Review: An Education

Set in London in the 60s, Carey Mulligan plays a teenager whose father (Alfred Molina) is happy that she’s trying to get into Oxford…so she can meet important people. She meets an older man (Peter Sarsgaard) who seems very worldly and sophisticated to this girl on the verge of womanhood, and they begin a romantic relationship. Mulligan has always been a bit of a wannabe sophisticate and is far more intellectually-minded than most girls her age (she wants to live in Paris), so it’s no surprise that this older man would seem to suit her. Amazingly, Dad doesn’t frown too much on the relationship, especially when he hears that Sarsgaard knows author C.S. Lewis. Who needs college when your daughter can marry a well-connected man who can help her climb the social ladder? More concerned with all this is Mulligan’s teacher (Olivia Williams) who hears the gossip and whispers, but Mulligan is defiant in pursuing this relationship. Sarsgaard takes the girl to auctions and jazz clubs, and introduces her to his business partner Dominic Cooper (who disapproves of the relationship and is much more 3D than he first appears) and the glamorous and well-meaning but uneducated and insecure Rosamund Pike. But there is a dark side to Sarsgaard and his friends, as Mulligan is about to get herself an education, alright, just perhaps not the scholastic kind.

 

Aside from one plot point that really ought to have been excised, this is a strong film from director Lone Scherfig (“Italian For Beginners”). Scripted by Nick Hornby (“About a Boy”, “High Fidelity”) from a memoir by Lynn Barber, this 2009 film features a lot of things to like, and is an interesting condemnation of social climbers who seem to find nothing much wrong with the idea of a 30 year old man entering into a relationship with a 16 year-old girl. Even when the school headmistress (played by a wasted Emma Thompson) finds out, she is merely concerned with the school’s reputation in the face of scandal, not the welfare of this teenage girl. It’s quite shocking, really, even for a film set back in the early 60s when attitudes were a tad different. But what held the film back just a tad for me was that I didn’t quite understand the things the character played (brilliantly) by Carey Mulligan was willing to accept and what she wasn’t. ***** SPOILER WARNING ***** Being young and naïve is one thing, but I couldn’t quite understand why this girl was willing to accept that this guy was a thief, but gets really upset that he’s married? I get that being married is deceitful and hurtful to Mulligan, and the film comes from a different time, but even so, why would she accept the theft? See, if you take this one element out of the film, everything else still works (And perhaps the original text handles things much better). Then again, the fact that he’s married specifically to Sally Freakin’ Hawkins was an affront to my delicate sensibilities I must say. I almost felt sorry for him, actually. ***** END SPOILER *****

 

It’s no surprise that this was the film that made Carey Mulligan, and she definitely deserved her Oscar nomination. Whatever ‘it’ is, Mulligan has it in spades. I’m not sure she entirely convinces as a teenager, let alone a schoolgirl, but if Gabrielle Carteris can play a teen on TV in her mid-thirties (“Beverly Hills 90210” for those of you lucky enough to be too young), then I can give Mulligan a pass here. She’s certainly a pretty young-looking 23 year-old and does a terrific job as the somewhat sophisticated girl, but not quite grown-up enough yet to dial down the French-speaking before it becomes a bit pretentious. Peter Sarsgaard is unconventional casting here perhaps, but when you think about it he’s pretty perfectly cast. The character is cracking on to a teenager (which today would paint him as a one-dimensional paedophile, no doubt, though Mulligan’s character is- barely- of age here), and Sarsgaard always gives off a slightly odd, creepy vibe on screen which is perfectly suited to a guy who may have the walk and talk of a sophisticate, but is underneath a creep, a fraud, and a cad (although maybe so much so that you expect him to turn out even worse than he is). He also, to my Australian ears, has a near-flawless English accent.

 

Rosamund Pike looks positively glamorous in an interesting part as a somewhat insecure woman. She’s terrific and also looks a lot less permanently surprised than usual here too. Even better is Olivia Williams as Mulligan’s bespectacled, well-meaning, rather repressed teacher. Despite being somewhat bookish, she has a warmness that the other characters in the film lack. As much as this is very much Carey Mulligan’s show, I have to say that Alfred Molina threatens to walk off with it himself as Mulligan’s well-meaning but single-minded father. He’s hilarious, especially his first awkward meeting with Sarsgaard. But he’s also not a terribly good father, far too concerned with social standing, and so there’s definitely a serious side to things, much as there is some sprinklings of humour throughout. I was actually surprised that the film was much more of a period coming-of-age film, I was expecting something a little darker (and a lot less funny). In fact, not only is the film set in the 60s, but it felt like a film from the 60s, something you could see Michael York, Jacqueline Bisset, Lynn Redgrave, and/or Jane Birkin in. The period detail certainly convinced me (this is London just on the verge of ‘swinging 60s’), and the film is capped off by Duffy’s excellent ‘Smoke Without Fire’.

 

The film is certainly a solid one, but it could’ve been an even better one if the condemnation of some of these self-absorbed characters was a little stronger, and if the Sarsgaard character weren’t also a thief. That detail was unnecessary and led to problems the film really didn’t need. Still, I really liked this one, and it’s an excellent showcase for Mulligan and Molina.

 

Rating: B-