Nepotism isn't always a bad thing. Jim Loach (Ken's son) continues in his father's footsteps by showing us a warts-and-all Britain. In this, his debut feature, he recreates the story of Margaret Humphreys, a Nottingham Social Worker, who in the 1980s uncovered the abuse of thousands of British children before and after the Great Wars.
So that Britain could save money, and eschew its responsibility, as many as 130,000 'degenerate' (institutionalised) children were forced to migrate to Australia and other colonies, where they were promised they'd have 'oranges and sunshine'. Instead they were foully mistreated by members of the Christian Brothers and other institutions. They were the 'lost children of the empire'.
With such an emotive story I'm not sure why I wasn't more moved. The acting is appropriately controlled, particularly Hugo Weaving's depressive orphan. And Emily Watson affects a confidential, assertive tone for her evangelical Social Worker.
Rather than admit to a cold-hearted detachment on my part, I'm suggesting that Loach's subdued style doesn't grab our attention. The tragedy of these children was uncovered years ago; there's no fresh reason to remind us. No recent occurrence has prompted the re-unearthing, and because of this I, sadly, almost didn't care. I wonder, though, if that's the point. No aspect of this story is entertaining and so the film shouldn't be.
Could it have been better as a T.V. drama? Were too many orphans interviewed? Aren't religious extremists too easy a target to be censured? What possessed Humphreys – possesses her still – to forsake her family and ruin her own mental health to help repatriate people she will never know? My guess is that Loach's reason to dramatise this abuse is to remind us how dangerous forgiveness is. When we forgive, we forget. Loach insists we remember.
It's a noble first effort, and it's clearly too early to label Jim Loach. One thing is clear: he's a dogged truth-seeker, just like his old man. I would add that the censors have yet again mis-certified. I caught only one swear word and one straightforward – gratuitous, really – love scene. These things in or out, the film should have been (in Britain) a 12A.
www.scottishreview.net
So that Britain could save money, and eschew its responsibility, as many as 130,000 'degenerate' (institutionalised) children were forced to migrate to Australia and other colonies, where they were promised they'd have 'oranges and sunshine'. Instead they were foully mistreated by members of the Christian Brothers and other institutions. They were the 'lost children of the empire'.
With such an emotive story I'm not sure why I wasn't more moved. The acting is appropriately controlled, particularly Hugo Weaving's depressive orphan. And Emily Watson affects a confidential, assertive tone for her evangelical Social Worker.
Rather than admit to a cold-hearted detachment on my part, I'm suggesting that Loach's subdued style doesn't grab our attention. The tragedy of these children was uncovered years ago; there's no fresh reason to remind us. No recent occurrence has prompted the re-unearthing, and because of this I, sadly, almost didn't care. I wonder, though, if that's the point. No aspect of this story is entertaining and so the film shouldn't be.
Could it have been better as a T.V. drama? Were too many orphans interviewed? Aren't religious extremists too easy a target to be censured? What possessed Humphreys – possesses her still – to forsake her family and ruin her own mental health to help repatriate people she will never know? My guess is that Loach's reason to dramatise this abuse is to remind us how dangerous forgiveness is. When we forgive, we forget. Loach insists we remember.
It's a noble first effort, and it's clearly too early to label Jim Loach. One thing is clear: he's a dogged truth-seeker, just like his old man. I would add that the censors have yet again mis-certified. I caught only one swear word and one straightforward – gratuitous, really – love scene. These things in or out, the film should have been (in Britain) a 12A.
www.scottishreview.net