My Boy Jack (DVD)

...and I prefer to save my feelings for the real news. However, I was persuaded by the hype to watch it and, although I blubbed my way through most of it, it is a very worthwhile drama to watch.

David Haig, who also wrote the screenplay, stars as Rudyard Kipling. Better known (to me at least) for his roles in The Thin Blue Line and Four Weddings and a Funeral, I was a little concerned at the idea of him doing a serious role. Certainly ...
...is contagious and I sobbed my way through the film with him, forgetting that he was anything other than what he was pretending to be. I would have liked a little longer to get under his skin, but on the whole, this is a powerful performance and I was deeply impressed. I was surprised to find that, seeing a photo of Rudyard Kipling at the time, Haig looks very much like him.

It is going to be a long time before anyone can look at Daniel ... more

It is the beginning of the First World War and Rudyard Kipling is very much behind the British war effort. Some of his enthusiasm has rubbed off on his son, Jack, who can't wait to be accepted into the Army. The only problem is that his eyesight is terrible and initial attempts to sign up are thwarted because of this. Deeply disappointed that his son has been turned down, Rudyard pulls a few strings with his influential contacts and eventually Jack is accepted and joins up, much to the concern of Rudyard's wife and daughter, Carrie and Bird. Then Jack goes missing during the Battle of Loos and the Kipling family are thrown into confusion as they try to find out whether their son is still alive. Will Jack ever come home? If not, will they find out what happened to him?

This drama, recently shown on ITV, was much advertised, partly because it coincided with Remembrance Day and partly because Jack is played by Daniel Radcliffe of Harry Potter fame. I generally steer clear of anything to do with war; it is almost always deeply distressing and I prefer to save my feelings for the real news. However, I was persuaded by the hype to watch it and, although I blubbed my way through most of it, it is a very worthwhile drama to watch.

David Haig, who also wrote the screenplay, stars as Rudyard Kipling. Better known (to me at least) for his roles in The Thin Blue Line and Four Weddings and a Funeral, I was a little concerned at the idea of him doing a serious role. Certainly to start with, it was rather off-putting. When he is arguing with the officials who turn Jack down for a place in the Army, I kept expecting him to come out with a Thin Blue Line line, such as 'My arse is on the line and I don't want a cock-up!'. However, once I had got used to him in the role, I could see that he was really good. His grief at the news that Jack is missing is contagious and I sobbed my way through the film with him, forgetting that he was anything other than what he was pretending to be. I would have liked a little longer to get under his skin, but on the whole, this is a powerful performance and I was deeply impressed. I was surprised to find that, seeing a photo of Rudyard Kipling at the time, Haig looks very much like him.

It is going to be a long time before anyone can look at Daniel Radcliffe and not think of Harry Potter, so I was concerned that he wouldn't be able to carry the role of Jack Kipling off. However, I am happy to stand corrected. Within five minutes, all thoughts of Harry Potter had disappeared and what was left was a very competent performance of a young man, desperate to be involved in the War with all his friends and to do his bit. His delight at finally getting a commission in the Army is infectious, yet understated. This is an excellent performance and, for me, proof that there is far more to Daniel Radcliffe's talents than some critics of his Harry Potter performance would have me believe. He is still so young and I think has a lot more to give.

Type-cast in her Sex and the City role, I was again concerned that Kim Cattrall wouldn't be able to pull off the role as the wife of a prominent writer. I was stunned when I first saw her - she couldn't look more unlike Samantha Jones with black hair pulled back very unsexily from her face. Her performance was very unlike Samantha Jones as well. It is again very understated and we don't get much of a chance to get to know her, but particularly when she is grief-stricken, it is very very moving.

I think that it is very difficult to fit a story that is so distressing and moving into just 93 minutes and there were certainly times when I felt that the screenplay was rushed. However, I can understand the director's decision to keep the film as short as it is - especially when you consider that it is made for television and therefore needs to fit into a convenient slot of time. Anyway, I don't think that I could have taken much more upset than I got. The battle scenes were particuarly well-filmed - the fear and confusion that the soldiers experienced was palpable and well-shot, shown by a series of oddly-angled shots that built on the feeling of suspense. However, the most distressful part of the film for me was the agony that the Kiplings went through while waiting for news of their son. I found it deeply moving and cried so much that anyone watching me would have thought it was a member of my family that had died.

I think the timing of this film to coincide with Remembrance Day was an excellent idea. I think that so many of us, myself included, tend to forget about the horrors of the First and Second World War when most families lost at least one family member. This film dealt with the awfulness of it all very sensitively, thanks to the screenplay by David Haig. It also deals with the guilt that so many people must have felt for sending British soldiers out to almost certain injury and mental distress, if not death. Kipling's role in getting his son involved shows just how painful that guilt must have been for him. This is particularly obvious at the end of the film when Kipling quotes his poem, 'Have You News of My Boy Jack'.

This is a war film and obviously has some scenes that could be frightening for young children. However, it is not full of gory shots, so the classification of 15 is probably about right. Be aware though, that it is distressing to watch at times.

I have been inspired enough to want to find out more about Kipling and his role in the War effort, and have ordered a book on the subject. For me, this proves how good I thought this film was. It is deeply distressing and depressing, but I think it is worth that, thanks to the strong performances of the main characters. Highly recommended.

I watched the film on television, so am reviewing the film only, but there is a DVD available from play.com for £11.99. This comes with extras, including an interview with Daniel Radcliffe.

Running time: 93 minutes

Classification: 15 

...less