‘My Policeman’ Review: Unless You’re a Styles Fan, This Won’t Be Your Policeman [TIFF 2022]

The anticipated film is plagued with Two-dimensional characters that fail to convince and a screenplay that neglects its own important subjects.

At this year’s Toronto International Film Festival, My Policeman, directed by Michael Grandage, was one of the most anticipated films in an already loaded catalogue. The rise of this film’s popularity is likely owed to one of the stars of My Policeman - Harry Styles, the iconic pop star sensation now turned actor. Despite controversy about his acting chops, and whether he can compete with his co-stars, many were looking forward to seeing this film, proven by how quickly the film’s screenings sold out.

My Policeman has an ensemble cast showcasing this story, based on the novel of the same name written by Bethan Roberts and adapted for the screen by Ron Nyswaner, known for his award-winning work on Philadelphia. The film makes use of two time periods to tell the story of three central characters. It begins in 1950s England, with Emma Corrin as Marion Taylor, a hopeful, naïve schoolteacher, and Harry Styles starring as Tom Burgess, a passionate policeman still learning about himself. They both soon meet Patrick Hazlewood, played by David Dawson. Patrick, a proud museum curator, is also homosexual – which, in this time period, is a criminal offence. Unlike other characters in the film, Patrick understands himself, his own identity, and his sexuality quite well.

These three meet each other in different circumstances, with Tom bringing Marion and Patrick together. Initially, it appears that they first socialize with Patrick at the same time, surrounded by a museum tour backdrop, but things become more muddled as the plot unfolds. They soon form a seemingly unbreakable bond of friendship. Unfortunately, quickly evident by the first scenes in the later setting, England in the 2000s, their relationship vastly changes from this, and continues to change until the last scene, albeit maybe somewhat predictably.

This film was surprisingly accessible, and paired with big names Styles and Corrin, will likely appeal to many demographics. Although the handful of sex scenes make it not as family friendly as possible, it is an interesting and important look into the lives of gay men in the 1950s. Young people, propelled by the names of stars they know, may not know of the struggles LGBTQ+ individuals faced, and as director Grandage discussed in the Q&A following the film, this is incredibly vital. In times like these, where gay rights are called into question by worldwide political figures, every generation should understand this historical oppression. While this film can be surface level at times, this is a great introduction for many audiences. To reiterate, the sex scenes are quite graphic, so this film may not be suitable for all audiences, but other than that, the content is quite tame in nature.

Unfortunately, despite the hope of a film focusing on two gay men, their characters, and how they are living a life where their very identities are criminalized, there is an overwhelming focus on how Marion, the straight character, feels. While it can be argued that this is necessary due to the context of this film, and how heteronormative traditions of marriage create a need to include the trials and tribulations of a woman scorned by her gay husband, it feels unfair to both Tom and Patrick. This felt very reminiscent of The Danish Girl, directed by Tom Hooper. That film focused on a transgender woman and heavily focused on how hard that was for her wife to adjust to and deal with. Again, important to cover all characters, but when the focus slides too far onto the straight character and how hard it is for them to come to terms with the gay person in their life, it becomes problematic.

It is possible to make a historical film focusing on LGBTQ+ love stories without doing this – Portrait of a Lady on Fire, directed by the incredible Céline Sciamma, does this wonderfully. It would have been beneficial for both the film itself and the viewer if the emotions of both men in the film received a greater amount of the focus. What is this film trying to say? Is it trying to educate and portray a great romance, or is it trying to tell the story of a disrespected woman and her journey to acceptance?

Despite the aforementioned sex scenes, there was a lack of romance or real love between the two the audience should supposedly be rooting for. A deeper dive into the true personalities of these characters, as individuals and as who they are together, would have added a lot to the relatability of the characters and the story overall. Instead, the choice was made to only really focus on the fear of and struggle against homosexuality (paired with a handful of sex scenes). If there was more to each character, it could have possibly been a great film, and could have created a better connection with the viewer. A longer runtime could have helped achieve this, but even with 113 minutes, there seemed to be an abundance of time-filling shots and moments. These moments could have been used to flesh out Tom and Patrick, and even Marion, but were used to repeatedly show the same things. Waves crashing on the shore or an older Tom walking his dog are fine, even scenic, but with multiple repetitions, they do not seem to add anything to the plot or the overall film. Having two time periods was initially interesting for the story, but could have been implemented much more effectively.

Overall, despite what many fear (or delight in), Styles is serviceable, with Corrin and Dawson playing their roles quite satisfactorily. Before watching this film, Dawson’s name was unfamiliar, but he surprisingly gave one of the better performances. This film was definitely not revolutionary, but it does have its moments. The set design was well-done, indulging in 1950s London décor and locations was enjoyable, and the score, despite being simple, suited the film. My Policeman, despite what it may hint at, fails to deliver a romance up to par, and heavily relies on a heterosexual voice instead of fleshing out the two lovers the audience is meant to celebrate. Unfortunately, this film is undeserving of the hype behind it, but depending on one’s personal draw toward the stars, it may be a better watch.

Grade: [C-]