Product Description
Young student starts affair with dashing older man.Amazon.com
A young girl seduced by an older man may be a common story, but An Education is no common movie. As Jenny, a precocious middle-class British schoolgirl charmed by a small-time criminal, newcomer Carey Mulligan is luminous; her face can be plain and beautiful at the same time, her eyes expressing a restless intelligence and a hungry soul. As David, the seducer, Peter Sarsgaard (Year of the Dog, G… More >>
**Warning–This review may contain spoilers**–’An Education’ is a film rife with one implausible character after another. For starters, when we’re introduced to the protagonist, high school student Jenny, she seems way too sophisticated for a 16 year old. The main problem is that Carey Mulligan, who plays Jenny, is 24 years old in real life. Why didn’t they cast a teenager?
Then there’s the problem of the girl’s father, Jack. At first he appears extremely petulant, a caricature of the pushy parent who wants their child to succeed at any cost. With his insistence that Jenny study night and day in order to get into Oxford, we’re first led to believe that he’s the film’s antagonist. But soon when con-artist David appears on the scene, Jack is suddenly reduced to unprincipled buffoon. I say buffoon because he’s so easily taken in by David’s scheme–that David is actually an Oxford alumni and knows famous Oxford professor/author C.S Lewis. If this was a real character, wouldn’t have Jack made a few simple inquiries to determine whether David was telling the truth or not?
In very simplistic fashion, the implication here is Jenny’s sudden embrace of a life of crime is due to Jack’s lack of principles. David basically buys Jack’s acquiescence in allowing Jenny’s trips away from home and ultimately accepting the idea of Jenny and David tying the knot. Somehow all this so easily rubs off on impressionable Jenny. The gutless father figure is nothing new–just think of Jim Backus strutting around in an apron in ‘Rebel without a cause’.
Perhaps the moment I found to be the most incredulous was Jenny’s sudden transformation from earnest student to unsavory bad girl. Even with the father acting the way he did, would she have so suddenly embraced David once she discovers that he’s a con artist? I would think that a normal teenager would have been very alarmed that she was now in the company of a bunch of criminals and fear would have entered into the equation. But what was Jenny’s reaction? A mild protest and then David sweeps her off her feet.
David was disappointing in that he was such a tame sociopath. What are his crimes? Well, he steals an antique map from a house that’s up for sale and arranges for minorities to move into apartment buildings, scaring elderly tenants, and then buying the apartments from them when they decide to leave, at cut-rate prices. Oh yes, he also cheats on his wife. Equally disappointing is the couple he hangs out with–except for one scene where there is a confrontation with Jenny, they really have little to do.
Every melodrama needs a villain and that is of course the headmistress of the school Jenny attends. After she finds out David is Jewish, she blurts out that the Jews “killed our Lord”. Not only is she depicted as a vile anti-Semite but she cruelly rejects Jenny’s request to be reinstated. Only Jenny’s kindly teacher is willing to give her encouragement.
There is nothing subtle about ‘An Education’. It’s an old-fashioned morality play where the good guys (educated professionals) triumph over shiftless petty criminals who hang out at such unsavory venues as dog tracks and seedy nightclubs. Everything is tied up in a nice ribbon at the end when both Jenny and her father repent and Jenny is miraculously accepted into Oxford.
‘An Education’ is a tawdry little tale that has already garnered a good share of undeserved accolades. It does boast a nice recreation of early 60s London along with a brooding score but in terms of psychological insight and depth of character, it totally lacks any kind of aesthetic credibility.
Rating: 2 / 5
A lushly photographed film that is both draggy and interesting. Very handsome and photogenic stars. Outside of the Middle East, it’s unusual to see a Jew openly portrayed as a scoundrel, and this is probably one of the unique aspects here. Also gives a nice feel for British private school life, family interactions, and social mores in the 1960’s.
Rating: 3 / 5
“An education” is very well acted. Art direction and recreation of the 60’s are impecable and there are many enjoyable witty dialogue lines. The movie is never boring and keeps you expectant all the time for that turn in the story that will surprise you and make it memorable… but it never comes. It is true that such a “twist” is not essential. Being able to captivate an audience by re-telling a very well known old story also has an enormous merit. But “An Education” does not achieve this either. The misfortunes of an innocent young girl deceived by a charming older man have been brought to the screen many times, and so have coming of age stories, both categories into which “An Education” could be classified. However, this version is certainly not one that will be remembered among the best. It could be forgiven that the “innocent girl” appears too far from gullible. It could be argued that she is rather more dazzled than deceived. However, there is an extremely naive treatment of some characters that are essential to the story, especially the initially strict father who falls too easily a prey to the charm and lies of the mature man that chases his teenage daughter. Even if it could be accepted that, in reality, he is letting her go willingly, expecting that in this way (just as she does) she will get more from life and more easily than by pursuing her studies at Oxford, the movie never portrays his inner struggle or thought process. The same comments apply to other characters, like Emma Thompson’s headmistress, who is described in an extremely simplistic way as a decidedly moralistic anti-semitic bitch, uncapable of giving a lovable brilliant girl who made a mistake a second chance. So the story becomes not only predictable but very linear, with many of the characters becoming just decorative accesories (very pleasant to look at, that it is true) to help move forward the narrative of the story, but devoid of any depth. The moralistic end with the main character’s redemption, though not necessarily a negative had the whole story been more solid, adds another element of predictability that does not help to enhance one’s final impression of the film. In short, this is a movie where all the formal aspects have been very well taken care of. If it had had a script with a bit more creativity or better defined characters, it could have been believable and, who knows, even memorable. Unfortunately, it is just as a gift box wrapped in bright paper and colourful ribbons, which you untie and open only to find a pair of socks which you have already worn before and not even your best.
Rating: 2 / 5
I saw that you didn’t respond to my recent comment on you scathing review of this film, and so I thought that I’d go ahead and elaborate on my feelings on the film to you in a letter. I know that my initial comment on your review may have seemed rather harsh, but I was simply stating my perception of your viewpoint. I know that everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I respect that (as I would hope that others on here would respect my own) but your review struck me as one that entirely missed the point of the film, and when I said that I felt you were `looking for reasons to tear it apart’ I meant that, and I’ll explain why now.
I hope you don’t mind, but I’m going to `quote’ you here, and then elaborate on my personal feelings.
I’m going to start by yelling SPOILERS. There are many people (myself included) who read reviews on this site to better understand whether or not they are truly interested in even watching a certain film, and so to give away the entire plot without giving a heads-up first is just not right.
I find it odd that you make the statement “For starters, when we’re introduced to the protagonist, high school student Jenny, she seems way too sophisticated for a 16 year old…” and then make a contradictory statement a few paragraphs down when you say “Perhaps the moment I found to be the most incredulous was Jenny’s sudden transformation from earnest student to unsavory bad girl. Even with the father acting the way he did, would she have so suddenly embraced David once she discovers that he’s a con artist? I would think that a normal teenager would have been very alarmed that she was now in the company of a bunch of criminals and fear would have entered into the equation. But what was Jenny’s reaction? A mild protest and then David sweeps her off her feet.” Teenagers have the natural born tendency to rebel. Jenny is a smart and studious young woman who has been pushed and prodded by her parents (her father especially) to soak up her education at the expense of a social life. While she displays a sharp hesitation upon discovering her boyfriends little hobby, she is still completely under his charm and that element of danger excites her. She has already shown that this is the case (she is readily lying to and hiding things from her parents). You have to understand that this is completely new to Jenny, and it carries with it an air of excitement that she is not used to. David is handsome and charming and funny and apparently wealthy and this is all something that brings Jenny a flutter in her stomach she doesn’t want to see go away. So, maybe she is a little apprehensive about his choices, and she doesn’t agree with them, but in her mind his seemingly good qualities outweigh this little indiscretion.
Next I’ll address your statement that “The main problem is that Carey Mulligan, who plays Jenny, is 24 years old in real life. Why didn’t they cast a teenager?”. For me, this was `looking for something to tear at’. They very rarely cast teenagers in roles as teenagers. Most films you see where high-school is depicted, the actors are all in their 20’s. In fact, Rachel McAdams is in her 30’s and yet just 5 years ago she played a teenager in `Mean Girls’.
Now we have your interpretation of Jenny’s father, Jack. To `quote you’, you say “At first he appears extremely petulant, a caricature of the pushy parent who wants their child to succeed at any cost. With his insistence that Jenny study night and day in order to get into Oxford, we’re first led to believe that he’s the film’s antagonist.” While I don’t agree on that caricature part, I understand your feelings here, so I’m not going to pounce on them. The character of Jack is not really new to cinema, and his eccentric behavior can be perceived as over-acting or hammy. I get that, but I don’t agree, and here is why. Jack is not very respected, at least not to the degree he would like to be. Both his daughter and his wife challenge his authority in many scenes, and so his over exertion is more a defense mechanism. He uses his loud voice and faux authoritative stance as a way to compensate for his feelings of inadequacy. Understanding this avenue of his personality will make it easier to reason out your next complaint. You say “he’s so easily taken in by David’s scheme–that David is actually an Oxford alumni and knows famous Oxford professor/author C.S Lewis. If this was a real character, wouldn’t have Jack made a few simple inquiries to determine whether David was telling the truth or not?”. Jack fears that he will be taken as a lesser man than this charming older gentleman who has taken an interest in his daughter, and so while he may not understand completely he fakes it so as to feel (and appear) as though he is an equal. Another thing to keep in mind is the time period in which this film takes place. Sure, it may seem like bad parenting to us today, but having an educated and wealthy older gentleman take an interest in your young daughter was something truly prized then (and to a degree, it is prized today) so the parents blind eye so-to-speak is not really that ridiculous.
Now, let’s look at David. You state this as your complaint: “David was disappointing in that he was such a tame sociopath. What are his crimes?”. My problem with this accusation is that David isn’t really a sociopath. You have to remember that this is a true story (surely embellished) and that in real life people make these kinds of mistakes. The reveal of David’s personality and his actions feels honest. Sure, they may not be BIG mistakes compared to the fictitious ones generated by Hollywood, but they are honest and truly devastating, especially to a sixteen-year-old. David was a foolish and impulsive man who was obviously unhappy with his life and found a sense of solace in young girls, but I do feel that his feelings for Jenny, while initially selfish, were genuine by the films end.
He wasn’t a sociopath, he was a human being.
Next you attack his friends by saying “Equally disappointing is the couple he hangs out with–except for one scene where there is a confrontation with Jenny, they really have little to do.” They are there to represent a certain lifestyle and culture, and they do that effortlessly (especially Pike, who is a glorious supporting playing in this film, showing an earned understanding of her place in her man’s life).
This point especially got me. You state, regarding the headmistress, “After she finds out David is Jewish, she blurts out that the Jews “killed our Lord”. Not only is she depicted as a vile anti-Semite but she cruelly rejects Jenny’s request to be reinstated.” Again, `LOOKING FOR SOMETHING TO TEAR AT’. She was a woman of the times, and a very strong woman at that. Her viewpoint regarding the Jews was not an uncommon one and so the film shouldn’t be attacked for portraying her in a way that felt authentic, and her rejecting Jenny’s request shouldn’t be looked at as tyrannical in any way. She had to uphold a sense of justice, and she had to set an example for the other girls who may have been influenced by Jenny’s indiscretion. Jenny was not a bad girl by any means, but she was foolish and there are consequences to be paid.
That is life.
Well, that is about all I have to say in rebuttal, so I’m going to generate my own review now. With all that I have already said, I will keep this briefer than usual.
For me, `An Education’ is one of the better films to come out this year (of Oscars top ten `Best Picture’ nominees, it is my favorite). The plot is swift and poignant, and while it doesn’t really bend any rules or go anywhere different than the norm, it does everything other films have done, only better. The acting is probably my favorite aspect of the film (Mulligan’s natural and delightfully sincere portrayal of young Jenny is the best of the year, bar none, and quite frankly one of the, if not THE, best of the decade). I also adored Rosamond Pike and Olivia Williams and Alfred Molina and Dominic Cooper, and while Sarsgaard (a personal favorite of mine) is not best in show, he is remarkable astute to his characters development. I personally don’t understand those who criticize Sarsgaard for playing David as a creep. We are supposed to see the shifty eyes, but are supposed to be duped but the charm.
We are.
The elements of this film all come together nicely to create a crisp and colorful package that is as technically engaging (from the posh night clubs to the authentic classrooms to the stunning cinematography, tantalizing score and delicious costumes) as it is emotionally stimulating. The film, for me, plays with the subtlety very nicely, allowing us to sink into each scene as if we were right there, the characters slowing unveiling themselves so that we are never forced their transformation but allowed to witness it in gradual, and honest, progression.
This is an odd review for me, but I hope that it was helpful to some and at least interesting for all. Turfseer, I hope you understand that I am not trying to target you or attack you. You are entitled to your opinion, but you challenged me to debate you here (your exact words were “I noticed that you offered no arguments in defense of your position that ‘An Education’ was a good film. You are of course entitled to do so and I would be interested to hear them.”) and so I decided to take you up on the challenge.
Sincerely,
Andrew Ellington
Rating: 5 / 5
This was a difficult movie to rate. I thought the performances – especially Carey Mulligan’s – and its 60s authenticity were outstanding. But the subject matter, despite being (purportedly) true, was not at my comfort level. It was unsavory, as another reviewer said. I kind of felt like I needed to take a shower afterwards, despite the fact that there was nothing sexually explicit in the movie.
I found it unrealistic that Jenny’s parents allowed her relationship to go on, even though Lynn Barber explained how this happened and how her parents were enamored with the sleazy David. (David, played charismatically by Peter Sarsgaard, is not nearly sleazy enough and certainly does not fit the description given by Barber).
I suppose this could be labelled a “coming of age” movie, but it is one that I found rather bleak. As someone who is the same age as Barber, I cannot imagine anyone whom I knew in 1960 falling for this kind of seduction by a man twice her age. Nor did I ever know any parents who would have permitted such a thing this to go on. I almost hate to mention this, but I wonder how carefully Barber’s memoir was vetted for authenticity? I am well-known by my friends for having a healthy skepticism about memoirs, and this one is no different. I just cannot help but wonder about the blurring of the line between memory and imagination…..
Rating: 3 / 5