Sammy and Rosie Get Laid (1987)

Director:

Stephen Frears

Writer:

Hanif Kureishi (writer)

Release Date:

30 October 1987 (USA)

Genre:

Comedy | Drama | Romance

Tagline:

As London burns...

Plot:

Sammy and Rosie are an unconventional middle-class London married couple. They live in the midst of inner-city chaos...

Plot Keywords:

Love | Inner City | Husband Wife Relationship | Greed | Torture

Cast

Shashi Kapoor	...	Rafi Rahman
Frances Barber	...	Rosie Hobbs
Claire Bloom	...	Alice
Ayub Khan-Din	...	Sammy
Roland Gift	...	Danny / Victoria
Wendy Gazelle	...	Anna
Suzette Llewellyn	...	Vivia
Meera Syal	...	Rani
Badi Uzzaman	...	Ghost
Tessa Wojtczak	...	Bridget
Emer Gillespie	...	Eva
Lesley Manville	...	Margy
Mark Sproston	...	Young Policeman
Cynthia Powell	...	Woman in Kitchen
Dennis Conlon	...	Asian Shopkeeper

Also Known As:

Sammy and Rosie (Canada: English title)

Runtime:

Germany:101 min | USA:100 min | Argentina:101 min

Country:

UK

Language:

English

Color:

Color (Technicolor)

Sound Mix:

Mono

Certification:

Argentina:18 | Iceland:16 | Australia:M | Sweden:15 | UK:18 | West Germany:16

Filming Locations:

London, England, UK

Company:

Channel Four Films

Trivia:

During its initial release, many American newspapers would not run ads with the full title. Ads would show "Sammy and Rosie" printed at the top of a poster, with the bottom part shredded up.

Soundtrack:

I Vow to Thee My Country

a mess of a movie, head and shoulders above the usual Hollywood dreckarhea

OK, I'm predjudiced. I love English cinema. This might not be the best, but I"ve watched it a few times, and I like it better each time.

Hanif Kureishi the chronicler of Indians, Pakistanis, and their love/hate relationship with England, can't be blamed for all the confusion. Stephen Frears and his editor come in for some of the blame. And I wonder how the actors go about their jobs? I mean, we see the final print, and get some sense of what the writing and directorial team had in mind, But sometimes the actors get only their scene to learn; some later scenes are filmed first, probably to save money on certain location shots, and some of the actors are doing theatre gigs and are only available certain times. You think you have problems? This is basically your average bleeding heart liberal 60's/90's epic. The poor are pushed to violent revolution by an uncaring conservative government that sends them checks every week, so they can dress in garish costumes, march in parades, playing instruments they never bothered to learn... why trouble a child with lessons and practicing when all these hippy darlings want to experience, is the pure joy of a child the first time it is given an instrument? The cast is peopled with the great actors from India who would be better known if they had Anglicised names. I've seen these guys a lot and I apoligise to them, but there's no way my attention deficit mind can remember their names. Anyway, it's a beautiful mess that begins to make sense after two or three viewings.