User Reviews

CAPTURING MARY is a haunting and quite unforgettable film. Maggi Smith, as always, is a wonder as an old woman looking back at her life with confusion and regret.

There has been much talk about a supernatural angle to the film. I personally don't buy into that. I think the film is about the mores and class system of the still Victorian upper crust in England in the 1950's and how if affected one young woman who challenged it a bit too soon. We are told that Mary has made a small name for herself by writing an article in which she proposes that there be more graphic sex in films. Now remember, this is the mid fifties. At a house party frequented only, we are told, by the rich and famous, Mary finds herself being pursued by an enigmatic somewhat older man who seems to know everyone and to know everyone's secrets as well. In a dank wine cellar he tells Mary the disgusting secrets he knows, mainly dealing with the upper class's disdain for "the lower classes", especially in ethnic and racial terms. Mary is appalled by this, yet strangely fascinated at the same time. She sees that in the mansion housing the party all is proper, yet there is no mistaking a room full of leering men taking in a trio of scantily clad singers. On many different levels, Mary is confused and lost between two worlds. Though she knows it would be to her benefit to join this upper class world (and after all, didn't she lose her working class accent for just this purpose?) when asked she demurs, seeing the ugliness in it, thus wrecking the rest of her life. She is blacklisted by the old guard newspaper moguls for whom she works, and, as the decade changes to the 60's , she finds, though she wears the correct clothes and styles herself to look the part, that she cannot adapt to the new age either. She says of herself, as an older woman looking back, if I had been ten years older or ten years younger, but no, she is too early for the liberation of the sixties and too progressive to deal with the way women were treated in the fifties. She sees her mystery man again, and he has not aged a bit, though it seems, he has lost some of his power. Though it may not be as strong as it was, there will always be a class system.

In the end it is both fascinating and ironic that the one person who can help Mary, even a small bit, is a young caretaker of a different ethnic group, who says at the end, "I really liked that lady." CAPTURING MARY is about being out of time and place and being caught between two disparate worlds. An excellent, thought provoking film.

'Capturing Mary' is an excellent, original, brilliant, Jungian, existentialist, feminist film.

It opens with a labyrinthine stunning maze, photographed in calming, light Edwardian blue and white, which is revealed as a photograph at first then reveals itself to be the winding staircase in the massive, old, British establishment home that is Upstairs or "Outer Success" in the Upstairs Downstairs of the British class system.

The duality of the image: static photograph, then a moving, frustrating labyrinth makes this Opening Image stand up and announce what kind of film you will be seeing: a film about ancient institutions of power through which you will move in frustration trying to decide whether to attack or submit to in personal and professional ways. A Hamlet of a choice.

The breathtaking labyrinth has a dark side: the winding, claustrophobic corridors of the 'cellar' resonate Roman catacombs, Nell's path to King Charles under Windsor castle, escape routes by ancient lords and kings in underground tunnels of Country Houses, and of course, the daily trek by kitchen skivvies....Mary, us, people of the Third Estate, commoners. What resonates is the message "you are lost in the underworld; subjugated by walls too ancient to navigate...you haven't the key,...(a Jungian image which appears in Greville's hand in the film)... you haven't the noble status."

This message is the Belly of the Whale in Joseph Campbell's Hero's Adventure: in which the feudal relationship captures our heroine, Mary. Will she get out of the cellar, the kitchen, the draw to the handsome prince? Will she maintain her pursuit of the life of the mind?

The Jungian education you need to understand the script further shows itself in the question: is Greville real? Is Mary's drinking a plot point designed to hide the fact Greville is unreal? Greville can ruin your career, equally, by existing in a young defiant female journalist's head. If Mary chooses to write about the underbelly of her hosts' lives, won't she lose the weekend party invitations to large country houses? What a disaster for a girl who worked so hard to lose her Mancusian birth accent.

Mary's sharp rebuke to the lovely, modern Joe is the thesis: "Don't be impatient with me, Joe." Indeed I say this to Simon and all young people watching it. It is an atavistic trait in young people to strike out and change things, say things, do things. But if one is patient, one sees, that outer success, in the Upstairs world has too great a price.

Spoiler alert: the film is a valentine to women of a certain age. That Mary never succumbs is the triumph of the story, a feat almost impossible, one imagines, knowing how Katherine Hepburn fell to Howard Hughes, Clare Luce to Mr. Booth, etcetera. The mysterious Greville is handsome, discreet, immensely powerful in publishing.

Women over 50 will certainly welcome a film which beautifully, and seriously appreciates the efforts to adhere to her life of the mind that Mary makes. It is a welcome feat in a film world in which Lara Croft and Mrs. Smith use automatic weapons and the heels of their boots to smash open doors and behave rather like men. The simplicity of Mary's integrity, on the other hand, is a more accessible and beautiful role model of empowerment for women who wish to both have successful lives of the mind, and who wish to observe the world rather than make massive mistakes that previous generations of women felt forced to make.

Certainly the weeping and drinking on the park bench are her lowest points. Life is not a fairy tale as Hollywood dictates. But the next day, Mary sits in a dignified way, reading an intelligent book, sitting in a dignified position at her post in view of the inexorable Kensington Gardens. For those of us old enough to remember Princess Diana, this choice by the director of KG, rather than, say, St. James Park, is poignant. Diana's tragedy being similar to The Duchess' bears a remarkable counterpoint to our hero, Mary, who succeeded simply by saying no.

Succeeded? I see your scepticism and I raise you two: first, Mary is not, at the end of her life, someone's bit on the side, or even someone's wife. Rather, she retains her name, her thoughts, her memories, and retains the right to NOT write a book about Greville, thus the act of saying NO to the establishment, which would use her talent to illuminate theirs, is an act of empowerment in a Woolfian way. Don't forget the title is Capturing Mary. She remains free, unlike Diana, and the Duchess, and Liza, the pathetic pretty wife of Greville, forced to sit up from 5 in the morning in the 'House', waiting to give a come-on letter to her man's "prospect," her rival.

Secondly, Mary succeeds by finding Joe, her alter-ego. That she will not be rescued by the good man, Joe, is her last triumph. In a way, Joe is her animus. The film asks if rescue is triumph at all.

One can't help asking oneself at the end: was Mary even real? Has Mary only existed in the head of a black young male caretaker excluded from participation in the establishment, but welcomed by them to sweep it after hours? Was Mary just Joe's anima?

In a world where the teenage boy is the major purchaser of box office tickets, and writers are told to write at them, the writer has flown in the face of The Establishment. Box office success be damned. He has succeeded beautifully.

Through the performances of Ruth Wilson and Maggie Smith, the character of Mary Gilbert comes to life, a promising journalist who visits a great home and finds out through a disturbing conversation some horrible secrets that ultimately ruins her career. The fascinating Dame Maggie drops into the house years later and finds a willing ear (caretaker Danny Lee Wynter) to share the story with, going from her initial visit to another visit years later, seeing the source of those stories (David Walliams) the first time since that earlier encounter.

While Ruth Wilson does not look like the younger Maggie Smith did, you could imagine the older Dame Maggie once looking like the younger Wilson. This is quite a different Maggie Smith that is nothing like her many famous characters, someone I could see her being away from the stage, nowhere near a film set, quiet and introspective, and humble as a private citizen. She somehow seems happier here letting things out as if it was her finally able to look into who she was as opposed to her public image. This is the younger, calmer Maggie of "The Honey Pot", "Love and Pain and the Whole Damn Thing" and "Lily in Love" rather than the wisecracking or loveable sour characters she's beloved for.

At times, the flashbacks with Wilson seem to go too far close to the present day (the swinging 60's and early 70's in particular), and it seems like she's aging far too slowly to be Maggie during the era of Jean Brodie, looking closer to a younger Vanessa Redgrave or even Glenda Jackson at that time. But it's easy to get past this one little flaw because as long as Dame Maggie is speaking, she manages to convince you that she could be anywhere. As far as the secrets that she reveals are concerned, they are revealed in such a subtle way but have an underlying feeling of evil behind them that it becomes creepy to see Walliams age during the times of the future that Smith through the eyes of Wilson sees. It's best to look on this with suspended disbelief, and the unexpected will not be surprising when it occurs. Wynter, a rising young British stage actor, is polite and charming and hospitable, a delightful discovery in my film viewing research.

How many people in your entire life would have any interest in such a long winded story that includes intimate details? Perhaps a few. But then include complete strangers and Mary seems like a doddering self absorbed egotistical nutcase! The camera work was dizzying like a ping pong tournament flipping from angle to angle of just two people's facial expressions.

The young man whose listening skills are beyond human as well as his patience and seemingly sincere appreciation of story telling seemed like a proper ghost. No real being has that much tolerance for boring old women with absolutely nothing to say. I was hoping for some fantastic plot twist with a paranormal aspect but nope. Unless....

I recall "The Prime of Miss Jean Brody" so many decades ago which introduced this lovely versatile actress. After viewing this dire droll drama I was shocked she dared to endanger her reputation with such drivel.

High recommend for 50's fashionistas, that yellow chartreuse (?) dress was spectacular and have never seen such a palette for that era. Even for Smith fans this is a huge disappointment...sigh.

OK, first of all, Woot! Woot! for Ruth Wilson and Gemma Armerton. My intro to RW was in "Luther". She is an amazing looking actor, you cannot look away, you anxiously await each word to bubble from that slightly bridged upper lip. The way her mouth turns each sentence into poem of enchantment. Was the whole place a ghostly construct of Joe's imagination? It would certainly help me to see "Joe's Palace" and anything else Poliakov may have done, just for some hints. This story is left wide open. Is Joe the keeper of the afterworld. Was Greville the Devil? It could be that it's a shabbily constructed story with a crap ending that was just executed and acted amazingly well! Worthwhile watching Dame Maggie regardless.

A elderly woman tours a stately home where she had a series of traumatic experiences and recounts them to its young caretaker. Maggie Smith and Ruth Wilson play older and younger versions of the titular "Mary" and are excellent. The bulk of the film is a flashback with older Mary recalling encounters with an oddly sinister man (played with a distinctly Satanic flair by Walliams) and how this impacted the trajectory of her life.

The film's set up is a bit awkward. I find it hard to believe that someone like Mary would recount some of the most devastating moments of her life to the young caretaker, Joe. And her interactions with him (while not the focus of the film) seem like plot conveniences. But if you turn your attention to the story she tells, most of that will slide away. The movie seems to have a couple of ideas at its core. First, the dreadful secrets that Walliams shares with Mary are bad enough on their own but take on an even more dreadful sheen when you realize that it is a manipulation on his part, an attempt to bind Mary to him for some ill-defined purpose. Second, we get to see how Mary copes with the set-backs to what could have been a brilliant career (maybe) but for her rejection of Walliams' character. A very telling moment comes at the end when Mary is forced to ask herself whether or not she hasn't used the unpleasant encounters with Walliams as an excuse, a reason for not trying as hard as she could have. Ultimately, there's no clear answer to that sort of question and one must do as Mary seems to do, soldier on. In the end, perhaps, it's not such a bad thing to just be "a nice lady" as Joe describes her.

It's an odd film with some compelling ideas and excellent acting.

It doesn't really matter that much whether the hero ever existed or not. He and the heroine are actually each other's shadows, each other's mirrors, the same teenagers are proud and proud, and the same struggles are lost in the changes of the times. They are in step, always walking together, reflecting each other's changes... The heroine's retrospective journey, backtracking It's not just a vague emotion, but in the torrent of the times. I do not know why the bleak years.