Restless (2012)

Too much of everything

Brilliant and touching

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

***may contain spoilers for some sensitive folks*** RESTLESS, the television adaptation of William Boyd's novel of the same name, was shown on UK BBC One and US Sundance Channel television in two parts in December 2012. The teleplay was nominated for two Primetime Emmy awards the following spring. Part one, the story of Eva's early life as a spy in the days leading to World War II, is beautifully filmed on spectacular locations in Europe. The cars used in the production are European vintage in beautiful condition. The costumes are interesting and appear authentic. The cast is superlative: Sally Gilmartin...Charlotte Rampling ("Swimming Pool") Eva Delectorskaya...Hayley Atwell ("Any Human Heart") Ruth Gilmartin....Michelle Dockery ("Downton Abbey") Lucas Romer....Rufus Sewell ("Zen")(Part 1)....Michael Gambon ("Dancing at Lughnasa")(Part 2)The story begins in 1976 in a remote part of England when Ruth (a long red-haired hippie working on her doctorate) and her son visit her mother Sally Gilmartin. Ruth finds her mother in great fear thinking someone is in the woods behind the house trying to kill her. Sally has purchased a rifle, binoculars, and a telescope. She tells her daughter she was a Russian girl named Eva that was a spy for the British in a clandestine group that offered refuge for German informants and recruited Roosevelt's help for British causes in WW II. Sally implores Ruth to find and visit Lucas Romer, the only one she trusts in the group, to stop the present-day killers; she gives her daughter her journal of her days as a spy.Eva's journal begins in 1939 German-occupied France when she is recruited by spy-master Lucas Romer after her brother is killed by Nazis. She is trained at a safe house in a remote part of England. The film emphasizes that Eva receives no weapons training, so it is clearer that she is training to be a seductress. (At least, clearer to me in the teleplay than in the novel.)The restaurant scene, one of Eva's first capers, takes place in Amsterdam when she and Romer, but primarily Eva, are to rescue a Dutch informant. The man gives Eva the wrong "double password" and Eva escapes through a bathroom window and witnesses the informant's death by several Nazi diners. The scene is vivid and well done...and shows Romer's early dominance over Eva's activities. (He's across the street in a hotel with a pair of binoculars!)Romer, played by a handsome Rufus Sewell with a thin mustache, is not nicer than in the book...still an arrogant, rude man! He stays in the shadows at Eva's brother's funeral and during her spy training. The several times they meet, he is discourteous and does not treat her as a lady (although one of her fake passports is for a Baroness). Both Eva and Romer smoke continuously. Other men light her cigarettes...just not Romer. There is a strange scene where one of the group, an older man, calls Eva to witness a murder posed as a suicide at a crime scene before the police are summoned. Eva recognizes the victim as one of the directors of the group.One can still wonder in the film, as in the book, why Eva and Romer became lovers. It happens suddenly with a kiss and then a seduction in a hotel room. If I recall, it's right after the restaurant caper. (As someone mentioned in my book club discussion...love happens fast in tense times.) Although RESTLESS is an adult drama, there is no profanity nor any bodily function or display in bad taste. Romer's sexual practice (coitus interruptus) is hinted at in the hotel room scene...but you would miss it if you have not read the novel.The first part ends when Eva is assigned to go to Washington, D. C. to persuade America to come to Britain's aid in its war with Germany. Her specific assignment is to seduce the aide of Roosevelt's personal assistant Harry Hopkins. Previews of the conclusion show her as a blowzy blonde.....Stay tuned...

This was watchable which sounds as if is damning with faint praise but since so much on TV is hyped beforehand and turns out to be poorly produced and/or acted it is good to be able to sit through 3 hours of drama and want to know how it all ends. Having said that if you are going to set a drama in a very recognisable historical setting it is just as well to get everything right otherwise nerds like me spot anomalies and we end up talking about what was wrong and not was right.The London Transport bus shown briefly in the 1940's scene was a Routemaster which was only introduced on to the streets in the early 60's. In the 1975 scene where the daughter visits Lord Romer we see a "P" reg Rolls Royce drive off. The "P" reg was issued in 1978. **SPOILER** Where did the young Eva learn her gun technique to bump off Alfie when she was specifically omitted from the gun training at spy camp? **SPOILER END** What was the point of Ruth's ex-lover turning up in the closing scenes? And why did the older Eva live in a remote cottage if she was frightened of someone bumping her off? The best place to hide would be in a busy city.Actually, the more one thinks about it the more plot holes open up so perhaps I had better stop now.

When Ruth Gilmartin goes to visit her mother Sally she is surprised to find her acting somewhat paranoid; convinced that there are people in the woods who are watching her and intending to kill her. Sally has a bigger surprise for her daughter; she isn't really Sally Gilmartin; her name is Eva Delectorskaya. She was a Russian émigré living in France when she was recruited to British Intelligence by a man called Lucas Romer. We see the younger Eva working for him, helping plant false news stories that are intended to help the war effort. The most important of her missions takes her to the United States; here they are trying to sway opinion so that neutral America will join the war against Germany. Things don't go according to plan and Eva becomes convinced that one of the group must have betrayed them! As she learns more about her mother's past Ruth helps her track down Lucas Romer but if her mother is right they are both in more danger than ever.This two part thriller nicely balanced the events that took place during the war and those that were taking place thirty years later. Michelle Dockery and Charlotte Rampling did fine jobs as Ruth and Sally Gilmartin but it was Hayley Atwell who stole the show as the younger Sally, aka Eva. Even though we knew her character had to survive the war her scenes managed to be tense; especially those in the United States. For the most part the tension was maintained by the threat of violence but occasionally the threat became a reality. Much of the violence was fairly tame but there is a scene where somebody gets stabbed in the eye which is surprisingly graphic. I suspect most viewers will guess who the traitor was although when it is revealed the motives are not those that I'd expected… I won't say more to avoid spoiling the ending too much!

This gripping film was brilliantly directed by Edward Hall, who has previously directed six episodes of the TV series SPOOKS but is otherwise little known. I cannot imagine that now he will be little known for much longer. The film is from a screenplay by William Boyd, an adaptation of whose novel (by himself), ANY HUMAN HEART (2010, see my review) was truly spectacular. I would say that William Boyd is now one of the hottest things British television has got to offer to the world. Hayley Atwell does a truly brilliant job of playing the lead in this new film, just as she excelled in Boyd's earlier series. This film is a new variation of the British traitor theme, and concerns a devilishly cunning double agent. Atwell plays the young Eva Delectorskaya, a Russian émigré fluent in English and other languages, who is recruited as a British spy in 1939. The film begins in the current day, when Eva is played with steely conviction by the indomitable Charlotte Rampling, who was for so long every thinking man's choice of the ideal tea partner, if crumpet was to be served. Really, I do think Charlotte Rampling could convince anyone of anything. If she had not been an actress she could have made a fortune as a salesman. Even now that the film is over, I still believe she is out there with her sawn-off shotgun ready to protect herself from the people who want her dead because she knows too much. The screenplay, as is to be expected, coming as it does from Boyd, is sensationally well crafted. All the cast are excellent. Rufus Sewell has matured into a most interesting actor who has gone beyond youth into becoming a real man at last. For too long he was the thrusting young man. Now he can get all those good solid grown-up parts which suit him so much better. He does a wonderful job here as the spy master Lucas Romer, who in the present day scenes is played with his usual powerful presence by Michael Gambon. Young Michelle Dockery plays the daughter of Rampling. We can see her character visibly maturing on the screen, as the action brings out that rare thing in a movie, true character development. At the beginning of the film, when Rampling announces to her daughter that her name is Eva Delectorskaya, Dockery thinks she must be getting Aldzheimers or something, and says: 'Nonsense, you're my mother. Your name is Sally Gilmartin', as if she were a nurse calming a patient. But gradually the truth begins to dawn, and it is not long before they enter into a double game as a team to flush out the threat to Rampling's life. There are many heart-stopping moments. But the central glowing presence on the screen which makes everything work so convincingly is Hayley Atwell. She was named by her parents after Hayley Mills, as so many thousands of British girls were. (Hayley was only a surname until Hayley Mills was given it as a first name, her mother being Mary Hayley-Bell. William Hayley, 1745-1820, their ancestor, was a distinguished minor English poet of the 19th century and a close friend of William Blake.) So maybe talent is hereditary, passing down through anyone named Hayley. Just a thought! The seamless interweaving between past and present in this film (well, I say film, it was shown in two episodes on the BBC and is thus technically a mini-series, I suppose, though with a running time altogether of only 3 hours) is done with considerable finesse. Everything seems to have come together to make RECKLESS a total success, and that splendid achievement was anything but reckless. More, please!