(possible spoilers)
I agree with the above comments almost entirely with the small exception of the importance that the 80's political scene played as any kind of thematic backdrop for the story.
On the contrary, the WWII era, if anything, was to be the backdrop for the contemporary happenings within the plot.
I think the above commenter is reading too much into the mention of Nixon in the film and possibly projecting his/her own political leanings - obviously anti-Thatcher/Reagan - onto those of David Hare, the writer and director. In terms of Richard Nixon, who is mentioned in an anecdotal way at the outset of the story, Ian Holmes' character appears to sympathize with the former president when discussing a rumour about Richard and Pat's early courtship. And Venessa Redgrave's character admits things would "liven up" in their pub were the former president to suddenly appear. These are not the words of people suffering from "negative progression" as stated in the above comment.
The characters played by Redgrave, Holmes, Dench, not to mention the key character of John Morgan, are all in one way or another involved in academia. (though Holmes plays a barrister.) They live quite comfortably and somewhat happily - within the confines of the plot and theme of loneliness, and aloneness of course. Redgrave's country home would be an enviable house to live in by anyone's standards. To say that this is an environment of "Thatcher chaos", as the above commenter states, is quite off the mark, I feel. The story is about normal people, somewhat lonely, in the upper middle class regions of society living their lives, waxing philosophy and working at their jobs, when a young stranger (youth is an important aspect of the theme) appears and upsets their lives with his dramatic actions. This stranger's "behaviour" does not make them question their lives, nor does it need to. (They are all confident in their own beliefs and values.) It simply, as Redgrave hints in the pub, livens up the place. Breaks up the monotony. Changes the daily talk, the daily complaints to something a bit more meaningful.
It is a common misconception to interpret films as a 100% reflection of the political climate of the time. This mistake has been repeated throughout the history of film criticism. One good example is the much repeated "red scare" explanation to Don Segal's Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Segal himself, claims the comparison is nonsense, and he was simply making a thriller. A scary monster movie with no monsters.
Overall, Wetherby is an excellent film with noteworthy performances by the cast. Stuart Wilson, particularly stands out among them. So, as I've stated, I think the above commenter made an almost perfect review of the film aside from the perceived importance of the political background at the time of shooting. Politics, like it or not, isn't always at the source.
I agree with the above comments almost entirely with the small exception of the importance that the 80's political scene played as any kind of thematic backdrop for the story.
On the contrary, the WWII era, if anything, was to be the backdrop for the contemporary happenings within the plot.
I think the above commenter is reading too much into the mention of Nixon in the film and possibly projecting his/her own political leanings - obviously anti-Thatcher/Reagan - onto those of David Hare, the writer and director. In terms of Richard Nixon, who is mentioned in an anecdotal way at the outset of the story, Ian Holmes' character appears to sympathize with the former president when discussing a rumour about Richard and Pat's early courtship. And Venessa Redgrave's character admits things would "liven up" in their pub were the former president to suddenly appear. These are not the words of people suffering from "negative progression" as stated in the above comment.
The characters played by Redgrave, Holmes, Dench, not to mention the key character of John Morgan, are all in one way or another involved in academia. (though Holmes plays a barrister.) They live quite comfortably and somewhat happily - within the confines of the plot and theme of loneliness, and aloneness of course. Redgrave's country home would be an enviable house to live in by anyone's standards. To say that this is an environment of "Thatcher chaos", as the above commenter states, is quite off the mark, I feel. The story is about normal people, somewhat lonely, in the upper middle class regions of society living their lives, waxing philosophy and working at their jobs, when a young stranger (youth is an important aspect of the theme) appears and upsets their lives with his dramatic actions. This stranger's "behaviour" does not make them question their lives, nor does it need to. (They are all confident in their own beliefs and values.) It simply, as Redgrave hints in the pub, livens up the place. Breaks up the monotony. Changes the daily talk, the daily complaints to something a bit more meaningful.
It is a common misconception to interpret films as a 100% reflection of the political climate of the time. This mistake has been repeated throughout the history of film criticism. One good example is the much repeated "red scare" explanation to Don Segal's Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Segal himself, claims the comparison is nonsense, and he was simply making a thriller. A scary monster movie with no monsters.
Overall, Wetherby is an excellent film with noteworthy performances by the cast. Stuart Wilson, particularly stands out among them. So, as I've stated, I think the above commenter made an almost perfect review of the film aside from the perceived importance of the political background at the time of shooting. Politics, like it or not, isn't always at the source.