tieman64 Set in 1912 and based on an actual event, David Mamet's "The Winslow Boy" is the story of an upper-class family whose 13 year-old son (Ronnie Winslow- a naval college cadet) is accused of stealing and cashing a five shilling postal order.Expelled from school, Ronnie returns home terrified of his father's reaction. But Arthur Winslow (superbly played by Nigel Hawthorne) isn't angry. Instead, he believes his boy to have been wrongly accused. And so with the help of his suffragette daughter (Catherine) and esteemed attorney Sir Robert Morton, Arthur sets out to clear his son's name.What follows is a beautifully written legal drama. But unlike "The Verdict" (also written by Mamet), there are no courtroom scenes here. No tense battles between lawyers or nail biting cross examinations, Mamet film revoking the usual legal maneuvers and opting instead to explore a family's determination to retain its dignity.But how can they remain dignified when their case becomes a nationwide news story? How can they remain dignified when their steadfast belief in their son is mocked by journalists and newspapers? How can they remain dignified when the British Parliament argues the case in the House of Lords? How can they remain dignified when the family suffers financial loss, much self-doubt, media scrutiny and even the break-off of Catherine's engagement to a status-sensitive snob (Aden Gillett)?"A fine old rumpus," the maid calls it all. And indeed it is. As Arthur's health deteriorates, his steadfast wife demands to know why he's sacrificing the family's well-being. "For justice!" he says. "Are you sure it's not pride and self-importance?" she counters.Of course, this being a David Mamet film - all Mamet's films are con games - "The Winslow Boy" is also a film about misdirection. On the surface, we're asked to wonder whether or not the Winslow Boy is really guilty, whilst below the surface, Mamet works in another layer of misdirection. On this level, every character is lying, every one of them misdirecting the audience by putting on a false facade.In this regard, every character's behaviour is precisely the opposite of their actual beliefs. So the father cares not for his son but rather his own family honour. The Winslow boy is guilty and stands embarrassed out in the rain. The older son is broke, hates his father and shall be shipped off to war, yet he accepts it all with cheerful good faith. Similarly, the maid, who always enters frame when there is talk of no money, is ambivalent to the fact that she will surely be fired soon. Then there's the three way relationship between the hotshot lawyer, the Winslow daughter and her fiancé. Her fiancé pretends to love her, yet leaves as soon as the case gains momentum, whilst she pretends to fight for women's independence (she's a suffragette) despite being entirely dependent on her family/men for her income. Similarly, the hotshot lawyer pretends to take the case because he believes the boy to be innocent, when in fact he's simply after the boy's attractive sister. When he confides to his friend that he has turned down a promotion to take the case, he does so knowing that this news will be confided to her, thus making him seem more appealing in her eyes.The entire film is thus an exercise in misdirection, the film communicating one thing while the truth sits just below the surface. The artifice is all a lie, a slick Edwardian card trick. End result: we're so busy looking for clues of the kid's innocence, that we don't realize that the whole family is guilty. 8.5/10 - Worth two viewings.

pegd-1 Based on a true story, Terence Ratigan's play is about an elderly father's defense of his teenager son who has been accused of theft at the Royal Naval Academy. In David Mamet's subversive hands, the story is subtly transformed into a battle of the sexes and sexual attraction. It's absolutely delicious.This is 1910 England, involving a retired banker, the Royal Naval Academy, a suffragette daughter with a couple of suitors, and a famous barrister hired to defend the son.While watching the DVD, I think I replayed the last two minutes of the film a half dozen times. Now there was some chemistry happening between Jeremy Northam and Rebecca Pigeon along with great dialogue. That scene alone is worth the price of admission.Everyone turns in first rate performances, Mamet slyly puts his stamp on this gem of a film. Loved, loved, loved it.

ianlouisiana The English legal system does not concern itself with such fine conceits as guilt or innocence,concentrating instead on the minutiae of interpretation,precedent,case-law,acceptability of evidence,and,most of all,the eloquence of the barristers.They are,after all,lawyers arguing points of law devised by other lawyers in front of another lawyer whose opinion may well be contested by another group of lawyers at a later stage.So it is in "The Winslow Boy",a relic of the pre "kitchen sink" era of the British Theatre,one of the last hurrahs of the complacent middle-aged men before the angry young men had their brief revolution. Their breath of fresh air soon became a gale of fetid air and the complacent middle-aged men soon had their slippers back in the hearth -some of the former A.Y.M.joining the ranks of the reactionaries. Mr Terence Rattigan's story of the boy accused of theft and his family's extraordinary campaign to prove his innocence is open to the same questions of interpretation.Ronnie Winslow's guilt is never considered by anyone except his prospective counsel,and,in a rather melodramatic scene,he too appears to be convinced that a miscarriage of justice has taken place.Or does he just take on the case to get closer to the boy's sister?Is it the film's premise that no price is too high to pay nor is any cause more noble than establishing the truth - or is it that truth becomes irrelevant in the battle between two opposing lawyers or in the escalating juggernaut of publicity? Set in the uneasy peace preceding the first world war,"The Winslow Boy" examines that most excoriated of institutions,the middle class family. Gruff but loving paterfamilias,supportive wife/mother,strong-willed independent-minded daughter,charming,polite but slightly rakish older son and the eponymous younger son.The dynamics of such a group of people are skilfully portrayed in a number of short well-written scenes that establish their relationships.Mr Nigel Hawthorne and Miss Gemma Jones are outstanding as the parents,she having the more difficult task of seeming slightly subservient and at the same time the real strength of the family and the one holding it together.Mr Hawthorne starts off the epitome of male rationality and at the end of the film has become obsessed by his campaign perhaps even to the edge of madness,whilst Miss Jones despite her emotional involvement with her younger son becomes more pragmatic as the campaign goes on.Driven to virtual bankruptcy by the costs(echoes of "Bleak House" here)the Winslows are driven closer together by the experience. Miss Rebecca Pigeon plays Kate,the rebellious "New Woman",cigarette smoking supporter of womens' suffrage.She is completely believable in the role and I can only think that the severe criticism of her is of the "sour grapes" variety.Her brother Matthew plays her brother and it works very well.There is a subtle interplay between them that reflects their real-life relationship and enhances all their scenes together. Kate supports vaguely leftish causes that are anathema to her father and is ambivalent about briefing the eminent barrister Sir Robert Morton,scourge of the Trade Union movement(the devastatingly handsome Mr Jeremy Northam) but he wins her over by declaring his belief in her brother's innocence after a cross-examination in his office. As the family's money is gradually drained away Kate loses her Lifeguards officer fiancé but doesn't seem unduly bothered despite declaring lifelong love for him to her mother"I love him in every possible way a woman can love a man",she told her discomfited parent.The family solicitor (Mr Colin Stinton) her devoted swain for years is gently rejected and her relationship with Sir Robert Morton slowly develops from confrontation to co-existence with room for development. At the end of the court case the two have a loaded conversation and the final exchange is worthy of Oscar Wilde. Guy Edwards as Ronnie Windsor recalls the kind of boy who once rolled hoops along the banks of the Serpentine under Nanny's careful eye. The change from fierce denial to apparent disinterest in his fate is well-observed.From a slightly sanctimonious prig he turns into a readily recognisable somewhat bemused teenager whose priorities in life have inevitably altered.Only Mr Hawthorne's steely determination remains unbending and he has paid for it not only financially but also with his health.Whether it is a price worth paying is the question at the heart of this film.

chilindrina2002 If you're fond of good dialogs, good acting and good movies...go and rent this one. I didn't expect much when I rented it, and it was a big surprise. I don't know if this movie would work that well with a different cast, but they seem to be made to be part of it. I've read some bad comments about Rebecca Pigeon but in my opinion she's perfect for the part, she acts natural. I didn't find anything that I didn't like, which is something difficult to say about most of the movies.Summarizing, this movie confirms that with a few exceptions, David Mamet keeps giving us something interesting in every movie. Before this one I had only seen The Spanish prisoner,