The upside of simple stories, simply told

Published 6:02 pm Sunday, April 7, 2013

Had a quiet evening recently and sat down to watch an older movie called “The Englishman Who Went Up A Hill and Came Down A Mountain.”

It didn’t get much notice when it came out in 1995 and, to this day, not many of my friends have heard of it — even the group my wife and I have been getting together with for “Dinner and a Movie” over the past 15 or so years.

Hugh Grant starred in it.

He’s an actor in much the same way John Wayne was an actor. Neither ever immersed themselves into a character. Hugh Grant is always Hugh Grant in some situation or other about which they’re making a movie. The same was true about John Wayne. The only difference between John Wayne in “She Wore A Yellow Ribbon” and John Wayne in “The Shootist” was age and belt size.

I’m getting a ways off topic here.

What I started out to say was that I think that “The Englishman…” is a good movie. It’s a movie that you’d feel good watching and that would leave you feeling good when it was over.

The story’s about a small village located near a mountain in Wales. The village wasn’t notable for anything other than the fact that the mountain was the first you came to in that part of the country.

The movie (set in 1917) tells how two English surveyors came to measure the height of the mountain and, when finished, found that it lacked about 15 or so feet from being a true mountain. Consequently, it would, thenceforth, have to be labeled a “hill” on all official British maps.

This, of course, didn’t sit well with the villagers who weren’t going to put up with such an affront and, so, they decided to add enough dirt to the top of the hill to make it a mountain again. Once done, they had to get the surveyors to re-measure their hill which — they hoped — would become a mountain again.

Watching it is a whole lot easier than telling it.

The movie — based, by the way, on a true story — was done with taste, style, and humor. In other words, no one got naked nor was a single four letter word used. Not a soul was blown into a thousand pieces and heads stayed attached to torsos while blood remained in arteries.

To me, it was a good way to spend a quiet evening. And that’s because I’ve noticed that I can sit through — and enjoy — movies the likes of: “Pride and Prejudice,” “Four Weddings and a Funeral (Hugh Grant again),” and “Love Actually” — which takes a bit of getting used to.

This doesn’t mean that I don’t enjoy “action” movies, comedies, or good “whodunnits.” I like the “Bourne” series as much as anyone and can easily dial up “Quigley Down Under,” “The Unforgiven,” and “Open Range” any time I feel the need for something with a suitable body count in it.

It’s just that movies such as “The Englishman…” and others are a pleasant change of pace. They may differ in content, but they all have common threads. No unnecessary violence. No boorish language. No gratuitous sex. That, in itself, is something to talk about and I wish the Hollywood big-wigs would realize that they need not play to the lowest common denominator and that there’s a standing audience out here for simple stories simply told.

As an aside, I’d also hope that actors and actresses understand that there are good roles that do not require them to show me parts of themselves I’d just as soon not see or say things I’d rather not hear.

“The Englishman…” was such a movie.

Even if (males, especially) you’re skeptical, give it a shot.

Too, if you’re dating, I promise you won’t be embarrassed by anything you see or hear throughout the movie.

Finally, I think I just plain like Hugh Grant as an actor. He comes across as a decent sort and I hope he ages as well as “The Duke.”

Even if he does, though, I don’t think I could ever see him kissing Maureen O’Hara, clearing the bad guys out of the South 40, or calling someone “Pilgrim.” He’s just not that sort.

Can’t have everything in a movie, I suppose.

Larry Simoneaux lives in Edmonds. Send comments to: larrysim@comcast.net