"A Month in the Country" stars two young men who were to become perhaps the two finest British male actors of their generation. It was Kenneth Branagh's first cinema film and the first leading role for Colin Firth. And yet, despite its stellar cast- Natasha Richardson also features- it was largely neglected after its cinema release 1987. Indeed, in the early 2000s it was even feared that it might have become a "lost film" until an original 35 mm print was discovered in the possession of it American distributors, Warner Bros. The film was produced by the British television station Channel 4, and was originally intended as a made-for-TV movie, although it eventually became a cinematic feature.
During the Middle Ages, the walls of most English parish churches were covered with brightly coloured murals depicting Bible stories or other religious themes; they served to instruct a largely illiterate populace in the rudiments of the Christian faith. Most of these were destroyed by zealous Protestant iconoclasts during either the Reformation or the Civil War, but a few survived, often protected by a coat of whitewash. I have often wondered if those who did this did so because covering up the offending images was cheaper and simpler than totally destroying them, or because they hoped that the offending images might be rediscovered in some later age. This, of course, did happen, generally when the church was being restored in the 19th or early 20th century.
The action of the film takes place during the summer of 1920 and concerns the restoration of just such a pre-Reformation wall painting. Tom Birkin, a World War I veteran, arrives in the Yorkshire village of Oxgodby to restore a recently discovered mural in the local church. The vicar, in fact, is not keen to see the painting restored, believing that it will prove a distraction to his congregation. The Puritan ethos of plainness and simplicity did not die with Oliver Cromwell, but survived within the Low Church wing of Anglicanism well into the 20th century. The vicar, however, has little choice in the matter; a wealthy parishioner has recently died leaving a substantial bequest to the church on condition that the restoration is carried out. In the course of his work Birkin befriends James Moon, another war veteran, who is carrying out an archaeological dig in the churchyard. Another important theme in the film is the growing emotional attachment between Birkin and Alice, the vicar's attractive and much younger wife.
I have not read the original novel by J. L. Carr upon which the film is based, but I suspect that this is one of those stories which works better on the printed page than it does on screen. There are some good things about the film. There is an excellent performance from Firth as Birkin, a man who has been traumatised by his wartime experiences and has become shy and nervous, speaking with a stammer. (In this respect the role can be seen as foreshadowing Firth's much later Oscar-winning performance in "The King's Speech"). As the film progresses however, Birkin recovers his self-confidence, possibly as a result of the realisation that he is doing excellent work on the restoration, and his tic and stammer disappear. There is also a good musical score from Howard Blake and some fine photography of the English countryside, partly in Yorkshire but also in Buckinghamshire. (St. Mary's, Radnage, was used as the church in the film).
I was largely attracted to the film because of my lifelong passion for church architecture, but despite this, and despite the positive features set out in the previous paragraph, I would not count it as a favourite of mine. Too often I found myself in agreement with the critic of the "Financial Times" who called it "a pastoral parable that has been left outside in the damp too long, causing its batteries to go flat". The narrative is meandering and slow-moving, and I could not see what point it was trying to make. One character alleges at one point that Moon spent the latter part of the war in a military prison for having a homosexual relationship with another soldier. This could have made an interesting subject for a film in its own right, but no real effort is made to explore it, and we never even discover if this is the truth or a piece of malicious gossip.
The composer Blake described the film as having "a serious anti-war theme", but this never really came across. We see very little of Birkin's experiences in the war, and nothing of Moon's, and there is no discussion of the reasons why the war was being fought. Today the idea that World War I was a tragic mistake has become such a commonplace that we forget that most people in Britain actively supported the war effort, and any film or work of literature set during the period that wants to be considered a serious anti-war statement needs to address the question of whether they were right to do so. A story like this one could indeed have made for a very good movie; that the film never really achieves this status must count as a wasted opportunity. 6/10
During the Middle Ages, the walls of most English parish churches were covered with brightly coloured murals depicting Bible stories or other religious themes; they served to instruct a largely illiterate populace in the rudiments of the Christian faith. Most of these were destroyed by zealous Protestant iconoclasts during either the Reformation or the Civil War, but a few survived, often protected by a coat of whitewash. I have often wondered if those who did this did so because covering up the offending images was cheaper and simpler than totally destroying them, or because they hoped that the offending images might be rediscovered in some later age. This, of course, did happen, generally when the church was being restored in the 19th or early 20th century.
The action of the film takes place during the summer of 1920 and concerns the restoration of just such a pre-Reformation wall painting. Tom Birkin, a World War I veteran, arrives in the Yorkshire village of Oxgodby to restore a recently discovered mural in the local church. The vicar, in fact, is not keen to see the painting restored, believing that it will prove a distraction to his congregation. The Puritan ethos of plainness and simplicity did not die with Oliver Cromwell, but survived within the Low Church wing of Anglicanism well into the 20th century. The vicar, however, has little choice in the matter; a wealthy parishioner has recently died leaving a substantial bequest to the church on condition that the restoration is carried out. In the course of his work Birkin befriends James Moon, another war veteran, who is carrying out an archaeological dig in the churchyard. Another important theme in the film is the growing emotional attachment between Birkin and Alice, the vicar's attractive and much younger wife.
I have not read the original novel by J. L. Carr upon which the film is based, but I suspect that this is one of those stories which works better on the printed page than it does on screen. There are some good things about the film. There is an excellent performance from Firth as Birkin, a man who has been traumatised by his wartime experiences and has become shy and nervous, speaking with a stammer. (In this respect the role can be seen as foreshadowing Firth's much later Oscar-winning performance in "The King's Speech"). As the film progresses however, Birkin recovers his self-confidence, possibly as a result of the realisation that he is doing excellent work on the restoration, and his tic and stammer disappear. There is also a good musical score from Howard Blake and some fine photography of the English countryside, partly in Yorkshire but also in Buckinghamshire. (St. Mary's, Radnage, was used as the church in the film).
I was largely attracted to the film because of my lifelong passion for church architecture, but despite this, and despite the positive features set out in the previous paragraph, I would not count it as a favourite of mine. Too often I found myself in agreement with the critic of the "Financial Times" who called it "a pastoral parable that has been left outside in the damp too long, causing its batteries to go flat". The narrative is meandering and slow-moving, and I could not see what point it was trying to make. One character alleges at one point that Moon spent the latter part of the war in a military prison for having a homosexual relationship with another soldier. This could have made an interesting subject for a film in its own right, but no real effort is made to explore it, and we never even discover if this is the truth or a piece of malicious gossip.
The composer Blake described the film as having "a serious anti-war theme", but this never really came across. We see very little of Birkin's experiences in the war, and nothing of Moon's, and there is no discussion of the reasons why the war was being fought. Today the idea that World War I was a tragic mistake has become such a commonplace that we forget that most people in Britain actively supported the war effort, and any film or work of literature set during the period that wants to be considered a serious anti-war statement needs to address the question of whether they were right to do so. A story like this one could indeed have made for a very good movie; that the film never really achieves this status must count as a wasted opportunity. 6/10