It was always going to be an enthralling prospect- a cinematic take on David Peace’s astounding and controversial non-linear novel charting Brian Clough’s disastrous and brief tenure in charge of Dirty Leeds. Our original review said enough about the film itself back on its cinematic review, so I’m looking to offer something slightly different…
While most critical reception will have looked little further than Sheen’s central performance- and it’s a cracker- the supporting cast are exceptional, with the pick of the bunch being a selection of the very best British character actors in the game today- Jim Broadbent as Sam Longson, Stephen Graham as Billy Bremner and Timothy Spall as Peter Taylor- along with the traditionally more functional style of Colm Meaney, who is exceptional as Don Revie the Clough-styled villain of the piece. Spall deserves as many plaudits as Sheen for his take on Clough’s right-hand man, and the dynamic between the two is mesmorising, even if the writer’s have manipulated it so it appears as more of a romance than might have really been the case. It is no secret that the men were devoted to each other professionally, and personally (even if some of Clough’s actions might suggest otherwise), and it is a jarring tragedy that outside of fictional accounts, the two men were never able to reconcile their differences before the chance was snatched away from them by mortality.
There’s something delightfully vivid about the way author David Peace paints his narratives that make his novels infinitely adaptable- The Red Riding trilogy was as faithful in tone and objectives to Peace’s triumverate of books as could possibly be imagined, and suggested an authorial identity that generally gets lost when a book is transferred to film (look at the distinctly un-Danny Wallace-like Yes Man). But that’s not the case with The Damned United, which is curiously quite devoid of Peace’s distinctive voice thanks to a lumbering light-weight script from the usually precise and accomplished Peter Morgan. Far curioser is that helmer Tom Palmer couldnt whip up more from his scriptwriter considering how exceptionally John Adams was created so recently.
The major problem with the writing is that it doesnt stick close enough to the original text which would have been admittedly difficult thanks to its style, or to the original character-version of Clough. Instead of the man we knew Clough to be; cock-sure, arrogant, often pig-headed and ultimately deeply flawed we are presented with a far more timid and “likeable” figure, the writer and director perhaps wary of inciting the Clough family to further bad-mouth the project after their loud displeasure with Peace’s novel. But really, I for one didnt want or welcome the clean-up: Brian Clough was likeable despite his flaws because he had enough charm and idiosyncratic appeal that he was always forgiveable, without ever threatening to change. I couldnt shake the feeling that Morgan had abandoned the truer image of Clough and made him more like Jose Mourinho- a difficult thing to qualify, but there are times when The Special One seems more interested in self-promotion and maintaining a particular affected image of himself than with the business of football- in reality Clough always gave me the impression that he was being true to himself no matter what the cost or consequence.
The reason for the script problem is obvious- the majority of the book version dealt with Clough’s inner turmoil, his fractured psychological condition, and how those infamous 44 days played on his mind- Peace spends a lot of time and style establishing an intimate psyhological portrait (and remember it’s fictional), just as he spends so much time lavishly furnishing his other grim historical novels with painstakingly observed and evocative landscapes that capture both an immediate nostalgia and a more subtle analogious sense of the time. The necessary change of style to accomodate the filmic method means a consequently necessary abandoning of most of the elements that made the book so definably Peace-ian and epically good- a straight adaptation wouldnt have been possible, and it seems the best they could do doesnt really measure up as well as Id have hoped.
You have to wonder at some point whether the film is more about its subject or its star- I would hate to think that there are cinephiles out there who consider The Damned United to be nothing more than another Michael Sheen gimmick. The actor’s chameleon skills should never be considered anything other than an admirable, and almost unique ability, and it would be terrible for Sheen to be put off tackling another real-life figure for fear of arousing suspicions that he’s just showing off. After all, even the most ingenious of innovations inevitably and all-too-quickly become tiresome: the mere suggestion of Andy Serkis playing yet another CGI character would probably now draw as many tuts and rolled eyes as his turn as Gollum attracted gaping awe. I hope the same callous turn does not affect Sheen’s career decisions.
But even as I sat watching Sheen effortlessly step into Clough’s considerable boots, something was immediately and obviously wrong. It isnt that Sheen fails to capture Clough’s idiosyncracies, or even that he doesnt possess the necessary sporting credentials to take on the part authentically (unlike Goal’s Kuno Becker or Escape to Victory’s Sly Stallone, Sheen is a good football player, and the authenticity shows), it is merely a problem with his subject. Unlike Kenneth Williams, or David Frost, or even Tony Blair, those of us with any knowledge of Brian Clough recognise that there isnt the same fog of unfamiliarity about him as there was with Sheen’s other subjects. While Fantabulosa, Frost/Nixon and The Deal offered viewers the tantalising prospect of getting to know the subjects more- the men behind the public masks, who few of us could claim to be intimate with, The Damned United couldnt offer the same thing because its subject didnt have a lot hidden. Clough’s curse was that he laid everything out for us all to see, and it unfortunately means that Michael Sheen cant offer us anything new and his mimick act can only drag him so far without offering us something revelatory.
When the script tries to offer something new- the bro-mance between Taylor and Clough, or the somewhat difficult to accept scene when Clough has a moment of self-doubt in his office (I shant spoil), it feels like the scenes are intruding because they arent true to the real man himself. Whichever way you look at it, because of the nature of the subject and their inability to transfer the gripping inner turmoil of the book, the writers were pretty much doomed from the outset to fail.
But dont get me wrong, many many film-makers have suffered because of superior source material and The Damned United is a valiant effort- judged on its own Im sure it would reasonably attract higher accolades than thouse bestowed upon it already, and I would whole-heartedly recommend it to film fans. Just dont expect it to be as good as the book.
One more thing. If you do choose to buy it, dont go for the Blu-Ray edition. While the sound is exceptional, and the picture quality is good, the high definition format is not in keeping with the Peace model for gloomy aestheticism, and it gives the film a digital veneer that makes it seem less authentic. If you can get it, Id suggest it on VHS, or Betamax…
Extras
For once I can really get excited about a release’s extra, as included among the usual deleted scenes (they’re of significantly better standard than the usual inclusions in these things) is a set of in-character interviews with Sheen as Clough which are based upon archive footage of Clough himself. I love when film-makers view the extras with the correct amount of dignity, and actually stick to the meaning of the word- this extra content is excellent and makes the release a better prospect than the film alone would suggest, especially for fans of Sheen’s particular abilities.
The Damned United is available on DVD and Blu-Ray from Monday 31st August.
13 Comments
This is one of the worst articles ever to have appeared on this site. The script’s main flaw is that it doesn’t follow the book closely enough!? Last I checked this was a FILM site, not a book club. You yourself stated that it would be impossible to stick too closely to the book, so why the fuck do you spend most of the article talking about how much better the source material is?! Absolutely ridiculous. Try judging the movie on its own merits.
I suppose those adapting the book may also have been wary of the fact that a lot of the book is mere fiction, hence why the burning of Revie’s desk was a deleted scene.
I do agree with you, Barn, the film was meant to be a much softer almost more ‘realistic’ view of the book. The book was heavy on fiction & caused a lot of pain & anger amongst Clough’s family, including threateniing to take Pearce to court (in fact I think they actually did). I like the fact that is nothing like the book considering Pearce had nothing to do with the family.
Also, Bob, chill out, why so angry? If you are cross about the article talking about adaptations, don’t read it (it did kind of hint at the subject matter in its title!) but it is hard to discuss a movie evolved from a book, without comparing it to the book in the 1st place.
So no adaptation should be considered as an adaptation?
What a fucking ridiculous and narrow minded thing to say- so a bible adaptation should ignore the original text or the trueness to it? And read the start of the review again Bob, it clearly says…
“Our original review said enough about the film itself back on its cinematic review, so I’m looking to offer something slightly different…”
May God strike me down for considering something in its context of creation. Jesus Christ, how very dare I?!
And “most of the article”!!1 How can you qualify one paragraph and various side comments as most of the article?
It seriously baffles me…
No, no adaptation should be considered as an adaptation. A film adapted from a novel should never stand as a companion piece, what you see on screen should stand alone as an entity on its own, and never, ever should a film be discredited for not doing a book justice.
@Ems. It’s hard to discuss a film evolved from a book without considering the book? Bullshit. If the film has done its job correctly, as I said, the book shouldnt even come into the equation.
Some of the dullest, most uninspired pieces of crap to have graced the silver screen in the past few years have come as a result of uncreative adaptation, and a fear of straying too far from the source material.
I’d expect this sort of insipid review from a Harry Potter fanboy, not from a movie website.
And if a bible adaptation choses to screw with the text, fine, if it’s good. One of the most spectacular biblical films ever made, Last Temptation of Christ, wreaks havoc with the bible (yes, it’s an adaptation of an adaptation, but still).
Braveheart shows very little regard to historical accuracy, which didn’t stop it becoming one of the most praised and awarded films of its year.
So in answer to your question, no, there is no case of it being NECESSARY to ignore a source text. If the screenwriter sees fit to stick closely to the original and yet can still create a cohesive and compelling narrative, then wicked, go for it. If, for example, sticking rigidly to the book is detrimental to the film (Atonement, Revolutionary Road), then a talented screenwriter should know when to cut and change things.
I saw the film last week and it made me want to read the book. So that’s a positive.
However, as a movie you could sense the filmmakers bottle it completely where Brian Clough’s darker side was concerned – no brown paper bags full of cash; no clandestine transfers done at service stations; no alcoholism, very few fights etc. There was one cracking row between Clough and Chairman Longson with Longson spitting venom on where he felt Managers existed on the football food chain but nothing else as memorable. And why did they remove the “desk burning” scene?
Any film with ‘Damned’ in the title would suggest some kind of psychological journey into the land of Satan, and overall I was disappointed with the lack of fire in the film. It felt more like a 70s road trip of gentle nostalgia, but alas, the narrative broke down on the road to hell.
I can understand the filmmakers not wanting to upset Clough’s family but then write your own script and call it CLOUGHIE. The desperate attempts to redeem Clough at every possible turn meant I was just kept thinking of what could have been.
Performances were fantastic though; but I’m glad I didn’t watch it at the cinema as the whole project – while excellently produced and acted – was a decent TV movie at best. I shall definitely be reading the damned book though.
The Braveheart comment doesnt stick with the rest of the debate- history is not the same as a self-contained narrative (a book I mean), because it doesnt have any style or tone, apart from what we give it ourselves when we remember it/read it. I take it you havent.
But, if you’ve read The Damned United, you know the importance of tone and style to the narrative- there is no way the Clough story would ever have been considered worthy of the silver screen without the reception of the book, and that reception was precisely because of the way Peace wrote it. For that reason alone you just cant ignore the fact that its an adaptation- it simply cannot exist as a single entity for those of us who have read it. It’s like a James Joyce novel being adapted for cinema that pays no regard to his style.
So where do you stand on film to film adaptations? Should a Hitchcockian remake be considered without its origin? What Im trying to get at is when an authorial voice is so key to a project, abandoning it empties that work of its soul.
I’ll also have you know Harry Potter is a personal friend of mine.
The importance of tone and style to the narrative of the book is something that I cannot argue, nor care about. That is the way the book is. That is the way the book functions as a piece of literature. Unfortunately, a film and a book aren’t the same thing. What would be the point of adapting it if just to mimic the books style? Peter Morgan is an established, respected screenwriter, and an artist in his own right.
A successful Ulysses adaptation could go many ways. But the one thing that would kill it is to stick too closely to the book. His novel deals with explicitly literate techniques and methods, and what a filmmaker would have to do is find parallels between the language of cinema and the language of books. For example, in “The Oxen of the Sun” episode of the novel, in which Joyce writes in the style of 60 major writers through time, the filmmaker could tell the story in the style of major cinematic movements through the ages. There’s a film, A Cock and Bull Story, that does a similar thing, except it is an adaptation of The Life and Opinion’s of Tristram Shandy. It’s an average film, but an interesting meditation on the art of adaptation.
In terms of Hitchcock, yes, a remake should pay absolutely no regard to the orginal. What would be the point? The original is always gonna be the classic, Hitchcock is always gonna be the master, and you’d just be doing yourself a disservice. Need I remind you of Gus Van Sant’s Psycho? Why remake something if you’re gonna do it the same? Similarly, why adapt a book if you’re gonna keep it the same? It’s not like the book’s going anywhere. If you are unable to watch a film without comparing it to the source material, then frankly I pity you and don’t think you should be writing for this website. Your argument has about as much credibility as “z’OMG they left owt dumbledorez funeral”. Save it for the Twilight boards.
“If you are unable to watch a film without comparing it to the source material, then frankly I pity you and don’t think you should be writing for this website. Your argument has about as much credibility as “z’OMG they left owt dumbledorez funeral”. Save it for the Twilight boards.”
Respectable intellectual to arsehole in one fell swoop.
Despite your clearly well measured response, youre being ignorant. Genesis of any piece of artwork deserves attention. If as you seem determined to want, all art is considered as only a stand-alone piece, with no ackowledgement of where they came from- adaptations ESPECIALLY, there would be no need for genre, nor series progression, nor character development across different pictures. By your reasoning Bourne 2 & 3 dont need to even ackowledge the existence of the first one.
What I was saying about style was that Peace’s style would have been an intriguing one to see made into a film- and your no exactly addressing my points here. When a style is so fundamental to a narrative (regardless of medium) it should be counted as a facet of narrative, not something alien to it. And this clearly is not the same as me saying it has to be exactly the same as the book. If you can get your closed mind around that I welcome your response.
Eh, you’re not quite getting me. No, of course sequels by their nature (in most cases) should be watched with regards to their predecessors for coherency and continuity’s sake. They are generally not made as standalone films, and crossover is inevitable and largely necessary. Yes, genesis of artwork deserves attention, and comparing a book to a film can be fascinating. My thesis paper was a comparative study between a book and a film adaptation.
Damned United is an adaptation of the story of the book by choice. A stylistic adaptation would be entirely redundant and, as you said, unessecarily complicated. Dracula is told almost entirely in epistolary form, yet would you make a film adaptation in episodic diary entries? I’d say that the form is pretty integral to the book, yet I cannot imagine even considering it filmable as is.
On the contrary, your argument has some basis in the likes of books like Ulysses and Tristram Shandy, in which the story serves only as a vehicle for an entirely different objective. In Ulysses, the style becomes so much more than the story, and yes, it would be possible to make a decent film of Bloom’s day (although lots of creativity would be required to make it compelling). I’d say a much more interesting, and arguably “true” adaptation would play with cinematic styles and apply Joyce’s ideas to the language of film, much a Winterbottom did with Tristram Shandy. But here we are talking about a dense, sprawling postmodern epic, and a 700 page autobiography that never gets past the moment the subject is born. Quite different from a semi-fictional biopic about a football manager.
Cock and Bull Story’s failing, however, is that in applying the book’s logic to film, it is not a film on its own. It is definitely a companion piece: 90 minutes of inside jokes for the literate to self-indulgently snicker at, and I’m sure my Ulysses suggestion would be much the same. I’m saying that there can be a time and a place for such an adaptation depending on the source material, but if you’re expecting it from a semi-fictional biopic about a football manager, then I suggest you wait for an audio tape instead.
And if it’s closed-minded of me to want to accept a film for what it is, rather than what it isnt and something else is, then sue me.
See, now that’s much better! No low blows there.
Adaptations actually did a similar thing, and with an overall more enjoyable film than Cock and Bull.