My Zinc Bed (2008)

I just want to state that I could not take my eyes off the screen until the very end of this fine drama. I had a vague recollection of having seen it before but fortunately no clear memory of how it ended. The ending actually is somewhat anti-climactic given the intensity of the previous scenes.Dialogue is quick: more often seen in a theatrical production than in a feature film. But this is not surprising given the source material.A true gem that took me out of time for just over an hour.Gee, I am short of the minimum ten lines ... So what else can be said?Well, Uma Thurman's accent was a bit odd but not enough to spoil the drama.

Paul Peplow, a recovering alcoholic, is sent to interview rich man, Victor Quinn, who presides over a media company named Flotilla. Quinn, who has obviously learned about Paul's problem, tries to interest the younger man into having a drink with his lunch, something that Paul refuses. Quinn is curious about what the poet has gotten out of his treatment with A.A. The conversation does not lead into something a newspaper might like to publish, but Paul, evidently, interests Victor Quinn otherwise, when he offers him a job in his firm.As Paul begins to work for Quinn, he meets Victor's much younger, and beautiful wife, Elsa, a woman that the older man met at a bar while she was drunk in a sorry state. Victor liked what he saw and ends up married to the ravishingly beautiful woman. As the two meet late one day in the office, revelations about themselves come out. Paul and Elsa end up in a passionate moment as it seems they are attracted to one another.When Victor invites Paul to join he and Elsa at his home, Paul is a bit reluctant because his obvious interest in the wife. As the visit progresses Quinn wants to tempt Paul into trying one of his perfect "Margaritas", which the younger man resists, but the allure of the drink plays heavily on his mind and he accepts after the insistence of Victor. Needless to say, Paul begins a descent into his addiction, together with the no-win situation of ever having Elsa for himself.David Hare, whose play is the basis of the film, adapted the material for the BBC presentation, co-sponsored by HBO. Not having seen the play, we cannot offer any comments on what is shown in this treatment for the small screen. Anthony Page directed. The best thing in the film is Jonathan Pryce, whose take on Victor Quinn is excellent. Mr. Pryce, one of the best English actors of his generation, lends an elegant hand to the story. Uma Thurman, who speaks with a Middle European accent, makes an impression, as does Paddy Considine with his Paul.

I missed this when it was on BBC2 last year because I forgot to set the video, or rather I messed up setting the video and recorded something else instead. It took till recently to get the chance to see it again and so I did. The film is based on a play about addiction and sees recovering alcoholic and poet Paul Peplow interviewing millionaire businessman Victor Quinn. The interview is a flop but it leads Victor to employ Paul in a job that Paul quickly learns is unimportant and not something he is suited for. As with the interview, Victor continues to needle Paul about his addiction and his supposed cure. Later Paul meets Victor's wife Elsa, herself a former addict, and the two fall for one another behind the back of this powerful man.Although I have not done a particularly good job of capturing it, this film did sound interesting to me and the cast especially seemed to offer much. At times the film appeared to be hitting this potential, with the tightly scripted and fast-paced dialogue that reminded me of David Mamet. Certainly the subject appeared to be of interest but yet somehow I found myself more interested in the occasionally pattern of speech rather than the characters or what was going on. In essence the subject of addiction and desire appears to be being discussed while also running it through the narrative but in reality it doesn't ever make it work as a discussion or a theme because it never feels real and never convinced me as a viewer to the point where I would have cared. We never really understand the motivations of the characters or the relationships between them – everything happens to fast or without any real reason, whether it is the probing/tempting of Paul by Vince or the sudden love between Paul and Elsa. This sort of atmosphere continues until the film reaches an end, which itself is quit unsatisfactory.This is not to take anything away from the performances though because they are roundly good and it is only the material that lets them down. Considine, Pryce and even Thurman all play their parts well and they deal well with the pace of the dialogue. In each of them there is enough to suggest to me that they knew their characters and understood what was happening behind and beyond the words – however this is not something that they are able to bring to the screen and, as such, the film still struggles even though it has an impressive trio in what is essentially a three-hander.It is a shame because the quality appears to be there and the potential is certainly there but the film cannot make it work. Maybe I would feel the same about the play, I'm not sure and may never know but certainly here nothing really ever rang true for me and the "discussion" in and around the nature of addiction wasn't strong or interesting enough to engage me, mainly because of the lack of any sort of clarity or focal point. Interesting for the flow of dialogue but flawed as a film.

staged play adapted to TV - always stirs up the mixed feeling - differences in all kinds and aspects and first of all, the target auditory. for me it is no wonder why it has got so low rating, confusion is the reason.the movie as well as the play, deal with one of the most complicated things in life - addictions and that is not just the case of merely a one specific kind - addiction to alcohol. i may only guess that it could be replaced with the other thing freely and still has the same meaning and sense - what is the nature of addiction, why we are addicted to something and the reasons of it. very often - i would not be exaggerating to say that practically always we have got the wrong ones, as it happens with one of the main characters - the poet. and here i just may lay my theory out, just as subjective as it can be. addictions are just the consequences of suppressed things in our own nature - it could be anything - feelings, emotions, wishes, willings, needs, various sorts of experiences and so on - you name it.you suppress it, you try to wipe it out, destroy, get rid of it and then you finally succeed, it would be most likely going to be replaced with something else - something much worse actually. and very often - yet again would not be a huge overstatement to say in all cases - it might lead to long way to self-destruction, total or near total elimination of any sense of living.i cannot say that for sure whether that movie or play succeeded to make that clear, i gave 10 out of 10 just because i believe that everyone who were engaged in making it tried to do their best to tackle with that notoriously sophisticated subject (well, the entire psychology was actually founded to explain it). and i may be mistaken but i can hardly remember a movie or a play that has dealt with more or less the same stuff. and much moreover of it i really enjoyed it much. the plot and the acting are much above the average - i believed them and felt empathy for the all of the characters.brilliant try but cannot be 100% certain if it was successful