by Miguel E. Rodriguez
DIRECTOR: Peter Hall
CAST: Paul Rogers, Ian Holm, Cyril Cusack, Viven Merchant
MY RATING: 7/10
ROTTEN TOMATOMETER: 86% Fresh
PLOT: After a nine-year absence, a philosophy professor visits his psychologically dysfunctional family in London to introduce them to his wife. Let the mind games begin.
[WARNING: This review contains mild spoilers. …not that a ton of people will run out to find this movie right away, but still…just in case…mild spoilers.]
There have been countless movies about dysfunctional families through the ages, so many that I won’t bother listing any. I haven’t watched them all because there is only so much psychic room in my mind for movies about mean people being mean to each other for the sake of being mean. There are exceptions to the rule, as always, but that is my general feeling on the matter. Peter Hall’s The Homecoming, based on a blistering play by Harold Pinter, has an ending that I’m still trying to sort out, and which I felt left me hanging, but I think I may see what Pinter was reaching for, and in order to suss all that out, it will be necessary for me to discuss specifics of that ending. So, be warned.
In the tradition of Arthur Miller, Edward Albee, and Tennessee Willaims, Pinter’s The Homecoming is a portrait of several unlikable people who are thrown together due to an accident of birth. Based on the movie, it is unlikely any of them would cross the street to piss on any of the others if they were on fire. Max (Paul Rogers) is the patriarch, a mean, abusive little man who spews never-ending insults at whomever is in range. He is a widower with three sons: Lenny (Ian Holm), Joey, and Teddy. Lenny and Joey are grown but still live at home. Joey is an aspiring boxer, and Lenny…well, we never quite get to know what Lenny does for money, although it is hinted towards the end that he is involved in some less-than-savory enterprises. Teddy, miraculously, has made good as a professor of philosophy in the United States, but he hasn’t been home in nine years.
There is also Max’s brother, Sam (Cyril Cusack), a tall, effete man with a high, reedy voice that would probably be comic in different circumstances. Sam absorbs Max’s tirades with the kind of unruffled calm that only comes after years of experience. Together, they form one of the most unpleasant family units since Jaime and Cersei in Game of Thrones. Here’s one of Max’s more pleasant descriptions of his sons: “Look what I’m lumbered with. One cast-iron bunch of crap after another. One flow of stinking pus after another.” How is this guy still single.
One night, they’re surprised by the return of Teddy, the philosophy professor, with his wife, Ruth (Vivien Merchant) in tow. It’s indicative of Teddy’s relationship with his family that none of them knew he had been married for nine years…with three sons of his own. After some quote-unquote pleasantries, everyone goes to bed except Ruth and Lenny. Lenny has the balls to slyly put some moves on her in a weird-ass game of cat and mouse, as if he’s probing her for weaknesses, looking for the best place to stick the knife in. Ruth is passive at first, but shows a spark of strength before everyone calls it a night. But the next day…that’s when the feces really hits the fan.
The Homecoming is a great example of a “slow burn” film, the kind of movie that takes its sweet time getting around to its prime directive because it only makes sense because of everything that came before, like Atonement [2007] or Incendies [2010]. We are shown so much of Max’s vitriolic harangues because we have to see how momentous it is when his brother or Ruth finally respond in a meaningful way. We are shown so little of what Ruth is capable of at the beginning because it is that much more shocking when she proves herself even more adept at psychological warfare than anyone else in the house, including her husband.
But what is the point of all this? In a movie like In the Company of Men [1997], for example, we spend so much time in the presence of sociopathic monsters so that, at the end, one of them can be shown the error of his ways in an immensely satisfying conclusion. But, in The Homecoming, we don’t really get that kind of wallop in the face at the end. Granted, Ruth displays her tenacity in a satisfying manner, putting each and every man in the house in their place in one way or another (some ways more surprising than others), but when that final shot faded to black, I was like, “That’s IT?”
What is Pinter getting at? Is he demonstrating that, no matter how bad you may think your family is, it could always be worse? Did he perhaps exorcise some demons in his own past by committing these flawed individuals to paper? The film is based on a play, but the acting style throughout is very stilted, for lack of a better word. The only character who displays something vibrant on the screen is Max, but his vibrancy is only defined by his cruelty. Everyone else (with the possible exception of Ian Holm as Lenny) sounds almost as if they’re reciting their lines at the first read-through of the rehearsal period. Cyril Cusack gets some jabs in as Sam, but they’re very few and far between. Why does the meanest character have the strongest voice, at least until the final sequence?
It might be easy to explain it as a Whiplash [2014] thing, where great things can only be accomplished after even greater trials and tribulations. You can’t appreciate the light unless you’ve spent some time in the dark, et cetera. As a movie-watching experience, I must honestly report that my patience was starting to wear thin until we finally got to the second act of the film. I would have enjoyed more color and flair from the other actors. However, that might have ruined the effect the filmmakers were going for, so I’m of two minds. It explains my only slightly-above-average rating. If the entire movie moved and sparkled like its second half, I may have gone a little higher.
It’s also worth mentioning that this film only exists because of a filmmaking project spearheaded by producer Ely Landau whereby fans of stage drama would purchase a subscription to a “season” of films that would be shown simultaneously at 500 movie theaters across America, sort of like what Fathom Events does today. These were filmed adaptations of stage plays, not a record of a staged production, and 100% faithful to the original scripts. Notable films in this experiment included The Homecoming, Eugene O’Neill’s The Iceman Cometh [1973, dir. John Frankenheimer], Ionesco’s Rhinoceros [1973, dir. Tom O’Horgan], and Albee’s A Delicate Balance [1973, dir. Tony Richardson and starring Katharine Hepburn and Paul Scofield <!!!>]. American Film Theatre only lasted two seasons, but if you’re a fan of faithful cinematic adaptations of stage plays, these are going to be worth the search on streaming or home video.
The Homecoming is ultimately a rewarding watch, for the performances from Paul Rogers and Ian Holm, if for nothing else. (Vivien Merchant is appropriately cool, but again, you have to wait for near the end of the film to see her really shine.) It’s an interesting record of a moment in film history when a group of people had a radical idea and the money to fund it. And, it must be said, it’s an excellent way to remind yourself that, however bad your family is, it can always be worse. MUCH worse.
2 UNPAID MOVIE CRITICS!!!! 