#55: SAVAGE HOUSE

 

STARRING: Richard E. Grant, Claire Foy, Reginald Halifax, Dorothy Neville, Kila Lord Cassidy,  Richard McCabe, Vicki Pepperdine,  Pip Torrens and Miles Jupp. Written by Peter Glanz. Directed by Peter Glanz. Produced by Peter Glanz. Edited by Peter Glanz. Music by Peter Glanz. Oh, and also produced by Oliver Roskill, Mark Hopkins, Dylan Maranda and Phillip Thomas. Cinematography by Adriano Goldman. Running time 114 minutes. 

During a pox outbreak and Jacobite uprising, whatever that means, in 1715, hideous social climber, cheating gambler, drunk and unbridled fornicator, Sir Chauncey Savage (Richard E. Grant) and his titled wife, Lady Savage (Claire Foy) spend their days in decadent excess shagging their staff, and squandering what little remains of her family fortune. Chauncey, once a begger has somehow managed to claw his way into the aristocracy, mostly by marrying her and has no intention of going back, sadly they're down to peddling the last of her jewels and antiques trying to keep Savage House going. With creditors and swindled business men hammering at their door, the future of Savage House rests on a letter sent by the Duke and Duchess of Devonshire inviting themselves to dinner, which sets in motion a relentless string of incidents that includes blackmail, murder, duels, amputations, deception, embezzlement, gout, greed, shagging, mice and surgical procedures.

In a nutshell imagine Barry Lyndon crossed with Draftsman's Contract by way of The Favourite and you'd still be no closer to whatever this is. Saved entirely by the cast, lead by the peerless coupling of Grant and Foy, whose film this is, and featuring a game cast of plucky English actors who are well up for a laff. 

Sadly, despite all that this film is a mess, with an ending so clumsy, anti-climatic and mishandled that it actually harms the film and robs it of a solid 8/10. There's just far too many plot points left unanswered, and far too many questions. Plot points arrive and lead one to imagine the film is going in one direction only for that plot point to be dropped in favour of another, and another, and another. Important incidents are hinted at and when they arrive they do so with all the drama of a dropped balloon. The film tries hard to be the next Barry Lyndon, with its use of candle lit scenes, or the pretence of, that it makes most of this look like a murky sepia stained shadow. That coupled with a truly invasive soundtrack, also by Peter Glanz that consists of the overuse of a crescendo of screening strings that drowns out the dialogue and feel more at home in a horror film, it conveys a sense of terrible foreboding and horror that just doesn't exist in this film, and is so intrusive that it pulled me out of the film entirely each time it's used, and it's used a lot.

For a long portion of the running time of the film I was fully onboard and invested but after just one too many plot misdirects and the bad ending my patience just snapped. 

I think the main problem lies exclusively in the hands of Peter Glanz, who wrote, directed, produced and edited this, as well as provided the music. And all that does it make it feel like the only voice heard on this film was Glanz, you can't help but think that if only someone else was there to say 'no' to some of his ridiculous plot points it might have made for a vastly more superior movie. 

Because there's something fantastic in this film, it's Grant and Foy, I've not seen Grant act this well in ages, and whereas he could have just reused the portrayal of Withnail, he instead opts to create an entirely new and truly unique and deeply unpleasant character in Chauncey. Likewise Foy shows some simply brilliant comedic chops and shows us she's not just the Queen. Special mention too to Jack Farthing as Chauncey's scheming man-service and valet, Reginald Halifax and Bel Powley as Lady Savage's Lady in Waiting, Dorothy Neville, who both bring some great performances. 

The thing is I bet there was a far better film that was left on the cutting room floor, because the cast are having the time of their lives.

Ultimately this gets a 7/10, but could have so easily have scored an 8 or 9 if only it had been better structured,