April 4, 2024
FILM: WICKED LITTLE LETTERS
DIRECTED BY: THEA SHARROCK
STARRING: OLIVIA COLMAN, JESSIE BUCKLEY, TIMOTHY SPALL
RATING: 3 out of 4 stars
By Dan Pal
Wicked Little Letters arrives for a theatrical release at a curious time. It has the actors, production design, and cinematography that might lend itself to Oscar season but since that won’t happen again for many months again the film should have something else going for it. For quite a bit of it, the narrative does develop some rich details…until the plot gets a bit fuddled in the second half.
Right from the start, the exquisite production design by Cristina Casali, which is beautifully captured by cinematographer Ben Davis, brings us back to England in 1920. The setting is a small village where everyone seems to be involved in everyone else’s business and the texture of the neighborhood is palpable, from the small flats connected by thin walls to the somewhat ragged clothes worn by some of the locals. Edith Swan, played by Oscar winner Olivia Colman, lives with her father Edward (Timothy Spall) and mother Victoria (Gemma Jones.) She comes across as a conservative woman who people refer to as a spinster since she’s never been married and is regularly told to read the Bible by her father. Next door lives Rose Gooding, played by Jessie Buckley, who lives with her young daughter and boyfriend Bill. Rose’s mouth is full of food and profanities. Late at night her sexual escapades shake the cross that is center in the Swan’s bedroom thus keeping them awake and full of disgust.
We also learn that Edith has been receiving letters containing foul and targeted language. Rather quickly it is Rose who is accused of sending Edith those letters. She is then hauled away to jail. But, is she really guilty?
The film’s tone is pretty humorous and is filled with actors (Eileen Atkins, Lolly Adefote, Joanna Scanlan) that are often associated with comedic roles in various British film and television shows. Yet, the narrative does attempt to go somewhere deeper. Given the setting of 1920 and a newspaper reference to the suffragette movement of the time, it becomes pretty clear that this is a film about the changing role of women from the buttoned up Victorian era to the loose flappers of the early 20th Century.
Rose is considered evil in part because of the language she uses and her very carefree attitudes toward life. Does that mean she is guilty of the crime? Does a woman have to live at home and read the Bible to be considered innocent? The film also seems to be exploring these new roles for women through a police officer who is often referred to as a “woman police officer.” Rose points out that it’s obvious she’s a woman. Why must her sex be mentioned?
The film is filled with interesting dichotomies such as profanity vs. Christianity, progressiveness vs. traditionalism, and a woman’s freedom of expression vs. submission. All of this is pretty well-explored. What unhinges the well-meaning narrative is the motivation behind why the letters are being written and what purpose they serve. Without giving anything away, there is a certain logic to why one might write such letters but what isn’t clear is why Rose becomes the target. Apparently, the screenplay is based on a true story which provides a bit more clarity as to this motivation but that is stripped away in the film. As such, the later scenes feel a bit more convoluted than logically based.
Still, it’s great to see these actors, especially Buckley really diving into their roles. Were the more substantive aspects of the screenplay a bit more pronounced perhaps we would have been talking Oscars. Instead, I think this will be a fairly entertaining romp for viewers with a few good ideas sprinkled throughout it’s relatively fast-moving one hundred-minute running time.
Wicked Little Letters opens wide theatrically this week.
FILM: WICKED LITTLE LETTERS
DIRECTED BY: THEA SHARROCK
STARRING: OLIVIA COLMAN, JESSIE BUCKLEY, TIMOTHY SPALL
RATING: 3 out of 4 stars
By Dan Pal
Wicked Little Letters arrives for a theatrical release at a curious time. It has the actors, production design, and cinematography that might lend itself to Oscar season but since that won’t happen again for many months again the film should have something else going for it. For quite a bit of it, the narrative does develop some rich details…until the plot gets a bit fuddled in the second half.
Right from the start, the exquisite production design by Cristina Casali, which is beautifully captured by cinematographer Ben Davis, brings us back to England in 1920. The setting is a small village where everyone seems to be involved in everyone else’s business and the texture of the neighborhood is palpable, from the small flats connected by thin walls to the somewhat ragged clothes worn by some of the locals. Edith Swan, played by Oscar winner Olivia Colman, lives with her father Edward (Timothy Spall) and mother Victoria (Gemma Jones.) She comes across as a conservative woman who people refer to as a spinster since she’s never been married and is regularly told to read the Bible by her father. Next door lives Rose Gooding, played by Jessie Buckley, who lives with her young daughter and boyfriend Bill. Rose’s mouth is full of food and profanities. Late at night her sexual escapades shake the cross that is center in the Swan’s bedroom thus keeping them awake and full of disgust.
We also learn that Edith has been receiving letters containing foul and targeted language. Rather quickly it is Rose who is accused of sending Edith those letters. She is then hauled away to jail. But, is she really guilty?
The film’s tone is pretty humorous and is filled with actors (Eileen Atkins, Lolly Adefote, Joanna Scanlan) that are often associated with comedic roles in various British film and television shows. Yet, the narrative does attempt to go somewhere deeper. Given the setting of 1920 and a newspaper reference to the suffragette movement of the time, it becomes pretty clear that this is a film about the changing role of women from the buttoned up Victorian era to the loose flappers of the early 20th Century.
Rose is considered evil in part because of the language she uses and her very carefree attitudes toward life. Does that mean she is guilty of the crime? Does a woman have to live at home and read the Bible to be considered innocent? The film also seems to be exploring these new roles for women through a police officer who is often referred to as a “woman police officer.” Rose points out that it’s obvious she’s a woman. Why must her sex be mentioned?
The film is filled with interesting dichotomies such as profanity vs. Christianity, progressiveness vs. traditionalism, and a woman’s freedom of expression vs. submission. All of this is pretty well-explored. What unhinges the well-meaning narrative is the motivation behind why the letters are being written and what purpose they serve. Without giving anything away, there is a certain logic to why one might write such letters but what isn’t clear is why Rose becomes the target. Apparently, the screenplay is based on a true story which provides a bit more clarity as to this motivation but that is stripped away in the film. As such, the later scenes feel a bit more convoluted than logically based.
Still, it’s great to see these actors, especially Buckley really diving into their roles. Were the more substantive aspects of the screenplay a bit more pronounced perhaps we would have been talking Oscars. Instead, I think this will be a fairly entertaining romp for viewers with a few good ideas sprinkled throughout it’s relatively fast-moving one hundred-minute running time.
Wicked Little Letters opens wide theatrically this week.