The Night Watch (2011 TV Movie) User Reviews

good version of OK novel

[jane_concannon · 7/10 · 14 July 2011]

This is a feature-length adaptation of Sarah Water's book of the same name.

I first came across Sarah Water's writing when I watch Tipping The Velvet on TV. I enjoyed the series so much that I then read the book, which was a great read. (I thoroughly recommend you read the book and watch the series - I don't think the order matters).

I guess the reason that I wasn't bowled over by this drama stems from the fact that I am not a fan of the book. I read it a few months ago, and whilst I enjoyed it, it was nowhere near as good as Tipping The Velvet. I think the problem being that whilst it has interesting characters, the story just wasn't strong enough and it just seemed to pootle along without much direction.

Saying that though, I would still recommend that you watch this drama as it is very atmospheric and the acting is on the whole good, especially the wonderful Anna Maxwell Martin, who is always very watchable, as is Clare Foy.

Moments of greatness

[johnklem · 7/10 · 22 May 2012]

Adapting a book to the screen is tough. You need to be brutal, cutting away entire plot lines, even characters to serve your purpose. I haven't read The Night Watch but this adaptation shows all the signs of a too-reverential approach. That's a shame because it gets a lot of things right, a few breathtakingly so. In those moments, it's unlike anything I've seen. You could pitch it as Aimee and Jaguar meets The End of the Affair but at its best it's better than either of those films. It's Anna Maxwell Martin's portrayal of Kay Langrish that takes it to those heights. Claire Foy turns in a wonderful performance but she has less to work with. Unfortunately, The Night Watch is also saddled with at least one too many plot strands and a stunning miscalculation in thinking that Bath and or Bristol could double for wartime London. I know it's hard to find much of the capital that hasn't been tarted up since 1945 but west country stone and Georgian porticos, along with hills that put Lisbon to shame, don't fool anyone. And there are other misjudgments. There's a technical device which is used three times. You'll know it when you see it. The first use is amazing, emotionally spot on. The second is just confusing and the third downright clunky. As is some of the dialogue. "War changes people... and not necessarily for the better." In a book, that leadenly expositional second phrase may be necessary. In a film, it's amateurish. With a firmer, more demanding hand, this might have stood as a genuinely great work. Even as is, it's better than almost anything else you'll find on British or American TV so enjoy, despite the flaws. You won't regret it.

A Faithful Adaptation

[bookworm-82270 · 7/10 · 16 August 2017]

I watched this quite literally minutes after finishing the book it's based on. With that in mind, I find that it is a very faithful adaptation of the book; only changing minor elements, mainly for the sake of cutting down scenes and giving more of a conclusive ending than the book. However, I'm not sure that this makes it a good movie.

I enjoyed it thoroughly, but a lot of that was because I knew what was going on in the heads of each character in every scene. I had the narrative of the book backing up the long silent scenes. I feel like without knowing the book, it is a movie with sparing dialogue, and a lot of inference. It's more like looking at a set of well-crafted paintings than a guided journey.

Still, as it is faithful to a rich source, it has excellent characters, which are the main structure of the story. I feel they did a good job with casting all-around, and in the end I felt like I got to experience rereading the book on fast-forward with new visuals.

Nice movie about people searching for north after desperate times.

[danielantino · 7/10 · 2 December 2020]

Great cast and performances in this soapy flick. Those where really dark times for England. A lot of suffering everywhere. Claire Foy, charming as a fairy.

Good story, poor plot

[pradotonivi · 5/10 · 11 February 2019]

It had so much potential. The actors were good, the set design was accurate as well, but with the way the plot was sequenced, it doesn't keep you on the hook. 20 minutes through the movie, your attention will start to wander. In fact, the whole first hour had so many unnecessary fillers and the bland music score is that of a typical TV movie which adds further to the injury. Then towards the end, when things started to get interesting and after enduring that one and a half hour, it gives you a half-baked ending. Maybe with a better arranged storyboard, this movie would have been masterpiece. But for now, it'll be a 5.

Spellbinging stories of love and loneliness during the London Blitz

[steven-222 · 9/10 · 19 June 2011]

The Night Watch employs an unusual narrative structure (presumably duplicated from the novel by Sarah Waters) which begins in 1947, then flashes back not once but twice to show us how the large cast of characters came to arrive at the "end" of the story. This device isn't simply a flashy trick; it's integral to the movie's richly layered meditation on time and circumstance.

Human relationships are the heart of the story, as we see various friends and lovers couple and decouple against the background of London during the Blitz and the aftermath of WWII. The atmosphere is dark and sensual, the music is mesmerizing, and the performances are riveting.

I had the pleasure of seeing this movie at a film festival with no prior knowledge of it, and won't say anything more to spoil its wonderful surprises. I can only say, emphatically, that it should not be missed.

Scriptwriter's change in the Duncan-Viv-Fraser relationship ruins this adaptation for me

[grimalkin-2 · 5/10 · 16 February 2022]

Adapting a 446-page book into 1hr. 29 mins. Involves a great deal of slashing characters down to their core. There are three major story divisions. The novel is also divided into three time sections (as is the movie with lesser success). They all involve either London through the war years or the post-war era. Both work backwards in time. The first section is 1947, then 1944, then 1941.

One section involves Helen's relationship with Julia, then Helen's earlier relationship with Kay. These lesbian relationships have been more heavily discussed already. Despite fine performances by the actresses involved, there isn't enough substance left after the bare-bone edits to affect us emotionally.

The second section involves a straight couple, Vivien and Reggie.

Viv is a single woman and Reggie, a married man. Viv is more compelling among other things, as she must deal with the horrors of illegal abortion. It's Viv's love for her brother, her strong liking for Robert Fraser as a man of honor, and her deepfelt affection for Kay that suggests far better people exist than the man she has aligned herself with.

The third involves the former prisoner Duncan (Viv's brother), involved in the death of a gay best friend upon his being drafted into the military, and his cellmate, Robert Fraser, in prison for being a conscientious objector. To complicate matters is Horace Mundy, an elderly prison guard who has eyes for and on Duncan.

The prison section, taking place in 1944, is adapted quite efficiently. In one scene, Fraser, above Duncan in a bunk bed, quietly masturbates when he believes Duncan is asleep. Duncan even more quietly does the same. After Fraser climaxes, he learns that Duncan has been listening to every stroke and angrily flicks something onto Duncan's face.

In another scene, the Nazis are bombing close to the prison. The guards have fled to their basement bunker/shelter and left the prisoners to fend for themselves. Fraser, terrified, asks Duncan if he can crawl into bed with him. Duncan agrees. Soon the men are holding one another tightly in the dark as bombs outside continue to explode. Even after the all-clear, Fraser doesn't return to his own bed.

By this this time, the reader and film viewer are fully aware of Duncan's attraction for Fraser. The earlier 1947 scenes now make more sense. Fraser tracks Duncan down. He wants to rescue him from a thankless dead-end job. He also wishes to get Duncan to leave his current residence with the dreadful Horace Mundy.

Fraser and Duncan plan to meet one night, but Duncan doesn't show up for reasons made clear in the book. Duncan realizes that his helpless passivity had landed him in jail for an unintentional crime he might have avoided. So he flees Mundy's house and walks to Fraser's flat.

I will write next what happens in the book. What happens on screen left me livid and involves the screenwriter's complete misunderstanding of what future Sarah Waters intended for these two men. So yes, the movie did finally elicit a strong emotion.

Duncan can see through the window that Fraser is alone, asleep on an armchair. Duncan taps on the pane, just enough to wake Fraser up. Duncan taps again. Still groggy, Fraser walks to the window, sees it is Duncan, and quickly opens it. He tells Duncan to talk quietly since his landlady is in the hall. They chat. Fraser tells him why he was late. Duncan says how he's left Mundy.

Quoting Sarah Waters: "Then Fraser grew a little calmer. He glanced over his shoulder again and whispered, 'All right. I think she's gone up now. Come in, though, for God's sake!. Before a policeman or somebody spots us.' And then he moved back, and put aside the black-out curtain, so that Duncan could climb in."

That last sentence lets the reader know that Robert pulls away the black-out curtain not only for Duncan to pass through, but for himself to let in the light of how he feels toward his former cellmate. At last, the two men are alone and together.

See the film and judge for yourself what you think of the screenwriter's choice to change all that Sarah Waters intended.

Classy adaptation of a fine novel

[acanty5 · 9/10 · 14 April 2014]

A beautifully crafted adaptation of the Sarah Waters novel of the same name. An interesting narrative structure taken from the book, the story is experienced backwards in three periods in the characters lives, running from the post war section back in time to wartime experiences of love in the Blitz. All of the performances are terrific, understated and subtle they convey the complex emotional landscape of their intertwining lives and a point in history when the social landscape was shifting with women finding themselves empowered by the demands and experiences of wartime Britain, releasing them from their more traditional roles and allowing them to rise to address new challenges and experiences, both actually and emotionally. The casting, acting and beautiful camera work make this a real treat, with a lovely sense of place.