of her life. Or perhaps she held on to it out of habit.
After all, it was a church institution who put her life in jeopardy during childbirth, and it was a church institution that then took her child away from her. She doesn’t seem to have clung to any sort of anger all those years, and whatever anger she has held on to now seems to manifest as sadness. That’s not the sort of emotion that faith is supposed to stir in a person. She may not be like Sixsmith and be ready to let her faith lapse, but considering what she’s already gone through and the truth Sixsmith underlines, one has to wonder what it is about her faith that offers her any guidance.
However, perhaps something she has learned through her faith is what grants her the ability to forgive.
Repeatedly through the film, Sixsmith and Philomina find themselves in situations that get Sixsmith hot under the collar. He has a more cynical view of things, and seems quicker to judge. He reads the situations the way that many of us would – as grossly unfair, and deeply tragic. However, Philomina is continually able to quietly take a breath, absorb the blow, and move forward. Perhaps that’s because she is the sort of religious follower that has come to understand the grace inherent in a religion. What’s more, that might be what ultimately allows her to forgive herself – even though the loss of her child really wasn’t her fault.
There’s a complexity to the way Dench plays Philomena that carries this film. The character needs to exist in a sweet spot between sharp and simple; a woman who acts like a sweet fuddy-duddy at times but is acutely aware of the circumstances surrounding her. Dench does that well. We believe that she is the sort who would get into long conversations with every stranger she encounters, but also that she is intuitive enough to understand the emerging details about who her son was. She plays it all with a wry grin and a twinkle in her eye, elevating the entire film in the process.
By the time the dust settles on this sad and twisted tale, it’s clear that Philomena’s faith is what carries her through her life. Her dedication to living life as a kind and warm person brings her comfort when faced with her weakest moments. It allows her strength when put in conflict with non-believers, and instills her with grace as she is confronted with all sorts of unexpected news about her child.
There have been far too many people throughout history who have done terrible things in the name of their God. Perhaps if history was filled with more people like Philomena, this world would be much better off.
…and yet you gave it 3*… ??!!
Why no more? To put it bluntly, I adored the film. I haven’t cried so much in a cinema for a long, long time. The story – “grossly unfair, and deeply tragic” – is one thing. But such love. From both parties, and Sixsmith remains an observer as we are. Victims of a society that doesn’t support them.
Good review and interesting insight into the characters motivations and emotions but a break down of why you weren’t personally as moved (as me?). Why not the top rating …?
This isn’t the first time you’ve gotten your knickers in a twist over the amount of stars I assign to a film.
For starters, going on about where a film makes mistakes isn’t my style. Beyond how easily such practice can turn into nitpicking, I find that there are more than enough other places on the internet that spend too much time complaining about what bothered them in a film. Even when I feel a film is just “okay”, I’d rather spur the conversation on why it spoke to me than harp on how it didn’t speak to me more.
Which is part of how Philomena pulls in a 3.
Everything about it is good: good acting, good writing, good directing, good production…goodness all around. Nothing about it touched me in the way it touched you, nothing about it rang true with me the way it did with you. At times, it felt like a film I’ve seen before, or even one I’ll see again. I enjoyed every moment of it while it was happening, but it didn’t stick with me on the walk home the way many other films do.
So while there isn’t a hard formula to how I rate films, that might be the best way that I can explain it:
A 3-star film is good, one I’d recommend without hesitation.
A 3.5-star film excited me in some way, and gave me things to mull over and/or delight in
A 4-star film elevated to something truly special – the way Philomena did for you. Some of my 4-star ratings are the same as many other critics, some are just mine.
I get why you loved it; I only liked it.
I’m just using the rating, in the same way as you, to summarise my point. It seemed from your review that you had lots of thoughts, ideas and insights from the film – which is great! I just found it strange reading all of it and not getting a sense of where the 3 came from. You response here is more enlightening, but I didn’t get a sense in the review that all you thought was a 3. You know that I don’t like stars – but thats because the review itself should indicate where you stand. My point is that I didn’t get a sense of where you stood on the film in the review itself. Thats not to say its badly written of course – because you could write an analysis of a film; you could expand on something but highlight it isn’t a review and more a… thought-piece. Alternatively, it could be an informative piece about the production. Of course, you can mix and match too – bit of background, leading to your review, and a short analysis. I thought this was a review and therefore your opinion and whether you liked it is integral and, like I said, I didn’t feel that. Maybe its just me.
Ever wonder why I moved the rating from the headline to the bottom of the post?
Thought this was a really fantastic film and loved how they let you decided whom to side with, either Philomena or Sixsmith. Top performances too from Coogan and Dame Judi. Nice review mate.
With both of you championing the film more than I, I’m beginning to wonder if this is a “Brit Thing”.
I see your point though, the situation could spur a person to react like either one of the two main characters – and both of their reactions are valid.