Tag Archives: Stephen Frears

My Beautiful Laundrette-1985

My Beautiful Laundrette-1985

Director Stephen Frears

Starring Gordon Warnecke, Daniel Day-Lewis

Scott’s Review #1,451

Reviewed November 10, 2024

Grade: A-

My Beautiful Laundrette (1985) is an early LGBTQ+-themed British film directed by Stephen Frears. He would later become well-known for directing The Queen (2006).

Though the film is choppy and contains several stories, the LGBTQ+ story is one of the few in the genre that represents a satisfying and hopeful ending. Later, and admittedly, more defined films, like Brokeback Mountain (2006) and Boy’s Don’t Cry (1999), were harsher and more realistic.

The British flavor, interracial pairing, and class differences make My Beautiful Laundrette a lovely watch. But, it’s also all over the place.

In a seedy corner of London, a young Pakistani, Omar (Gordon Warnecke), is given a run-down laundromat by his affluent uncle Nasser (Saeed Jaffrey), who hopes to turn it into a successful business.

Soon after, Omar is attacked by a group of racist punks but realizes their leader is his former lover, Johnny (Daniel Day-Lewis). The men resume their relationship and rehabilitate the laundromat together, but various social forces threaten to compromise their success.

Omar’s father is an unhappy former left-wing journalist, who has turned to alcohol. Nasser’s daughter, Tania, is meant to be Omar’s future bride, while Nasser is in love with his mistress, Rachel (Shirley Anne Field).

Besides these storylines, there is a complicated relationship between brothers Nasser and Hussein, and a drug smuggling storyline.

While every story has some intrigue and shapes the structure, the male romance is not front and center enough to be completely developed.

Omar and Johnny hold interest because despite differences they connect and are truly in love. Politically, Omar is left-wing, and Johnny is right. Omar is upper class while Johnny is working class. Omar is Pakistani while Johnny is British.

Being 1985 and early in the LGBTQ+ genre, Frears focuses mostly on their romance and less on their differences. There is a brief sequence where Omar treats Johnny as a lowly employee but for the most part, they are in love.

It takes a long time to showcase Omar and Johnny making My Beautiful Laundrette only marginally an LGBTQ+ effort.

There is no mention of the A.I.D.S. epidemic which would have made it a different kind of film.

The romance between Nasser and Rachel is marvelous. They are a couple the audience shouldn’t root for but do anyway. Rachel is the other woman, merely a mistress, but why is she so appealing? Why do Nasser and Rachel connect so well?

Shirley Anne Field pours kindness and empathy into her character while Saeed Jaffrey relays his love for Rachel to Nasser. Yes, he is married but the marriage is traditional and his wife is Pakistani. We know that at another time Nasser and Rachel would have a chance.

When Tania snaps at Rachel and accuses her of being a woman who so easily lives off a man, Rachel reminds her that she does too. Rachel is from a different generation where opportunities for women are scarce.

Field makes the scene her own and wins over the audience which could have been against her.

The Rachel/Nasser romance parallels the Omar/Johnny love story. Both couples live secret lives, hidden from the world and shrouded in secrecy.

This is evident in a powerful scene when the two couples are simultaneously romantic in the laundrette. Neither sees each other at first but the audience sees both couples. This mirrors their mutual love and it’s a beautiful sequence.

While sometimes there is too much to follow, most of the material is poignant and relevant making My Beautiful Laundrette (1985) a film to recommend.

It has an LGBTQ+ presence but is not restricted to that genre offering other nice stories to the experience.

It also leaves one feeling hopeful which is sometimes needed in cinema.

Oscar Nominations: Best Original Screenplay

The Queen-2006

The Queen-2006

Director Stephen Frears

Starring Helen Mirren, Michael Sheen

Scott’s Review #1,253

Reviewed May 8, 2022

Grade: A

Before the Netflix series, The Crown (2016-2023), loudly stomped into existence and took the world on a historical journey through the trials and tribulations of British royalty there was The Queen (2006).

Starring Helen Mirren, the film is a quiet telling of the life and times of Queen Elizabeth II, especially immediately after the death of Princess Diana and the conflict and contention that took place.

Ironically, The Crown was created and primarily written by Peter Morgan, who also wrote The Queen. He created The Crown because of The Queen so there is an instant correlation between the two brilliant projects and the handwriting is very similar.

Stephen Frears, who also directed Judi Dench to an Oscar nomination for Philomena (2013) is at the helm and won himself an Oscar nomination for directing as well as scoring a win for Mirren.

The Queen is a terrific film across the board and Mirren is phenomenal in her portrayal of the grand dame. She cleverly fuses stiffness and stoicism with subtle warmth and humanity few see from the queen, at least publicly.

Layers of complexity are provided to an already mysterious public figure.

Following the death of Princess Diana in a fiery auto accident, Great Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II (Mirren) and Prime Minister Tony Blair (Michael Sheen) struggled to reach a compromise on how the royal family should publicly respond to the tragedy.

The family’s need for privacy and the public’s demand for an outward show of mourning are in the balance. This causes mayhem and drama behind the sacred walls of Buckingham Palace.

The acting of Mirren and the direction are what make The Queen pure magic and a standout among the many royalty-themed films to emerge since the beginning of motion pictures.

First of all, Mirren looks like the part of Queen Elizabeth II and this goes way beyond wearing glasses and a sweater or having the same hairdo. She encompasses the role and this is no small feat.

The mannerisms, the speech patterns, and the lowkey attitude are the amazing nuances that the actress can somehow channel.

It feels more than Mirren dressing up like royalty and showing up scene after scene. She does something much more with the unspoken looks and inner workings of the queen that become apparent to the viewer.

Frears chooses to include many closeups of characters, mainly of Mirren, which only encircles what each character is thinking and pondering.

The film is very subdued with a lovely musical score adding texture and appeal to each frame. The inclusion of archival footage is powerful realism.

Merely nine years after the real-life death of the uber-popular Diana the event was still so fresh in the minds of viewers that releasing The Queen at this time was a stroke of genius.

It’s no secret that while Queen Elizabeth II is respected she is worlds away from wildly popular Diana and emits a coolness that baffles the public.

Thanks to Mirren, the public gets a glimpse into the heart and soul of a mysterious person and that’s a good feeling indeed.

However, Mirren couldn’t have delivered fully if not for the talents of Michael Sheen as Prime Minister Tony Blair. Generations apart and with differing views they spar and respect each other, slowly forging a friendship of sorts.

The Queen (2006) hardly needs bombs, bombast, or quick editing to get its point across, though speaking of editing, a fantastic job of it with family scenes of Diana.

The film lures the viewer into its web and makes them feel like an insider amongst the walls of royalty.

Oscar Nominations: 1 win-Best Picture, Best Director-Stephen Frears, Best Actress-Helen Mirren (won), Best Original Screenplay, Best Costume Design, Best Original Score

Florence Foster Jenkins-2016

Florence Foster Jenkins-2016

Director Stephen Frears

Starring Meryl Streep, Hugh Grant

Scott’s Review #613

Reviewed January 30, 2017

Grade: B

Director Stephen Frears loves to direct films starring vehicles for mature actresses. Judi Dench, Helen Mirren, and Meryl Streep have benefited vastly from his direction (all received Oscar nominations).

In Florence Foster Jenkins (2016), Frears crafts a warm-hearted tale about a famous real-life opera singer, the title character of whom is played by Meryl Streep.

The film is likable but not up to par with other Frears’ gems, specifically Philomena (2013) or The Queen (2006).

Given the subject matter, the film is too safe for my tastes and should have been darker.

Florence Foster Jenkins was a New York City socialite and heiress who flourished in 1944. She founded the Verdi Club and did a great deal of good for music, specifically opera, which she adored.

Her husband, Bayfield, played by Hugh Grant, nicknames her “Bunny.” He reveres her, but not physically—he resides elsewhere with a girlfriend.

This is due to Bunny being afflicted with long-term syphilis, causing her to be medicated and rendering her bald and unable to engage in sexual relations.

Bunny is a wretched, flat singer; despite her passion for singing, everyone convinces her how wonderful she is because she is so well-regarded in her social circle. Many people are paid off in exchange for their support.

Due to Bunny’s medication, it is assumed that she cannot hear properly, leaving her unaware of how badly she sings. Bunny is now determined to sing at Carnegie Hall, and Bayfield must scramble to make sure no critics are anywhere in sight for the big show, saving his wife from humiliation.

Any film starring Meryl Streep is assured to be fantastic from an acting standpoint, and, per usual, she does not disappoint. Streep envelopes the role of Bunny, giving her charm and a vulnerability that only Streep can do.

Although the character knows what she wants and is stubborn, she is also kind, and we see passion oozing from her pores.

Streep is the highlight and the draw of the film.

Hugh Grant deserves kudos, and I liked the chemistry between the two actors. Although seeking physical relations with another woman may make him appear a cad, Grant also gives Bayfield sensitivity and genuine care for his wife.

They have “an arrangement,” but he hides his girlfriend when Bunny shows up unexpectedly, not wanting Bunny to be embarrassed.

Grant’s and Streep’s scenes together are tender and believable.

Like Bunny’s pianist, McMoon, Simon Helberg also positively influences the film. Hired to accompany Bunny’s singing, he is initially appalled and bemused but finally understands Bunny, coming to love and respect her for who she is.

The character is clearly gay (the film never comes out and says this), but gay themes are common in Frears films, and it is a non-issue among the principal characters, excellent, but perhaps unrealistic for that time.

A flaw of the film is the lack of any purely great moments. I suppose the climax at Carnegie Hall should have been it, but I did not wholly buy the entire film.

Even the crowd’s laughter and mocking of Bunny seem to be done in a soft, light way.

Nonetheless, Florence Foster Jenkins (2016) is a decent offering, and Streep is the ultimate selling point.

The costumes are also great.

Oscar Nominations: Best Actress-Meryl Streep, Best Costume Design

The Grifters-1990

The Grifters-1990

Director Stephen Frears

Starring John Cusack, Anjelica Huston, Annette Bening

Scott’s Review #597

Reviewed January 9, 2017

Grade: B-

The Grifters (1990) is a film that has witty writing and an overall appeal. It is unique and quirky and is in the style of a charismatic film noir from one of the golden ages of film, the 1930s, and the 1940s.

Additionally, the film has a very sharp, clean look to it.

The performances, especially Anjelica Houston, are excellent. All three principles, (John Cusack and Annette Bening) give fantastic performances and feed off each other so that the chemistry works quite well.

Cusack plays a small-time crook named Roy Dillon, inept in ways, and estranged from his mother (Huston). When she returns to town, she along with his girlfriend (Bening), all attempt to con and outmaneuver each other for their gain.

The film is set in sunny Los Angeles.

As compelling as the film sounds on paper, I did not find myself completely captured by it. It took me a while to get into the film and by the time I finally did, it had ended.

Overall, well made, and respectable, and I can see how some people would love it, but for me, there remained something missing.

Oscar Nominations: Best Director-Stephen Frears, Best Actress-Anjelica Huston, Best Supporting Actress-Annette Bening, Best Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium

Independent Spirit Award Nominations: 2 wins-Best Feature (won), Best Female Lead-Anjelica Huston (won)

Philomena-2013

Philomena-2013

Director Stephen Frears

Starring Judi Dench, Steve Coogan

Scott’s Review #50

70293789

Reviewed June 20, 2014

Grade: A-

I am thrilled to see anything starring Judi Dench (although don’t get me started on my disdain of Shakespeare in Love from 1998).

I could listen to her read the phone book as she has that voice that soothes and makes one content.

Philomena (2013) is thankfully a starring role for Ms. Dench after supporting turns in the James Bond films as M.

She plays a woman in search of her son who was taken from her by the Catholic Church fifty years ago.

I respect a film that challenges an institution, especially if it is based on a true story.

In addition to her wonderful performance, the film is quite layered with a few twists and turns thrown in.

Dench’s self-titled character begins an adventure, along with an author talking into championing her cause, to find the whereabouts of her child.

It raises important questions about faith, religion, and the Catholic Church.

It will leave you pondering after the credits roll.

The main draw is Judi Dench who is so simplistic yet effective in her performances.

Well done.

Oscar Nominations: Best Picture, Best Actress-Judi Dench, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Score