London to Brighton

source: London to Brighton

This is one they're going to love on the Festival circuit where apparently they find the chronicling of sleaze 'meaningful'. With a title as lacking in imagination as London To Brighton there's not a great deal of point in looking for imagination in the film itself. The only possible target audience for this drek will be the lowlifes it celebrates, the pimps and prostitutes and perverts who take centre stage. This is exactly the kind of irresponsible crap that perpetuates the lifestyles it explores in such loving detail. Teenage thugs from sink estates hardly need lessons in how to be anti-social nor fledgling pimps lessons in how to pick up runaway girls sleeping rough and serve them up as the plate de jour for wealthy perverts. This is a film with no light, no virtue, no 'decent' characters; it's a film where people pay lip service to better natures: the vicious pimp who orders one of his 'girls' to procure an eleven year old for the delectation of the old perv doesn't 'want' to do it but 1)the order had been placed by a powerful man and 2) if he doesn't do it someone else will; one step down the line the prostitute doesn't 'want' to procure a young girl but she does albeit asking for more money from her pimp for doing so. The point NOT being made is that both the pimp and the prostitute have knowingly, by the way they have chosen to live their lives, put themselves in a position where they CAN be manipulated to do the morally dubious. There's nothing here we haven't seen before and nothing that won't be served up again, no doubt backed by more Lottery money. If sub-moronic hard men SHOUTING everything at the top of their voices and doling out casual violence to women and children is your thing then you'll love this but don't ask me to share your pleasure.

Britain from time to time produces brilliantly realistic urban films, and here in Paul Andrew Wiliams' debut feature we have a truly great genre entry that is awash with realism. Joanne is a 12 year old runaway befriended by young prostitute Kelly, a tragic event leads to them fleeing from London to Brighton on the train, in furious pursuit is a pimp and a gangsters son, and all of their lives are hurtling towards a night of reckoning. This film contains prostitutes, paedophiles, drugs, and violence, yet to even think that this film panders to genre stereotypes would be doing it an injustice. This is a gritty realistic picture that thru its bleak story telling manages to make the viewer feel a part of the events unfolding, it's harsh and unrelenting in its portrayal of the dark parts of city life that do exist in our world. The screenplay is as lean as a prize featherweight boxer, no saggy tag ons, no sub plots to bog the story down, just a hard as nails story culminating in a wonderful final reel. Lorraine Stanley, Georgia Groome, Johnny Harris, and Sam Pruell, your names, I hope, will get to be known outside of England, because you all excellently realised characters that reminded me of people I have encountered during my life. I do hope that you will not be consigned to the forgotten filing cabinet that contains the one film wonders. Excellent and unforgettable picture 9/10

Having grown up in Brighton and then watched its development into a home of the stars I was intrigued to see what the critically acclaimed "London to Brighton" had to offer. Elements of the story are interesting, but I hate to say it, having even a scant knowledge of the place, the plot and production was just wrong wrong wrong! The writer seemed intent on writing a South London white trash classic. Despite the best efforts of Graham Greene to sound an alarm 60 years ago to the true nature of Brighton, the writer of this film seemed content to depict it as a sleepy whole night's journey (it's only an hour from Victoria) where someone who knows where to get "business" can spend the day snoozing on a couch with no fear of molestation, especially not from those ruffians from London (despite fact that the Brighton flat exterior scenes where clearly filmed in the uniquely brown bricked setting of London). The acting was superb and I never doubted the performance of any of the leads, or even the direction, my problems are with the plot and production. It's just if you're going to call the thing London to Brighton I would have suggested some research on part 2 of your title, I was even a little doubtful of the first part. I was left feeling that the writer had written a film for the sake of it. I was wondering what he'd written it for? I felt it was a middle class orgy of how unpleasant the working class can be. Distracting flaws: **POSSIBLE SPOILERS FOLLOW** If you wanted someone to bring someone to you in 24 hours, would you really inflict a potentially fatal leg wound? Very anal but: They jump on a slam door train and we see a shot of a replacement more modern sliding door Thameslink (*stoat alert - they don't actually run from Victoria) making its way down the line. Why, if they were coming from the station would they arrive on the bus from Roedean? If you were on the run wouldn't you turn your phone off if not throw it away? Instead it's left in the flat for someone to answer and give precise directions of where they are. We're not even sure what the relatives do... oh yeah it's Brighton.. no one has to do anything there! As mentioned before, anyone who's been to London would know that Kelly's relative's flat was clearly in London, and couldn't have been anywhere else! It seemed a very Dickensian ending that the young girl who "shouldn't be there" gets enough cash to make it to Devon. Where as the "Tart with the Heart" leaves Devon and goes back to London to go back on the game... "Well that's all she'd know isn't it!" ;-> Very disappointing but indicative of too much cash going to the wrong people for poorly realised ideas.

Much praise was heaped upon this film so I watched with some expectation. I've often felt that films with a dark heavy subject matter are automatically given kudos by worthy critics when they don't really deserve it. There were many moments in this film which just didn't ring true. Little things that in a movie dealing with such a horrific subject left me feeling incredulous. The leading Gangster (Stuart) is stereotypical and not credible - why exactly would he disable the pimp (Derek) who then has to find the hooker with a heart (Kelly) and girl (Joanne). The way Kelly finds Joanne is not plausible. Kelly has to procure an underage girl so she heads for a train station and hey the first person she sees is an eleven year old girl begging - come off it. Eleven year old girl beggars in London only exist in Dickens and in the mind of this Director. None of the characters in the movie made me feel sympathy even the girl, how did they manage that? There are many ways to pick apart this movie but what really depressed me is other peoples' reactions to it, in the parlance of the movie they are "mug punters."

Watching the first few minutes of London to Brighton you get thrown into the midst of action as dirty and brutal as the reality of a Kings Cross toilet cubicle. What appears to be a mother and her daughter and a tale of domestic violence turns quickly into a strange tale of friendship between an all-knowing cheap prostitute and a (almost) victim of a paedophile crime. As the two friends run for their life travelling on the train from London to Brighton where they think they have a safe house for the day at least, they top up their money in the only way they know possible. A disturbing picture of a 12-year-old smoking fags like an old-timer and a fairly realistic portraits of her older friend, it shifts from London search action by the baddies and Brighton haven for the girls. The woman playing the prostitute does not glamorise the sex trade (nor herself, with poor teeth, bad hair and the shortest skirt possible paired with trainers), on the contrary, we get a glimpse of her thoughtful and bitter outtake on life from time to time. She is aware of the ugliness of her task as she carefully grooms the little girl on the way to her "first job" and there is the theme of innocence lost. We are spared the gruesome details of the actual encounter as actions moves back and forth in time, but seeing all this violence against these two women is not easy. This is not a pleasant family movie or a good feel chick flick, but nor does it lack any hope or naivety, depending on your point of view, as we see the bad guys get punished or turned into philosophical saviours. The ending is almost happy with one life restored and two lost. The film ends with a reality check for all those of us who expected a happy ending, as live goes on in the streets of Kings Cross, as if one life saved was indeed insignificant in the ocean of those with no hope.

In London, the pimp Derek (Johnny Harris) assigns the prostitute Kelly (Lorraine Stanley) that works for him to find a young girl on the streets to escort the powerful mobster Duncan Allen (Alexander Morton). Kelly finds the twelve year-old runaway Joanne (Georgia Groome) in the train station and Derek proposes one hundred pounds for the service and the girl accepts. Kelly befriends Joanne and takes her to Duncan's mansion. When Joanne cries in the bedroom where she is with Duncan, Kelly runs and defends the girl. At 3:07 AM, the bruised Kelly and the tearful Joanne lock themselves in a public toilet. Kelly asks Joanne to stay there because she will raise some money for them to travel to Brighton. Meanwhile, Duncan's son Stuart Allen (Sam Spruell) calls Derek and asks him to meet him in a night-club. When Derek arrives, Stuart tells that his father is dead and he wants the responsible; further, he cuts his knee sinew to prove that he is not kidding. Derek calls his associate Chum (Nathan Constance) and they begin to chase the girls. The excellent "London to Brighton" has a magnificent screenplay that discloses a crude and dark tale of friendship and lost of innocence through flashbacks and a surprising conclusion. This low-budget gem has a stunning cast, with top-notch performances, and the debut of director (and writer) Paul Andrew Williams in a feature could not be better. In the DVD, there is an awesome and cruel alternative ending that should not be deleted, as well the sequence in Duncan's bedroom with the two girls. The comradeship of Kelly and Joanne and the final redemption of Kelly protecting the girl are touching and beautiful. My vote is eight. Title (Brazil): "Londres Proibida" ("Forbidden London")

This film really took me by surprise. What I was expecting was some amateurish first film effort which I hoped would have enough good ideas to make it worth a full viewing; what I got instead was a minor masterpiece of cinema. I cannot remember the last time I saw a British film with such story-telling verve. It's amazing to think that this is a first feature from writer\director Paul Andrew Williams, made on a nothing budget. I can't wait to see what he produces in the years to come. The unfolding of the story is masterfully done. The small details of character interaction are incredibly well observed. This is the future of British cinema, not endless rehashes of Jane Austen and insipid rom coms.

I read that the director wrote the script for this film in two days and it shows. This was a poorly written and badly directed film with weak performances. If a film is going to deal with a subject as serious as child prostitution then both the integrity of the film maker and the quality of the film have to be flawless. This film failed miserably on both counts for me. It came over as a cheap and tacky stunt to attract a great deal of attention to an unknown film maker who doesn't appear to have any serious concern for the subject matter. Both the plot and the characters were clumsily introduced. In the first scene with Derek the pimp we see him pretending to care about a girl in order to persuade her to sleep with some men. At this point I felt that the words "Derek is a bad man" should have flashed on the screen. The gangster was a clichéd and comical fantasy baddie. I found him highly unconvincing. The plot of the film was structured around a climactic scene which we know very early on the is going to come. This in itself isn't a bad plot device but to combine it with an examination of child prostitution seemed highly inappropriate. A simple story line with no exciting chases or major events would have been far more appropriate and ultimately more effective. This film seemed to have a split personality between being an entertaining thriller and social commentary. Some scenes strayed into being exploitative and voyeuristic. We didn't have to hear a 12 year old girl being tortured in order to be shocked by the world of child prostitution. To have a lengthy scene depicting a child pleading for her life was also inappropriate in what was ostensibly a piece of entertainment. One last point I wish to make is the absurdity of the scene where Derek holds the woman and the girl captive at gun point. In order to so this he orders about five people out of the flat. We are then asked to believe that not one of those people thought to call the police to inform them that a maniac with a shot gun had two people including a 12 year old girl hostage. I found that laughable. Overall a clichéd and very poor film.

The DNA of this is traceable to the thirties when middle class, Oxbridge educated film makers set out to document the lower social classes, in the process establishing what came to be known as the British documentary movement. Depicting people is not the same as enabling them to have a voice, and the British film industry is dominated by the chattering middle classes. What underscores films such as this, or the risible Bullet Boy of 2004, is an appalled fascination the broadsheet reading, wine drinking chattering classes have towards those of the lower social orders. Alternately appalled, fascinated by and terrified of the underclass, watching a film like this and joining in the hype surrounding it allows us to bask in self satisfaction, feeling good about ourselves. We can take a peek into the murky twilight world of street prostitutes, small time criminals, wring our hands, then get back to our dinner parties. The young girl is never developed. Why did she run away from home? Is it plausible she would not be picked up by the police? London s streets are bristling with CCTV cameras, the last time I checked there are teams of undercover, plain clothes officers devoted to rounding up kids bunking off school. Her personality is entirely unritten, we know, and care, nothing about her. Implausiblities run throughout this film. Like the stoners forced out of a flat at gunpoint...surely one of them might have called the police. A petty criminal would not be yelling his head off in a residential street, waving a shotgun around, bundling two girls into the boot of a car. Unless he wanted to be surrounded by armed police. Other characters are cardboard clichés of the most tired kind. We have the slapper with the heart of gold...the designer suited gangster in his pole dancing club. Lets have a film about some real prostitutes. The paedophile here is completely unbelievable. He d be far more likely to groom a child in this situation, putting her at ease, not tying her up and terrifying her by cutting her clothes with a knife. Its the sign of a poor film maker, bereft of any ability to utilise cinematic language, that he layers every scene with ponderous music, instructing us, at key moments, what to feel. There's no cinema to this, it has the look of an episode of the old soap Brookside, with a lot of close ups and melodramatic, television type acting. The fawning over this film and its director smacks to me of nepotism and the incestuous nature of film festivals. Just because a British film has appeared doesn't mean its any good. We deserve better than this.