Like Father Like Son

‘Like Father Like Son’ is about two Japanese families whose sons were swapped at birth by a nurse who was having a relationship crises and decided to make herself feel better by sabotaging other peoples’ lives.

It is six years later before it comes to light what has happened, as the boys are blood tested as they are admitted to school. Clearly this is some quirk of the Japanese education system.

The film goes on to explore the impact on the two sets of parents as they get to know their ‘new’ son and eventually decide whether to switch children or not.

The two families are from contrasting backgrounds and have very different approaches to parenting. One is a wealthy family where the father Ryota is a high flying business man and the mother Midori is a bit of a doormat. He is rarely at home with either his wife or his son and it shows. He believes his son Keita should be independent as well as ‘talented’ and driven like himself. So he’s clearly baffled by his son's poor piano playing and his lack of desire to get any better. So it comes as quite a relief to him when Keita turns out not to be his son after all.

His blood son Ryusei lives with the Saiki family who are shop keepers. The father Yudai has a more relaxed approach to life and believes in giving his children as much of his time as they need. Ryota takes an instant dislike to him and even offers him money to take Ryusei off is hands.

It is not surprising that Ryota wants to switch. His wife isn’t so keen and contemplates running away with Keita. 

It’s never really clear what Yudai wants but as they do the switch it quickly becomes clear that both boys favour Yudai which eventually brings Ryota round to reconsider his views and his priorities in life.

This wasn't a film I particularly expected to like but I did. It’s well made and all the performances are
top notch. Standby for the Hollywood remake.

Philomena

‘Philomena’ is adapted from Martin Sixsmith's book ‘The Lost Child of Philomena Lee’ and is directed by Stephen Frears.

Back in the day, when she just a mere girl, Philomena Lee (played as a youngster by Sophie Kennedy Clark) had sex with a boy at a fairground, before she even knew what sex was. She also didn't know what a pregnancy was but she soon found out. As this was Ireland in the 1950s for this unforgivable sin she was locked up in a convent where she gave birth to a son, whom she called Anthony.

Actually she wasn't such a mere girl really, she was 18, but as I've already said this was Ireland in the 1950s and "the thing is, I didn't even know I had a clitoris." Which is what the older Philomena (Judy Dench) tells former BBC journalist Sixsmith (Steve Coogan) fifty years on. This is how Sixsmith, unsure of what to do after being sacked as a government adviser, apart from writing a book on Russian history, ends up doing a human interest story, something he thought was beneath him as he assists Philomena in searching for her son.

The pair of them head back to the convent where they confront the nuns to find out what happened to Anthony after he was removed from the convent at the age of three. The nuns weave a shroud of deceit to cover their tracks including telling them that all the records of the adopted children were destroyed in an ‘accidental’ fire. That is apart from the form they asked her to sign which waived her parental rights which has been lovingly preserved.

Sixsmith finds that a convenient conversation in the local pub is more help than the nuns. The landlord pours scorn on the 'fire' theory and tells them that aside from subjecting the inmates to what amounted to slavery, the convent ran a nice sideline in selling the girls' children to rich Americans. Which is what happened to Anthony.

Sixsmith makes use of his contacts in the USA and they both head over there to find out more. What they find is that the adopted Anthony was renamed Michael Hess and on the internet Sixsmith finds out that Michael worked as a high-ranking official in the Reagan administration, all the time hiding the fact he was homosexual and sadly died of AIDS nine years ago. 

They track down and visit his adopted sister Mary, who was taken from the convent with him. Then they find Michael's partner who won’t at first talk to them but eventually Philomena convinces him to do so. He reveals that Michael did try to find his mother in Ireland and even went to the convent to speak to the nuns. None of which the nuns admitted to as they continued to blatantly lie even fifty years on. Also it was his final wish to be buried there.

So they head back to the convent again, see the grave, and confront the sister who was in charge back then, Sister Hildegarde (Barbara Jefford), who is still unrepentant. Philomena, incredibly, forgives her. FFS.

I’m impressed by the film. It's enthralling, not unduly sentimental and it doesn't have a happy ending, not really. Judi Dench is Judi Dench, of course, flawless. Steve Coogan, who is everywhere right now, is well... Steve Coogan. I’m still not convinced by his acting ability, he always seems very one dimensional and here he again appears to mainly play himself.

More to his style perhaps is the fact he co-produced as well as co-wrote the film but he does seem to have sneakily re-jigged Sixsmith’s book. The screenplay has turned the sequence of events on its head and in the process built a bigger part for Cougan. I don't think keeping to the original story would have made any difference to the impact of the film but it would have produced two leading actresses in Dench and Anna Maxwell Martin, who plays Philomena's daughter Jane and only a minor role for Cougan.