red-riding_1

This is what festivals are for, even if you’re not able to attend. Scanning the Telluride coverage that came in over the weekend, a few films really stand out. Most of them are known quantities: Up in the Air, An Education, A Prophet. We knew those were ones to watch. But there’s another entry in the must-see column out of Telluride. Or, rather, three entries. Suddenly the trilogy of UK films collectively called Red Riding is getting massive praise and buzz.

Red Riding adapts three novels by David Peace: Nineteen Seventy-Four, Nineteen Eighty and Nineteen Eighty-Three. The Wikipedia description of the novels holds true for the films: “Set against a backdrop of serial murders, including the Yorkshire Ripper case, they deal with multi-layered corruption and feature several recurring characters across the four books. Though real crimes are featured the scripts are fictionalized and dramatised versions of events rather than contemporary factual accounts.”

The three films were all written Terry Gilliam’s frequent co-writer Tony Grisoni, and helmed by three directors: Julian Jarrold (1974), James Marsh (1980) and Anand Tucker (1983). The films were broadcast on Channel 4 earlier this year and are available on DVD in Region 2, but have been picked up by IFC for theatrical distribution in the States. Telluride showed all three in a 300-minute marathon a couple days ago, not unlike the way the Toronto Film Festival presented the three Pusher films a few years back. By and large, they’ve been tremendously well received. One thing all viewers seem to agree upon is the level of depressing darkness and harsh, realistic brutality. Like the Pusher films, these don’t appear to be easy going.

Anne Thompson said of the first film “this noirish tale never lets up as it digs darker and deeper and nastier than you’d ever expect.” Jeff Wells says the film is “destined for major cult status.” Cinematical gushed “Red Riding…is, collectively, the greatest thing I’ve seen since I discovered the first season of Twin Peaks on DVD.” The Playlist was equally impressed, comparing the films to the work of James Ellroy (a big selling point for me) and calling the trilogy “easily one of the cinematic highlights of the year.” Variety and a few others also raved, but I think you get the point.

Part of the appeal is the cast, which is full of new and established talent. Peter Mullan, Andrew Garfield, David Morrissey, Paddy Considine, Sean Bean  and Mark Addy all appear in various stages. The technical details of each film are interesting, too, as they form a progression. 1974 was shot on 16mm, 1980 on 35mm and 1983 on the RED One camera, so each has its own specific visual look.

The voice of dissent from the festival weekend came from In Contention’s Kris Tapley. In a comment on one of Jeff Wells’ Hollywood Elsewhere posts, he called the films “quite derivative and contrived… borderline TV procedural drama.” But a further comment from Tapley puts it into perspective somewhat: “David Thomson is calling it better than The Godfather and one of the 10 best films ever, for Christ’s sake,” so in that case maybe dialing back the buzz a bit is a good move. Regardless, the three films hadn’t been on my radar before and they are now. There’s an excellent video store in Atlanta that often stocks R2 discs (Videodrome; all ATL-area readers should support them!) so I’m going to head over there and see if they’ve got the UK discs to rent tonight.

  • DangerousDac
    Channel 4 is not owned by the BBC. It is an independent public broadcaster.

    Don't worry fellow brits, I got this one covered. :p
  • RussFischer
    Yeah, sorry, I know that but didn't manage to correct. I'm dumb, thanks.
  • I think I remember seeing a tweet from Alex at Firstshowing in which he said the first was extremely boring. Not saying I put any stock in that, just sayin'.

    This is also just another reminder I need to watch the Pusher trilogy.
  • Each to their own I guess. Personally the first one was the one that sucked me in, and the pacing just never let up. The key to it was the lead - Andrew Garfield (who was in Boy A and the forthcoming Dr. Parnasiuss) in such a strong cast really punches above his weight. Here in the UK everyone I know that did see it just raved about it and the world, timeline and structure it creates throughout the trilogy is so intelligent
  • ctheokas
    I wonder why they're not doing the 1977 book.
  • I think I read in the UK Guardian newspaper that 1977 was left out purely due to a decision made by the 3 directors in conjunction with the author David Peace and of course financial reasons for an independent tv studio. The did also mention that there was a screenplay created and plans to film 1977 if the demand was there.
  • stargazer99
    I read where the screenwriter said he initially wrote a script for it and the original idea was to make four short films to keep within budget. They decied against it as they thought doing a short wont allow them to develop the story enough.
  • Itri12
    If you see them, report back on the trilogy! Apparently Firstshowing also has the voice of dissent calling the first film...boring. So there you go.
  • RussFischer
    I did manage to score them last night, and will watch as soon as possible. Will post some reaction piece when I can.
  • Itri12
  • I'm deeply skeptical about all this praise but the fact that the New York Film Festival is screening it makes me think there must at least be something interesting going on here.
  • jii
    Erotic but not pornographic......Sexy but not scandalous
    ......Merry and not indecent......
    Bad site good place :(★★★Sugarloves.Com★★★ ) !!!!!
    Hidden bitterness Girls, ,Merry suaveMen!! click it!! WWWonderful Is it wrong for a rich andsuccessful man to have a sugar baby? is it right that he falls in love with a graceful and charming girl?
  • Roy
    i just found these on dvd over here in Australia. so i will make sure iw atched these now.
  • They are an excellent trilogy of films with great performances throughout, far above the usual quality of British TV movies. Alex Billington wouldn't know compelling drama if it broke into his house and buggered him with a clawhammer.
  • Thanks for that mention buddy, appreciate it. And glad to know it's above the quality of British TV movies, since that makes these oh-so great, eh? I have an opinion, and it differs from yours, but it doesn't mean it's invalid.
  • BrendonConnelly
    I don't know why Alex was bored. These are really pretty good. The cast are tremendous, particularly Garfield and Considine, and Grisoni worked a brilliantly low-key surrealism into the scripts that really does add a superbly sinister edge. I'm not sure these are the three best directors in the world, but this is definitely their best work so far - and that goes for each of them.
  • It was boring because it wasn't well paced at all, the dialogue was just awful, and the story took forever to play out... It just kept leading nowhere. Really, for once, I was bored by some British movie, and everything thinks it's the end of the world. Absolutely did not like this movie at all, doesn't deserve the acclaim it's getting.
  • richCie
    i was lucky enough to catch these on Channel 4 earlier in the year adn can indeed attest to their quality - British TV highlight of the year and no doubt - the cast is all fantastic - kudos to Andrew Garfield who really deserves some buzz from this.
    hope this reaches as many people as possible.
  • Name
    Saw these on tv in the UK some time back. Great examples of edgy, exciting narrative that gives the viewer little solace, taking huge risks with its central charaters.

    Andrew Garfield is fantastic - see him in 'Boy A' as well. A talent to watch out for.
  • Tismey
    They look great (I particularly like how brown everything is in 1974) and the performances are excellent, but the adaptations don't really do the source material justice at all - there are some really questionable decisions made, including significantly changing 'whodunnit', which just didn't work for me at all. I'm not someone who believes that screen adaptations should be slavish to the source material but in this case the changes were really problematic to the story.
  • stargazer99
    Kris Tapley reviewed it on his site and he gave it three stars out of four. He liked it enough but was just cautioning against the hyperbolic praise thats being lavished on it. I caught it on channel 4 and personally loved it but the Godfather comment is too much.

    BTW: I'm pretty sure Jeffrey Wells hasnt seen it. He was just on the buzz surrounding it.
  • fanboy_d
    i for one am shocked that they didn't just see it and think 'how much better would this be if we remade it with AMERICANS'. take a bow the office, life on mars, state of play...
  • Kyle501
    Well sorry to say, but they are remaking them with Americans now
  • fanboy_d
    LOL, I know that now. They weren't when I made the comment four months ago. My prescience amazes even myself.
  • these are absolutely brilliant
blog comments powered by Disqus