Made in Britain Special: Book to Movie- The Cement Garden

Before I start, I’d like to thank Xi for the use of his excellent Book to Movie idea. Given the content of this mega-review, I’ll return it only slightly soiled.

Ian McEwan’s novella The Cement Garden was a novel that I read at school, and stuck with me for much longer afterwards. A haunting dreamlike novel, with a consummately unreliable narrator, it is both celebrated and reviled in equal measure. Having said that, I never for the life of me thought that anyone would be nuts enough, given it’s intensely controversial subject matter, to even attempt to adapt it for the screen. Yet in 1993 Andrew Birkin (remember that last name, it’ll be important later) took a stab at it, and turned in a haunting, lyrical, sombre little film that wasn’t afraid to look at the inherent unpleasantness of the novel’s plot.

OK, here we go. Buckle up, this one’s stormy.

The plot is virtually identical in both novel and film, and there are major spoilers below, as it’s impossible to talk about either the book or the film without addressing the driving force of the plot.

The Book:

In 1978 McEwan was an almost completely unheard of British Author. The Cement Garden was his first full length book, and, for a debut, stirred up a huge controversy. Followed by The Comfort of Strangers, another intensely uncomfortable novel, the Cement Garden set a high standard of both perversion and style that his career has mostly met. While Comfort dealt with Sado-Masochism and was startlingly unpleasant, it really doesn’t hold a candle to the preceding novel, which is both far more sordid and a far superior read. Incidentally, I’ve just discovered that Paul Schrader directed an adaptation of Comfort in 1991 and I shall be looking this up forthwith. Stylistically though, The Cement Garden doesn’t feel as visceral as many later books, and that’s in part due to the narration and the almost hallucinatory quality that the novel holds.

It’s a long hot summer in the 70’s. Our family, consisting of Mother, Father, Jack (15 years old at the start of the novel), Julie (17), Sue (13) and Tom (6) are in serious difficulties. The kids have a relationship that could best be described as unhealthy, with Jack and Julie playing “doctor” with a naked Sue, and Father and Mother are somewhat distant. Father makes the decision to pave over the garden outside, and in the midst of this croaks. Mother follows soon after and the four children make the disastrous mistake of burying her in the cellar, in an attempt to keep the family together.

The relationship between Jack and Julie grows stranger and stranger. They are effectively surrogate parents for the two younger kids, although Sue is maturing fast in the book, particularly sexually, and as such start to develop a closeness that is, to put it mildly, unhealthy. The seeds of this were admittedly sown in the early chapter of the novel, but even a blind man can see where this is going. Julie upsets the natural order in the house by introducing a boyfriend to Jack’s consternation. In the meantime, Tom is suffering from severe identity issues, and the two sisters insist on dressing him as a girl as well- possibly because he misses his mother, but more likely due to the problems with Jack that I’ll come to in a moment. The novel culminates with Jack and Julie consummating their relationship, and the boyfriend revealing all to the authorities. Basically, kids, stick to fucking Scrabble.

This, on the page, isn’t as icky as it sounds. McEwan conjures up a dreamy atmosphere through having Jack narrate. Jack appears to be simple, I’d almost go as far as him rating somewhere on the autistic spectrum, and as such his version of events is sugar-coated. There’s a strange matter-of-factness to his account, as if he doesn’t want to pass judgement on himself or his beloved sister, coupled with the nicest possible interpretation of events that he can give. Jack is, at the very least, developmentally retarded. He has a child-like quality and utterly lacks even a basic adult understanding. To compound matters, he’s starting to become sexually aware, and the isolation of the family turns him towards his only real available outlet: Julie. As an easy example of his sheer lack of understanding, the climactic incest sequence takes place after he manages to sunburn himself and resorts to sleeping in a cot.

Julie, on the other hand, is more of a difficult character. She knows damned well that what she is doing is wrong, and she is the member of the family with the most interaction with the outside world. I’ve read this book several times, and to this day I cannot work out what she thinks she’s playing at. Partially this is because my mind rebels against the subject matter, and I’ve no real desire to understand her, and partly it is because Jack doesn’t understand her either, and as he’s our conduit into the story her motives are at best confused. If I were to take a stab at it, the claustrophobic atmosphere of the novel, and the surrogate parental role that she’s acting out has warped her perception of right and wrong. Although this is, at best, a guess.


Overall, this is a deeply unsettling and grimy read. It is hailed as a classic of modern English literature by some, and reviled as being close to scat porn by others. Me, I lie somewhere in the middle, as there’s no doubt that this is a skilfully constructed and morally ambiguous book, yet it’s also an unpleasant and unengaging read for the most part. If you want to read McEwan, then there are many other books out there that I would recommend before this one. Although curiousity keeps drawing me back, and I hope every time to try to untangle the riddle of why?

I always fail mind, but I’m sure I’ll come back to it again in a few years. I’m going to approve it, just, because it is a finely crafted and extremely well written book, and although the subject matter is intensely uncomfortable, it never feels overly gratuitous and sordid.

The Film:

Which brings me on to the film. Given that this is a film about incest, and given the plot and tone of the novel, why would you attempt to adapt it to the screen. The novel doesn’t have a great message, and it is so slight that I’m not sure it quite warrants a full run time. However, in 1993, director Andrew Birkin did attempt it, with somewhat mixed results.

Frequently hailed as a classic, The Cement Garden makes several important changes to the plot of the book, and more importantly to the character of Jack. Firstly, the early “doctor” scene is gone, although it is referred to by the two characters. Instead of this, Jack (Andrew Robertson) is a surly and unlikable arsehole with questionable personal hygiene. Even if the question is “Why don’t you go and wash you horrible little bastard?”. He’s also heavily into the self abuse, and in probably the best scene of the film his onanism is intercut with his father’s heart attack with the death coinciding with Jack’s climax: “Le Petit Mort” indeed.

Julie is played by Charlotte Gainsbourg and she’s not quite a tom boy despite the short hair, and thus spends significant time in the film sexually taunting Jack. The other two kids are played by Birkin’s son, Ned, and Alice Coulthard as Sue. Sue is almost completely marginalised by the film, which is a shame, but the Tom cross-dressing story remains intact, which is more of a pity, because Ned is downright awful. In contrast to the two younger kids, Gainsbourg and Robertson are both good.

Birkin has managed to keep the dreamy atmosphere of the novel intact, for the most part, but fuck knows what he was playing at with the dancing naked in the rain sequence. However, the film’s greatest asset is its location. Shot in a cinder block house that reeks of deprivation in the midst of an urban wasteland, the setting itself provides a crushing sense of claustrophobia and squalor. It’s a superb example of the right location found for a small budget film.

There are significant problems with this as both a film in its own right and as an adaptation of the novel. I’ll deal with the latter first. Birkin, who also adapted it, made the disastrous decision to alter Jack’s personality from the book. He’s no longer of questionable intellect, and instead is little more than an unpleasant and grotty little pervert. By doing this, he rips away a layer of ambiguity from the book, and to juxtapose sexualised shots of Gainsbourg (she was in her 20’s so it’s not as bad as it could have been) with him masturbating is a ginormous miss-step. This makes the film seem more unpleasant than the novel, although it obviously isn’t, and as such makes it an uneasy adaptation.

Then, and this is the big problem for me that I can’t get over, there’s the casting of the film itself. This is a film about sexual confusion that culminates in an intensely dodgy sequence with the elder brother naked in a cot with the younger brother before full on incest with the sister. So what in the name of Satan’s arse was Birkin doing casting his son and his niece in key parts (Gainsbourg is Jane Birkin and Serge Gainsbourg’s daughter)? As soon as you know this fact, any artistic merit to the film becomes questionable- there’s something intensely sordid about the camera angle between her legs when she’s doing the handstand, let alone the “tickled to orgasm” scene early on. And that’s before I even get on to the fact that he chose to shoot a much younger close family member totally naked for an incestuous sex scene. This is, as mentioned, intensely dodgy, and knowing this before watching the film makes it an unpleasant and disgusting watch.

Overall, this is in many respects a beautiful and extremely well shot art movie. Yet it isn’t one that I recommend. As good as the performances are, with Gainsbourg in particular being superb, the casting gives the whole film an unpleasant feel, and while there is plenty to applaud here, it’s just too fucking grimy for me. There are a variety of incest movies out there, notably Spanking the Monkey, but for the life of me I can’t think of a reason for them to exist. There are also many Child Abandonment films out there, and if you want to see one of those, then I suggest the harrowing Japanese misery porn fest Nobody Knows. While not shit, it’s not exactly great, and so I don’t approve it. The Cement Garden can have a “meh”.

Conclusion:

The reason I borrowed Book to film from Xi for this was that I couldn’t legitimately believe that anyone thought an adaptation of this novel was a good idea at the time. This is the second time I’ve seen it, but the first with the knowledge of who the cast members were, and in retrospect, I can’t believe anyone thought that was a good idea either.

As an attempt to adapt a difficult and sordid novel, the film makes as good a stab as probably can be done, yet, it strikes me as an utterly pointless affair. There’s no great message here, no powerful theme, and what we have is an extremely pretty and lovingly crafted empty vessel. However when you throw in the cast member, it becomes slightly more sinister, and as such is much less palatable than it was before.

I can’t say in all honesty that I think The Cement Garden is a fantastic book, but nor is it a bad one, and I can’t say that the adaptation it got is a bad film. However, it isn’t a film that I’ll ever watch again, and it isn’t a book that really stands up to scrutiny. Maybe this is the essential problem: the book is slight, and at the end of the day simply does not warrant an adaptation. When there’s nothing to say, we don’t need telling twice.

Until next time,

Jarv

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About Jarv

Workshy cynic, given to posting reams of nonsense on the internet and watching films that have inexplicably got a piss poor reputation.

29 responses to “Made in Britain Special: Book to Movie- The Cement Garden”

  1. Jarv says :

    I’ve struggled like hell with this one. Hope it’s not too dull, and sorry about the spoiling if you haven’t seen it.

  2. Jarv says :

    Were I to rate these two, by the way, then I’d give the novel 2.5 and the film either 1.5 or 2 depending on how I’m feeling.

  3. Xiphos0311 says :

    The movie sounds like a misfire due to some of the choice made and not so much the subject matter. Yes the book does sound sordid but it’s a look at the darker corners of the human experience and sordidness dwells in those dark corners. I’ll avoid the movie but I will check out the book never heard of it until today.

    • Jarv says :

      The book is somewhat strange. Haunting is the most used word about it. I do think it is too slight to merit a film though.

      The movie fails, for me, entirely because of choices they made. It’s gross watching an incest film where you know the director filmed his niece and son. More importantly though, the change to Jack’s character is utterly wrong. I may be overstating his simplicity in the book, but he seriously doesn’t seem to understand what he’s doing being wrong. He’s a perv, sure, but he’s also a naif.

      Cheers for the idea, by the way.

      • Xiphos0311 says :

        Sounds like the director made the deliberate choice to include his son and niece in order to up the icky factor and make it closer to real incest then casting unrelated actors for the role. That’s a disgusting choice to make and hugely cynical and highly manipulative to boot.

        I wonder just how awkward the conversation between the director and his brother or sister over casting his niece in an incest laden role must have been? Christmas that year must have been really strained.

      • Jarv says :

        I don’t know- because his son plays the younger of the two children- but he’s still cross dressed, and in the cot with the elder boy.

        I suppose, and this is a guess, that he cast Gainsbourg as part of a “help” to her career. Now this sounds weird, but Birkin is no cunt, he’s got a highly respectable CV, and the Cement Garden was one of the fashionable books of the period- Schrader had paved the way, but The Innocent was following soon, and this was the start of McEwan becoming established as an “important” author.

        So, by casting her as Julie, it represented a serious potential door opener. And the film did go on to festival success winning in Venice, and getting nominated in Cannes.

        That’s the nicest interpretation I can give.

      • Jarv says :

        The other point is that there are incest films out there, such as Spanking the Monkey, or Child Abandonment films such as Nobody Knows that do work. So it can’t be the subject matter.

        I think the source is too shallow for the adaptation, which comes across as pretty but grimy- needed more depth, more psychological trauma like in Monkey, or more tragedy like in Nobody Knows.

        It’s neither one thing nor the other.

      • Xiphos0311 says :

        Oh the director son’s is the younger child I misread that I thought he was the older boy.

      • Jarv says :

        Probably my fault. However, it isn’t any more pleasant.

      • Xiphos0311 says :

        The writing was more then clear I just didn’t make the right connections. Good review BTW.

      • Jarv says :

        Cheers Mate. It’s a tough subject to review, this one.

      • Xiphos0311 says :

        yeah the subject matter doesn’t lend itself to an easy breezy review. I’ve taken out low hanging fruit so far in this series and you want for something dark and complex.Good on you for that.

      • Jarv says :

        I’d been meaning to review the film for ages, and I just happened to read the book recently again. Nothing planned.

        If you are interested in McEwan, most of them have been filmed now (including Atonement, sadly). They vary, but I’d read The Innocent or Enduring Love first.

        You’ll get a handle on his style and what he tends to write about from them. Then I’d go for Amsterdam, The Cement Garden, Child in Time and Black Dogs.

        Don’t bother with Atonement.

      • Xiphos0311 says :

        Thanks for the recommendations I will give them a read. I need to broaden my reading base since I tend to sort of go to extremes. On one hand I read science history biographies, economics and the like but then turn it around and read Reacher or Sci fi and the like but don’t give much time to literature like this.

      • Jarv says :

        No worries. The Innocent is sort of a Cold War thriller. Kind of, and Enduring Love they made into a deeply average film with Daniel Craig. It’s about De Clerimbault’s Syndrome.

        I’d definitely start with those two. After that, they get a bit murkier, but Amsterdam is enjoyable enough.

  4. Just Pillow Talk says :

    I can safely say that I will not be searching out either the book or the movie.

    No matter the spin on it, I find it a wee bit fucked up that he would cast relatives in the movie. And why the hell would the parents agree to it?

  5. ThereWolf says :

    What a sordid bit of casting that is; I actually did a ‘Ugh!’ out loud when I got to that part… I’m certainly not going near the film but I may approach the novel at some stage – if I’m feeling brave. I’m not putting it high on the list though.

    Cracking review, Jarv, not ‘dull’ at all.

  6. Droid says :

    Only really skimmed this one. I may watch it or read it some day, and you say there are massive spoilers.

    • Jarv says :

      One massive spoiler in particular, but everyone knows it- and it isn’t so much a spoiler in the novel because it’s on page 2.

      I’ll lend it to you.

      • Droid says :

        Cool. Speaking of which, are we on for a few beers next weekend? The post payday weekend. I believe there’s some sort of sniff bum and run event on that you like to watch.

      • Jarv says :

        Let me check the finances, but could well be. It’s England v Wales and as England are likely to be stuffed badly I will need alcoholic fortification.

  7. Mickey Hatton says :

    Just a strange resonance with some of what has been said about the casting -check out Lemon Incest a song between Charlotte and her father when she was much younger and also another movie Charlotte Forever with her father. Incest didn’t seemed to be a taboo subject for the family.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: