Red Joan (2018)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Red Joan is a historical drama which premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival in 2018.

 

The main character Joan Stanley, a citizen of the UK, worked as a spy for the Soviet Union during the 1940s and the 1950s.

 

Because of her job, Joan had access to secret reports about the construction of nuclear bombs. 

 

She took photos of these reports and passed them on to her Soviet handlers.

 

She was clever or lucky or both. For many years she got away with it. Her illegal activities were not discovered by the British authorities until she was an old woman; too old to be prosecuted for what she had done.

 

Here is some basic information about this drama:

 

** Director: Trevor Nunn

** Writer: Lindsay Shapero

** Based on Jenny Rooney’s historical novel Red Joan (2013)

** Run time: ca 100 minutes

 

The cast includes the following:

 

The first group

** Judi Dench as Joan Stanley (old women)

** Sophie Cookson as Joan Stanley (young women)

** Nina Sosanya as Ms Hart

** Lawrence Spellman as Patrick Adams

 

The second group

** Tom Hughes as Leo Galich – a communist

** Ben Miles as Nick Stanley – a lawyer – Joan’s son

** Stephen Campbell Moore as Max Davis – a professor

** Tereza Srbova as Sonya - a student

 

This drama is not based on a true story. But according to an on-screen message, it is inspired by real events. What is the difference?

 

** A drama which is based on a true story will use real names and follow the real story as closely as possible. Some details may be changed, added or excluded, for different reasons, but in most cases only minor details. This type of drama aims to offer a biography of a real historical person. Historical truth is regarded as important.

 

** A drama which is inspired by real events will often use fictional names and the director may stray far from the true story. Many details are changed or added; not only minor details, but also major aspects. This type of drama aims to offer a captivating story. Historical truth is a secondary concern.

 

There are two timelines in this drama:

 

# 1. Joan is an old woman. She is around 80. The year is not given. But it seems to be 1998. If this is true, it follows that Joan was born in 1918.

 

I will call this timeline the present.

 

# 2. Joan is a young woman. In this timeline we follow Joan over three decades: the 1930s, the 1940s and the 1950s. Joan seems to be 20 in 1938.

 

I will call this timeline the past.

 

The story begins in the present (in 1998). Joan is an old woman who is doing ordinary chores in the garden and in the house. Suddenly, police officers arrive. Joan is arrested and charged with treason!

 

From this moment, Joan’s life and career is told in a series of flashbacks. The story switches back and forth between the past and the present.

 

I do not wish to spoil the viewing for anyone. Therefore, I am not going to reveal too much about what happens in this drama, but I have to mention a few details in order to explain and justify my rating.

 

What do reviewers say about this historical drama?

 

Here are the results of three review aggregators:

 

30 percent = Rotten Tomatoes (the critics)

55 percent = Rotten Tomatoes (the audience)

64 percent = IMDb

45 percent = Meta (the critics)

48 percent = Meta (the audience)

 

On Amazon UK there are at the moment 4,100 ratings of this product, 860 with reviews.

 

The average rating is 4.3 stars which corresponds to a rating of 86 percent.

 

As you can see, the ratings are mixed. On Amazon the rating is good, but the other ratings are not so good.

 

When you look at Rotten Tomatoes, you can see that there is a clear gap between the professional critics and the general audience.

 

The verdict of the critics is very harsh (only 30 per cent), while the verdict of the audience is somewhat better (55 per cent). But both groups agree that this is not a great drama.

 

When you look at Meta, you can see that the critics and the audience are close to each other. And both groups offer a negative rating, less than 50 per cent.

 

Why are there so many negative reviews?

 

I think there are two reasons:

 

** The first reason is that the drama strays too far from the real events on which it is supposed to be based.

 

** The second reason is that the movie-makers seem to agree with Joan when she tries to justify her actions.

 

Who is the inspiration for the main character? And how far does the drama stray from the real historical facts? Here are some answers:

 

The drama is inspired by the life of Melita Norwood (1912-2005) who worked as a Soviet spy for more than three decades (1937-1972). Not only in the 1940s and the 1950s, but also in the 1930s.

 

Melita studied at a university, but she did not study at the famous Cambridge University and she never completed her education. She dropped out after one year.

 

Melita was not a scientist. She studied Latin and Logic. She did not understand the contents of the secret reports which she photographed.

 

Joan Stanley is a different person. She was born in 1918 and she went to the famous Cambridge University. She graduated as a scientist.

 

Joan does not work for the USSR in the 1930s. In fact, she refuses to accept the Soviet propaganda line at the time. She does not believe that the trials against the old Party members are real.

 

But when the US drops two nuclear bombs on Japan in 1945, she decides to work for the USSR. She begins to pass secret information to the USSR. She feels that the US should not have a monopoly on this weapon.

 

Melita is a Stalinist. Joan is not. 

 

I suspect the movie-makers realized that they could not make the real Melita sympathetic. This is why they decided to change her character and give her a different name.

 

Joan is not a Stalinist; she is a humanist. 

 

She is concerned about the survival of the human race. 

 

She is against the bomb.

 

When we compare the two characters Melita and Joan, we discover that there is huge difference between them. But even if Joan is not a Stalinist, it is still hard to like her.

 

The actors play their roles well, especially Judi Dench and Sophie Cookson, but this fact cannot save this drama. In spite of some good acting, it cannot be regarded as successful.

 

This historical drama is fatally flawed and this is why it cannot get more than two stars (40 percent).

 

PS # 1. Melita was identified as a security risk in 1965. But no action was taken at that time, because Special Branch did not want to reveal its methods.

 

Melita was not unmasked as a spy until 1999, when she was 87. Because of her old age, it was decided not to prosecute her. She died six years later, in 2005, at the age of 93.

 

PS # 2. The following items are available online:

 

** Peter Bradshaw,

“Red Joan review: Judi Dench underused in brittle defector drama,”

The Guardian, 17 April 2019

(This review offers 2 of 5 stars = 40 per cent)

 

** Freddie Lynne,

“Red Joan: The truth behind Joan Stanley and the Cambridge spies,”

Cambridgeshire, 18 April 2019

 

** Fred Mazelis,

“Red Joan: A British spy story skirts some issues,”

World Socialist Website, 6 May 2019

 

Jo-Anne Rowney,

“Red Joan author on why she changed the true story for Judy Dench movie,”

Radio Times, 28 August 2019

 

*****

Red Joan

A historical drama

(2019)

 

*****

 

Red Joan

A historical novel

by Jennie Rooney

(2013)

 

*****

Melita Norwood

(1912-2005)

She was a Soviet spy for many years

(1937-1972)

 

*****

 

 

Stone of Destiny (2008)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stone of Destiny is a historical drama which premiered in 2008. It is based on a book written by Ian Hamilton. Both the book and the drama are based on a true story:

 

The Robin Hood-like operation which took place on Christmas Day in 1950 when four young Scottish nationalists broke into Westminster Abbey, removed the Stone of Destiny – an ancient relic connected with the crowning of Scottish kings – and brought it back to Scotland.

 

While the perpetrators were highly motivated, they were not exactly professional burglars. Almost everything that could go wrong, did go wrong, but in the end the plan was crowned with success. The story is so fantastic that it is hard to believe, but it is a true story.

 

Stone of Destiny is not a Hollywood project, it is a British-Canadian project, written and directed by Charles Martin Smith, who liked the idea of the underdog, the four young Scottish nationalists, against the might of the British Empire.

 

The main characters are:

 

** Ian Hamilton (1925-2022) played by Charlie Cox

** Gavin Vernon (1926-2004) played by Stephen McCole

** Alan Stuart (1930-2019) played by Ciaron Kelly

** Kate Matheson (1928-2013) played by Kate Mara

** John McCormick (1904-1961) played by Robert Carlyle

** Bill Craig played by Billy Boyd

 

The first four characters on the list are the perpetrators:

 

Ian Hamilton was the one, who had the idea and who made the plan

Gavin Vernon was the big guy, who would provide the muscle

Alan Stuart was the shy guy, who wanted to prove himself

Kate Matheson gave the group a feminine touch

 

John McCormick was a Scottish nationalist politician, who said he liked the plan, but could not be a part of it, because of his position: he was the Rector of the University of Glasgow (1950-1953)

 

Bill Craig was Hamilton’s friend, who was part of the original plan, but dropped out at the last minute, because he thought the plan was too risky

 

Since this drama is based on a true story, the basic facts are part of the public record. They are not a secret. Therefore, I feel free to mention some of them in this review.

 

While this drama is based on a true story, it is not a documentary film. It is a dramatized version of events. Not everything happened exactly as shown here. But the basic story is true.

 

PART ONE

In the old days, the Stone of Destiny - also known as the Stone of Scone - was kept at Scone Abbey near Perth in Scotland. Nobody knows how old it is or where it came from, but for centuries it was connected with the crowning of Scottish kings.

 

In 1296, the English King Edward I attacked several locations in Scotland and brought the stone to London where it was placed under a special chair in Westminster Abbey. Since then, it was connected with the crowning of English kings and queens.

 

In December 1950 it was removed and transported to Scotland, but only for a brief moment: 

 

In April 1951 it was placed in Arbroath Abbey where it was discovered by the police.

 

It was carefully transported back to England and returned to Westminster Abbey in February 1952, in time for the coronation of Queen Elizabeth II in the following year.

 

In 1996, during an official ceremony, it was transported to Scotland where it was placed in Edinburgh Castle.

 

But it is only a loan. The British Government explained that the stone will be returned to Westminster Abbey whenever there is a coronation.

 

The coronation of King Charles III is planned for Saturday 6 May 2023.

 

In connection with this ceremony, the stone will be transported to Westminster Abbey in London.

 

Once the ceremony has been completed, it will be returned to Scotland.

 

The original abbey which housed the Stone of Scone no longer exists. Today a modern replica of the stone is placed on Moot Hill in front of a small chapel that was built ca. 1804.

 

Scone Palace, which was rebuilt in Gothic style 1803-1812, is still standing today.

 

As stated above, this historical drama is based on a book written by Ian Hamilton, whose account of the heist has been published three times:

 

The first edition

No Stone Unturned

1952

 

The second edition

The Taking of the Stone of Destiny

1991 and 1992

 

The third edition

Stone of Destiny: The True Story

2008

 

The third edition of the book was a tie-in with the drama, which was shown in theatres in the UK in October 2008 and in Canada in February 2009. 

 

It was released on DVD in April 2009.

 

Hamilton, who was a consultant on the film, has a cameo appearance for a few seconds: he plays a British businessman who passes Charlie Cox and Stephen McCole in the car park next to Westminster Abbey.

 

In this moment, Hamilton passes a younger version of himself.

 

PART TWO

What do reviewers say about this drama?

 

The response was mixed: some reviewers liked it, while others were not so happy with it.

 

On Rotten Tomatoes it had a rating of 53 percent. But this was in the past. When I visit the website today, the rating of this drama has disappeared!

 

On IMDb it has a rating of 67 percent.

 

Some reviewers complain about the accents.

 

Charlie Cox is an English actor, while Kate Mara is an American actress.

 

Why not use Scottish actors to play Scottish characters? Only the director Charles Martin Smith knows the answer to this question.

 

Perhaps he could not find a Scottish actor who looked like Ian Hamilton. This is probably why he chose Charlie Cox. 

 

Perhaps he wanted to have a famous face to market his film in the US. This is probably why he chose Kate Mara.

 

In an article in The Guardian, Kirsty Scott explains what happened to the perpetrators of the heist:

 

“Hamilton was caught after police discovered he had taken out every book relating to Westminster Abbey from his local library. None of the perpetrators were ever prosecuted, ostensibly because ownership of the stone would have been difficult to prove. In truth, a trial would have been a PR disaster for the establishment.”

 

PART THREE

According to Kirsty Scott, the drama has a high level of historical accuracy:

 

“Smith has taken pains to ensure the film's historical accuracy, something that won him access to film in Westminster Abbey.”

 

This statement is rather surprising, because even though some scenes were shot inside Westminster Abbey, there are in fact several cases where historical truth has been violated. Here are a few examples:

 

# 1. When Hamilton takes the train from Glasgow to London to do some research in Westminster Abbey, we see a train crossing a viaduct. This is the Glenfinnan Viaduct which is a part of the West Highland Line. This beautiful panorama is not on the line from Glasgow to London!

 

# 2. When the four perpetrators are driving in two cars from Glasgow to London, we see them driving on a road along a river. This is the Glen Etive, which is north of Glasgow. This beautiful scenery is not on the road from Glasgow to London!

 

In both cases, it seems, having an impressive location was more important than observing and respecting historical accuracy.

 

# 3. When Ian Hamilton meets John McCormick to ask for financial support, McCormick tells Hamilton to leave, but when Hamilton is outside the building, McCormick opens a window on the first floor and throws a piece of paper down to him.

 

What is it?

 

It is a white 50-pound note. But this kind of money was not in circulation in the UK in 1950. It seems the director forgot to check what kind of money was being used in 1950!

 

# 4. The heist takes place on Christmas Day. During the winter season, the days are short and the nights are long. At one point we see a clock, which says 5.30 in the morning. In the real world it would still be dark. The daylight would not come until 7 or 8. But in the film it is already daylight!

 

It seems the director forgot to think about the difference between summer and winter in London.

 

# 5. In the drama, we see the perpetrators place the stone in Arbroath Abbey and wait for the police to show up. And we hear the sirens of the police cars and then we see the policemen who come to arrest the perpetrators.

 

This scene is wrong in almost every way.

 

(a) When the stone was placed in the abbey, the curator of the abbey did not call the police at once. He gave the perpetrators some time to disappear before he called the police.

 

When the police arrived, they found the stone, but the perpetrators were long gone. They were arrested later.

 

(b) The sirens are wrong. In the drama, the police car has a two-tone siren, but this type of siren was not used in 1950. At that time, the police still used bells to announce their presence!

 

PART FOUR

Why did Hamilton and his friends do it? What was the point? Hamilton said he wanted to wake up the people of Scotland. At the time, the Scottish National Party had almost no popular support.

 

According to Hamilton, the stone was not stolen, it was liberated. England had stolen the stone in 1296. Scotland had been wronged by England, and the four nationalists simply wanted to right the wrong; they wanted to return the stone to its rightful place.

 

Why did the perpetrators leave the stone to be found in Arbroath Abbey? Because it was a place of historical significance; it was the site where a famous declaration of freedom had been signed by Scottish leaders in 1320.

 

The last words in the drama are spoken by Hamilton, who quotes the Arbroath declaration of 1320:

 

“As long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom – for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.”

 

CONCLUSION

As stated above, this drama received a mixed response. I can understand why. There are both positive and negative elements in this drama.

 

On the positive side I must say the story is funny as well as fantastic.

 

On top of that, it is a true story, which deserves to be told, and in this case, it is done quite well.

 

On the negative side I have to say that historical truth has been violated in several cases.

 

On top of that, there is a problem with the accents and the language spoken.

 

What does this mean?

 

What is the conclusion?

 

Having considered all aspects and factors, I am now ready to offer my response:

 

** It is too harsh to focus on the negative elements and give this drama a rating of only one or two stars.

 

** On the other hand, it is too easy to focus on the positive elements and give this drama a high rating of four or five stars.

 

I want to find a position between the two extremes. This is why I think this historical drama deserves a rating of three stars (60 percent).

 

PS # 1. Scone Palace by Jamie Jauncey is a guidebook which was published in 2015 about the Scottish palace in Perthshire.

 

PS # 2. The Coronation Chair and the Stone of Scone by Warwick Rodwell is a book which was published in 2013 about the history of the stone and the coronation chair.

 

PS # 3. The Stone Returns is a short clip from 1951. A newsreel produced by British Pathé. It is available on YouTube.

 

PS # 4. The following items are available online:

 

** “Gavin Vernon,” an obituary in The Herald of Scotland, 1 April 2004

 

** James Irvine Robertson, “The Stone of Destiny,” Scotland Magazine, issue # 37, March 2008

 

** Kirsty Scott, “The Caledonian job,” The Guardian, 14 October 2008

 

** Olga Craig, “Ian Hamilton on Stone of Destiny,” The Telegraph, 14 December 2008

 

** Marie Macpherson, “The Stone of Destiny,” English Historical Fiction Authors, 29 November 2013

 

** Christopher Howse, “Sacred Mysteries: The Stone at the next coronation” The Telegraph, 13 December 2013

 

** Richard Halloran, “The sad, dark end of the British Empire,” Politico Magazine, 26 August 2014

 

** “Alan Stuart,” an obituary in The Herald of Scotland, 12 June 2019

 

** Katherine Bussey, “Stone of destiny to be moved to London for King’s coronation, The Press and Journal, 11 September 2022

 

** Neil Drysdale, “Why will the Stone of Destiny be used in the Charles III coronation,” The Courier, 22 September 2022

 

** Steven Brocklehurst, “The students who stole the Stone of Destiny,” BBC News, 6 October 2022

 

*****

Stone of Destiny

A historical drama

(2008)

 

*****

 

Stone of Destiny:

The True Story

by Ian Hamilton

(Third edition, 2008)

 

*****