Il giardino di cemento

The premise of offspring who try to hold their family together after parents' death or desertion has been done a number of times, most notably in "Our Mother's House" (1967), a little-known masterpiece directed by John Clayton. Here the emphasis is different though, concentrating on the developing intimacy between the oldest sibling Julie and her brother Jack. This is presented in a matter-of-fact and non-judgmental fashion, seeming to fit "naturally," as Jack in fact says, with their increasingly weird circumstances. Be warned: there is much adolescent nudity here, including a wild transcendental dance-in-the-rain performed very well by Andrew Robertson. BTW, that scene is reproduced almost identically in "Edges of the Lord" (2001), but with a much younger boy. Ned Birkin, whom I suspect of being director Andrew Birkin's close kin (an irony unintended I'm sure) plays the cross-dressing younger brother, and his sub-plot is not developed, which is probably just as well since he exhibits little talent. I suppose this is included to emphasize the point that in a family untrammeled by conventional moralities, each individual is accepted with whatever modus operandi "works" for him or her. Not an altogether bad idea when one considers it

"The Cement Garden", based upon a novella by Ian McEwan, deals with a similar theme to that of William Golding's "Lord of the Flies", namely the behaviour of children and adolescents when free of the constraints of adult behaviour. Four siblings from a working-class family - Jack, his older sister Julie, younger sister Sue and the youngest, Tom- are orphaned by the death of their mother, their father having died earlier. In order to stay together and avoid being put into the care of the local authority, they conceal their mother's death by hiding her body in a trunk, filling it with cement and leaving it in the cellar of their house.

The story takes place during a hot summer in a bleak, impoverished district of an unnamed British inner city. The children's house, a grim Modernist building, is one of the few remaining in an area marked out for redevelopment, and is surrounded either by soulless tower blocks or by derelict, rubble-strewn wasteland. Their father dies while trying to lay concrete over the garden, one of the few islands of green in the area, hence the title.

The book was published in 1978 and in many ways reflects the mood of Britain in the late seventies, a time of economic recession, of industrial unrest, of unemployment, of concern about declining public services and the condition of the inner cities. (The period also saw some of the hottest summers of recent decades). The book was also highly controversial because of the incestuous relationship which develops between Jack and Julie, something which possibly explains why it had to wait until 1993 to be adapted for the screen. Although the seventies were a period of increasing permissiveness in Britain, there was a limit to what the British Board of Film Censors would permit, and incest still seemed to be off-limits. This relationship, however, is an important part of the story; it can be seen as both the ultimate expression of family solidarity and as a conscious rejection of the taboos and conventions of the adult world, so an adaptation which omitted this relationship would not have worked.

Another controversial theme of both book and film is what might be called the confusion of gender identity. Tom, who loves to dress as a girl, is presented as a budding transvestite, and both Charlotte Gainsbourg and Andrew Robertson are here made to look remarkably androgynous; her hair is short and his long. Although their characters are named Julie and Jack, they could just as easily be Julian and Jackie.

The film was directed by Andrew Birkin, the brother of Jane and therefore Gainsbourg's uncle. (Another family member, Birkin's son Ned, was cast as Tom). Birkin is better known as a screenwriter than as a director, and this is one of only two feature films he has directed. Nevertheless, it is an accomplished piece of work, and the director is able to elicit some excellent performances from his young cast. McEwan's book, despite its desolate urban setting, is not a work of social realism. It can be seen as a modern development of the "Gothic" tradition, abandoning the supernatural elements and exotic settings beloved of Georgian and Victorian Gothic authors, but retaining their fascination with death, decay and the macabre and their emphasis on the darker side of human nature. It is a highly atmospheric piece of writing, and Birkin succeeds well in capturing its eerie, hallucinatory quality; not so much a midsummer night's dream as a midsummer nightmare. This is a film about British working-class life which stands outside the mainstream "kitchen sink" tradition. 8/10

Understandably, this tones down the incest angle - but nevertheless provides an unsettling experience.

Great acting from pretty much everyone here, despite the relative youth of the cast. Also well-evoked are the twin atmospheres of claustrophobia and that particularly English feeling of "oppressive heat" that we know from Summer temperatures that many countries would laugh at. Not to mention the extreme horniness of the average teenage boy.

So, if you have read the novel then be aware that this is an adaptation not a literal transcription - but if you haven't then it's sufficiently outre to be interesting anyway.

Recommended.

I have to admit the film is disturbing, and frank. The subject matter is dark, yet there are moments of honest humor. The performances by Charlotte Gainsburg and others are so impressive I became lost in their world. It's a world where a small family can exist surrounded by nothing but concrete and rubble. It is very troubling, and thought provoking... and the end is not one of hope nor hopelessness.. A very good film!

I have heard people writing comments about being shocked by the sexuality in this movie and about being shocked by who was involved in producing it (i.e. relatives). Consider this: the actress who plays Julie was not 14-15 years old when this was shot, she was 22! It's called acting. And, her older "brother", an actor who was no relation, was 19. So, get over it folks. It's a movie, a slow moving but very well done movie.

Truth is, I'm sorry if this movie offends some people. But, for goodness sakes, it's a story on a screen that is not even that racy. The movie is actually paced quite well to fit the somber mood and really, who can complain about the acting. I think some who have found any serious fault in the production are just trying to justify their uncomfortable feelings about the subject matter.

Anyway, read the other comments, choose for yourself whether or not you care to watch it. But, if you are not put off by the subject matter, you will find a beautiful and sad story.