User reviews

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.

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!

It's a real pity that 'Name Of The Rose' scriptwriter Andrew Birkin hasn't directed anything since 'The Cement Garden' if this puzzling and disturbing movie is any indication of his talent. Birkin also wrote this superb adaptation of Ian McEwan's perverse and haunting novel. A hypnotic study of a family of children left to fend for themselves, while wrestling with their forbidden desires and obsessions, it crosses over into almost Ballardian territory. The casting of Andrew Robertson and Charlotte Gainsbourg as the androgynous older siblings is the main reason why this odd movie is so successful. To add to the incestuous overtones, Gainsbourg is Birkin's niece, and first gained notoriety duetting with her legendary father Serge on a pop ditty titled "Lemon Incest" while barely in her teens. The layers continue by Birkin casting his own son Ned as the younger cross-dressing brother. This is a very strange and beautiful movie. Highly recommended.

The Cement Garden is based on a book by Ian McEwan and follows a group of siblings as they try to cope with the loss of their parents. However, there is much more to this film than merely the basic plot outline; through interesting character design, surreal locations and a gentle stream of shocking happenings; writer-director Andrew Birkin has created a truly unique and fascinating piece of cinema. Of all the films I have seen, I can't think of a single one that is really anything like this one. The film takes place in and around an isolated house surrounded by concrete (presumably on the edge of a town). The house is inhabited by two adults and four children; until the father dies of a heart attack, and the mother's health deteriorates until her eventual death shortly thereafter. This then leaves the four children to fend for themselves. The eldest siblings, Julie and Jack, decide to hide the mother's body in the basement rather than allowing themselves to go into care. The event affects each of the children in different ways.

The Cement Garden is characterised by its setting; a large and morose house stands amidst a landscape made purely of concrete. This location serves the story as it creates isolation and separates the central family from the rest of the population. The film's colour scheme is based on grey and the gloominess of it helps to enforce the melancholy nature of the story. The film features plenty of shocks and breaks many taboos; but everything is presented in such a gentle manner that most of things featured actually seem quite normal, and that in turn makes them even more shocking. The film really is quite daring, and even more so for the fact that the central cast is so young. The dialogue can be quite awkward at times but the actors make the best of it. The film does become more surreal as it moves along, and while the ending of the film is not really a surprise; it still does manage to provide a shock. Overall, The Cement Garden is an excellent adaptation and well worth a look.

The Cement Garden is a remarkable film which establishes itself as first among dark classics. Filmed in black and white, it's stark sexual imagery and brutal realism is both disturbing, and equally powerful in it's subtle erotic message. The story relates what can happen when parents unexpectedly abandon their emotionally deprived, and woe-fully neglected children superbly played by Andrew Robertson as Jack and Charlotte Gainsbourg as Julie. With their parents dead, it is the older sister and the sexually curious younger brother who adjust to the certainties of social rules and regulations which demand the dissolution of the disintegrating family. Faced with the social erasure of their tiny family, Jack and Julie assume the role of parents. However, their acceptance promotes sexual privileges and not parental responsibilities. Eventually, the older sister's involvement with an admirer threatens their secret but developing illicit relationship. All in all, this film is exquisitely constructed to elicit the deepest emotions within all of us. ****

"The Cement Garden" follows the behavior of four children living in an austere semi-rural house on the fringe of society after the death of their parents. The kids include a young adult daughter, a late teen son, a pubescent daughter, and a prepubescent son. The film spends its time pouring over their daily routines as the family behavior becomes increasingly odd threatening to slip into the realm of the bizarre.

Uneventful, intentionally bleak with a narrow range of emotion and limited dramatic excursions, this dreary, melancholic psychodrama focuses on the pair of older siblings as their familial loyalty and love inches beyond the edge of normalcy.

A solid watch for the serious drama enthusiast, this Brit flick manifests excellent auteursmanship with limited production value. (B)

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

Aspiring production designers and location scouts should take note of "The Cement Garden" (1993) as an example of especially good use of an available on-the-cheap location. Like the equally low-budget "Carnival of Souls", the film owes much of its effectiveness to the creative use of an available location. "The Cement Garden's" outdoor shots should look familiar as Stanley Kubrick used the location back in 1987 for the main battle sequence of "Full Metal Jacket". He used the abandoned Beckton Gasworks just across from the Royal Docks area (Beckton-Silverton London). The area has now been transformed into London City Airport.

As a film, "The Cement Garden" could best be described as pretentious (marked by an unwarranted claim to importance or distinction). It is a movie that tries embarrassingly hard to be more than the sum of its parts. The strategy is to introduce shocking and scandalous elements in such a casual way that it will amp up the effect of breaking taboos far beyond what they would otherwise merit. This too owes much to Kubrick (insert "Lolita" here).

"The Cement Garden" is what you would get if Gregg Araki remade "Our Mother's House" on a shoestring budget; although it is safe to say Araki would have done a much better job of acting for the camera direction. It is an adaptation of Ian McEwan's controversial novel, but as the adapting was done by Director Andrew Birkin (later to be blamed for "The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc" script), the result is likely to be disappointing to readers of McEwan's book.

I recommend the film, although some viewers will not enjoy it most will be mildly shocked and entertained by it. I found viewing possible only in 20 minute segments (not so much because it was painful but because it was not involving enough for me to ignore household interruptions). Since the macabre elements aren't particularly shocking (just a couple of stylish "Blue Velvet" type shots), Birkin must fall back on incest and gender identity. It is one perversion too many and there is no logical connection between the two.

The story is about a family of six (mother, father, two daughters and two sons). The older son is meant to look like a girl, the older daughter is meant to look like a boy, and the younger son wants to be a girl. The mother's death occurs a few weeks after the father, and the children conceal her death in an effort to stay together.

The story is told from the point of view of the oldest boy, who is turned on by his own reflection and by his tease of an older sister. Since he looks so much more feminine than her, his sexual orientation may actually be straight. The younger sister (who is not involved in any of this) looks perfectly normal but spends a lot of time writing letters to her dead mother.

Like "Our Mother's House" (a far better film), an older man is inserted into the story in an effort to make something happen. While a little hard to decipher, the basic themes concern the problems associated with assuming responsibilities before you are emotionally mature enough for them.

In fairness, an attempt is made to insert an allegorical element into the film, as the older boy frequently does a voice-over reading of a science fiction story. This is meant to reflect his internal moral struggles but the connection with the events of the story is rather fuzzy. Not surprising since the weak direction builds neither suspense nor convincing characters. But at least there is that great production design.

Then again, what do I know? I'm only a child.

I like Ian McEwans writings, especially his early short stories, and this is a generous contribution to the haunting quality of his work (much better than Comfort of Strangers or A Good Son). Charlotte Gainsbourg is wonderful as the impish sister and Andrew Robertson does very well hiding behind his shag cut and masturbating in his private bunker. Camera work is wonderful in a fantastic location in middle of English dump sites with broken houses and bricks. Film´s strength rests not on incest but on superbly explicating a child´s value that it places on it´s family over the rest of the world. Reminds me of long ago isolated family vacations fighting and playing with siblings and forgetting everyone else, just stuck in time. Ignore the poor shock value trailer (``...but he is your brother!´´´) and dip your head into this haunting world of adolescence. Very sad and beautiful. Don´t see with siblings or Mom, I did (an uncomfortable mistake).

Disarmingly strange film about a family of children fending for themselves after first their father, then their mother dies. Oldest son Jack eschews responsibility, leaving next oldest Julie to handle the everyday chores. In the midst of all these devestating changes, Jack and Julie begin to develop a singularly unusual bond, one that is threatened when Julie invites the outside world into their private domain by dating an older man.

This film sparks comparisons to the similarly themed OUR MOTHER'S HOUSE, but the two films differ dramatically. While the children in OUR MOTHER'S HOUSE construct an elaborate fantasy world for themselves(based in part on the dead mother's fanatic religious beliefs), there's no such pretentious in THE CEMENT GARDEN. The children live in a cinder block house, with a cement garden out back, on a plot surrounded by a flat, desolate looking landscape. There are several scenes where the children sit around saying nothing, doing nothing, something that never happens in the other film's active household. The costumes and household furnishings are nondescript; you can't figure out if this film is set in the sixties or the nineties. The overall feel is one of banality, lethargy, and a total absence of passion or vitality. Perhaps it's only in a situation like this that the relationship Jack and Julie have can flourish, and Jack can transform from a petulant, self-absorbed boy to a responsible, loving young man. Strange atmosphere, but very rewarding.

"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

Simply a piece of art. More than this: a magnific, dark and lonely piece of art in the middle of a desert. The cement is hard and hide things that must to be hide. In this film the past time is erased, digged in the deep under 10 feets of cement. One of the characters says (in the final of the movie) - You are sick!-, but he don't know that the sick was himself.

10/10 - So far the best cinema

Thanks for your art, Andrew Birkin

I've watched many weird, even twisted movies recently but this went beyond the pale. At times, it was unbearable to watch. This is not just a dysfunctional family, this is pure perversion and sickness. It's a good thing thay in reality, Gainsbourg and Robertson are not minors but still, their characters were sister and brother. Had i known what this movie is about, i would have never watched it. I have read some books Ian McEwan wrote, i respect him as an author but not every book should be a movie.

5 stars because acting is great, to be fair. This is not boring and not predictable. If it was more subtle, it would have been a respectable artistic creation. Unfortunately, this was too vulgar and filthy.

A really tense and atmospheric movie. Set in England the story revolves around the slow descent into anarchy of a family who begin to live an increasingly isolated life. The key relationship in the movie is between the eldest brother and sister. The art design and cinematography are great invoking a real sickly feel to the house. The script sort of feels like it could also have been a play, it's almost all dialogue and takes place in just one house basically in different rooms. The film Simmers with unspoken tensions and desires. The logic of the film doesn't hold up quite so well in terms of what are they doing for food and isn't anyone aware the kids seem to have vanished from society yet aren't exactly on the run. Still it's a very unsettling movie with some truly daring and memorable scenes.

The Cement Garden Andrew Birkin's film has it all: intense characters, controversial situations and unusual concepts, which shouldn't come as a surprise if we keep in mind that it's based upon a novel by Ian McEwan. The protagonists are Jack, a 16 year-old boy and Julie, his sister, barely a couple of years older; then come the youngest sister and the youngest brother. The four of them live with their parents, in a somehow bleak house, completely isolated from other neighborhoods.

Jack spends most of his time avoiding his home duties, such as cleaning up his room, and instead devotes most of his hours in a secluded spot in which he hides a worn out adult magazine and toilet paper. His mother actually confronts him and tells him, following the pseudo-scientific approach from Victorian age (which Foucault so aptly analyzed in his History of sexuality), that his moodiness and messiness is a direct result of self-abuse, and that should he continue practicing that he would end up extenuating his body.

One afternoon, the father is pouring cement into the garden and asks Jack for help, but while the father keeps working on the garden, the young boy is in the bathroom masturbating enthusiastically, with precise visual transitions, the director manages to apprise the moment of Jack's orgasm with the last breadth of the father, as he succumbs to a heart attack. Later on, Jack will tell to his sister "Besides... not my fault he died", answering a question that no sibling had dared to ask up to that moment.

The absence of the father marks the downfall of the family. The mother is unable to step out of her room, depressed as she is, and order and discipline soon turns into chaos and disarray. It's in this context that the constant taunting between Jack and Julie turns into something else. What at first begins as innocent flirtations soon brings up more tantalizing repartees. In one occasion, while Jack is on top of Julie, tickling her, she starts grabbing him in a very distinct manner and comes to an orgasm.

As the mother falls deeper into depression and illness, the fear of being discovered is diluted and thus the incestuous fantasy acquires a firm grasp on reality. As Lacan analyzed in his Antigone seminar, the death drive moves the Greek heroine towards the desire invested exclusively around the body of her deceased brother. In "The Cement Garden", the protagonists start cajoling themselves around this death drive that disappears and leaves only a very real desire and a very real erotic drive. "My brother is what he is" would say Antigone, and in a similar way Jack will tell her sister that if people love him then they will take him as he is.

In Ancient Greece the term "autadelphos" (autos: "same"; adelphos: "sisterly," related to delphus: "womb") would mean something irreplaceable. As Antigone says in Sophocles' play, if she would lose her children she could always get pregnant again, if she would lose her husband she could always find another man, but if she loses her brother, who could possibly replace him? They are, after all, creatures that have shared the same womb and nothing can compare to that. In a similar fashion, the passion between Jack and Julie defies all social norms and regulations. They are irreplaceable for each other, and as the house starts falling apart, they start getting closer and closer.

The absence of the father also means the absence of the nom de pere, the ultimate authority that inscribes the subject into society, that commands his offspring to occupy the male or female position in the symbolic order. Without this authority, male and female positions are interchangeable whether ideologically or practically, as it's made evident by the authority invested upon Julie, who has the full responsibility of being in charge of the house (a role that would be traditionally ascribed to a male), or by the youngest brother's obsession in wearing wigs and skirts, not only dressing up as a girl but also sleeping on the bed with another boy his age, pretending to be Julie and Jack. When Jack intends to stop this peculiar practices, Julie has but one answer for him: "You think that being a girl is degrading but secretly you'd love to know what is it like, wouldn't you?", and in a very tantalizing way places a most effeminate ribbon on his brother's neck.

Crossing all boundaries, subverting the heterosexual normative and assuming incest as something that feels natural and real, Birkin's film announces from the very beginning a dreadful end; perhaps it would be interesting to compare the novel's ending with the one in the film, because after all, once all is said and done, as Lacan would phrase it "…is important to note that one only has to make a conceptual shift and move the night spent with the lady from the category of pleasure to that of jouissance, given that jouissance implies precisely the acceptance of death — and there's no need of sublimation — for the example to be ruined".

I wasn't too sure about this one at first, but as it went on I found it more and more compelling. The sexual tension between Jack and Julie comes across really well and this really gives the film an edge. I did find it quite gritty in places and I was a bit surprised at the way the kids reacted when their mother suddenly died. It's not perfect by any means, but even so, if the themes don't put you off, it's still a worthy watch… Recommended.

My Score: 7.9/10

IMDb Score: 7.1/10 (based on 2,349 votes at the time of going to press).

Rotten Tomatoes 'Tomatometer' Score: 100/100 (based on 7 reviews counted at the time of going to press).

Rotten Tomatoes 'Audience' Score: 57/100 "Want to see" (based on 2,262 user ratings counted at the time of going to press).

You can find an expanded version of this review on my blog: Thoughts of a SteelMonster.

So similar to "Our Mother's House" 1967 starring Dirk Bogarde and also based on a book, by the author Julian Gloag. Einstein said there is no such thing as coincidence, it seems he was wrong.

A dark film about the unnatural maturing of a brother and sister after their parents die. The boy (Jack) struggles with his own identity, while his sister (Julie) tries to look after their unusual family. The film has a Lord of the Flies sense to it, as normal behavior is replaced by, sometimes strange, instinct. An odd but compelling movie.

Having read McEwan's haunting and beautiful novel some years ago, I anticipated the film and recently found it in my university library. Sad to say I was hugely dissapointed.

Birkin has taken away the novels macabre humour and charcterisations and replaced them with sign posts which direct us to the reasons why they have their affair (parental loss, burgeoning sexuality) rather than letting the feelings and jealousy fester as they did in the novel. Also he has altered Julie's older lover Derek to the point where the funniest scene in the book (Derek taking the bemused Jack to a pool hall) has been completely erased and the charcter is now foreign and middle class as opposed to working class and English.

Having said that it contains the most hilarious line of dialogue I have ever heard:

Jack (to Tom) when you look at William, do you get a funny feeling in your dinky?