Atonement is a lush melodrama with colors so bright that you can only try to open your eyes wider. The lips are blood red, the grass emerald green, and the heat a foggy gray. Clearly directed by Joe Wright of Pride and Prejudice, this movie is aesthetically pleasing and well-shot, the sharpness of the story softened by the various camera angles. The movie is pretty superb for someone (myself) who hasn't read the book in all of its subtleties and cleverness. The characters themselves are almost too beautiful to even exist, from Cecilia's pouty seductiveness to Robbie's wholesome young man image with his sleeves rolled up. The only character to be presented without beauty but with astonishing singularity is Briony, Cecilia's younger sister. As for the costumes, Keira Knightly's green laser-dotted dress is marvelous (the many replicas that they used for the shoots), but her ephemeral blouse and skirt in the fountain scene truly embodied the character.
There was something wonderful and almost frightening about Saoirse Ronan's portrayal of the young Briony. I would go so far as to say that her performance goes beyond 'prodigy'. Briony is definitely not a character that you like, but she's very gifted and intriguing. There's more depth in her character's fanciful daydreams than in most people. If anything, I thought that she was so excellent that I couldn't dredge up any sympathy for her later in the movie. Keira Knightly and James McAvoy also shone in their respective roles, especially James McAvoy. There was so much tension and rawness in every scene that they were in together. Although they have so few scenes together, you could clearly feel the loss and desperation when they were apart.
Atonement makes you think about the human condition, and I came out of the movie thinking that Briony never did sufficiently atone for her misdeed. First, my belief was that she knew what she was doing that fateful day. I do think that thirteen year olds can distinguish between right and wrong. However sheltered she was or however imperfect her family life was, she grew up as a privileged and spoiled child who willfully committed a wrong because she wanted her life to be as interesting as fiction. People are perfectly welcome to do whatever they want for themselves as long as it doesn't involve others. Briony clearly knew what sex was, although she may not have known love. The ending was clever and supported the story's theme of the dangers of pulling reality into fiction.
I want to read the book precisely because of this conceit. A work of fiction pointing out the dangers of fiction and never quite redeeming fiction in its ending. By enjoying the story, are we not sinking more deeply in the quicksands of imagination? By even writing Atonement, is Ian McEwan invalidating his own work?
It's not certain that the direct effects of Briony's crime were as terrible as we perceived. Of course, Robbie spent several years in prison as an innocent man and fought in WWII. However, given that so many Brits fought in WWII, it seemed unlikely that he wouldn't have volunteered or been drafted. Cecelia was also estranged from her family as a direct result, but wasn't that for the best? For God's sake, how could she possibly stay in such a dysfunctional family? The actual heinous crime is Briony not speaking up for the next seventy years and barely admitting the truth at the end. I'm not debating the fact that what Briony did was terribly wrong and that she kept on doing wrong things afterwards, but events just completely spiraled out of control.
In essence, there is something similar between Ian McEwan's Atonement and Somerset Maugham's The Painted Veil. Both of the stories involve a normal person committing a terrible act without fully understanding the consequences. In the latter novel, the main character knows exactly what he is doing and why but is still shocked at the unpredictability of later events. Both stories are quintessentially English and deal with the stifling class structure and societal demands. The difference is that the characters do atone themselves in The Painted Veil, while the chance never comes in Atonement. Well, I suppose that it is all open to interpretation. Both stories tell of the twisted relationships that people have and are vaguely frightening. There's something grotesque floating among the characters, even some within the characters themselves. You see it in Atonement. The colors are almost too bright and slightly uneasy. Both are very modern in their ability to unsettle the audience greatly through unconventional means.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
sugar and blood
Continuing on with my infinite film thoughts: The Jane Austen Book Club and Sweeney Todd.
As an avid Austen fan and lover of Pride & Prejudice, I've wanted to see The Jane Austen Book Club for a long time, actually hoping that there would be semi-intelligent conversations about her various works. Of course, I toned down my expectations once I saw the trailers and read the 100 or so reviews on mrqe. I also have to admit that half of my enthusiasm comes from the fact that Hugh Dancy is in the movie. I've passed out of the Hugh Dancy phase, who has Orlando Bloom's good looks plus some talent thrown in.
This movie did flow very well, but there was no passion or inspiration in its presentation. The acting was solid if slightly rigid. Emily Blunt was the undisputed shining star in her role as a repressed and misunderstood snobbish French teacher who's never been to France. Although all of the characters are likable, the main question is, "Who cares?" Obviously, every woman is going through emotional turmoil in the movie. However, it was impossible to convey any depth because the screen time had to be split between six people. Of course, the one story that did get some screen time had to be between the cold man-hating Jocelyn and the affable computer geek Grigg. Emily Blunt's story was also done well until the ending, where it was killed by one completely unrealistic and sappy scene.
As for the book club itself, there were very few discussions of the book before some member of the club goes out sobbing about her failed marriage or Jocelyn and Grigg getting into a catfight. Considering how understated the drama was in Austen's novels, this movie's strange combination of unsympathetic melodrama seems inappropriate at times. Yes, we understand Jane Austen wrote about relationships. However, she wrote more about the intellectual component of relationships (It was the nineteenth century). If the movie had only followed along those lines and tried a bit harder at wittier and less at the emotional, it would have been much better. And even less moviegoers would have gone to see it.
Sweeney Todd, which I hadn't planned on seeing (although seeing Johnny Depp is always worth something, as well as Helena Bonham Carter), was good despite my aversion of horror. I've only seen three horror films in my life, and they weren't even scary by normal standards. No one but a child would possibly think of I know what you did last summer, The Blair Witch Project, and The Sixth Sense as scary movies. It's the suspense that makes me unable to sleep for a week and close my eyes in the shower.
Like all Tim Burton movies, Sweeney Todd is done with its own set of flourishes and eccentricities. Johnny Depp is excellent (as usual) as the demon barber. Helena Bonham Carter also turns in an excellent performance and almost threatening to hint at upstaging Johnny Depp (no one could upstage Johnny Depp). Together, they make a most wonderful neurotic, ugly, and dirty couple. Alan Rickman is not bad either, being his usual unsmiling, drier than sandpaper self. What I enjoyed about Sweeney Todd was that all of the characters seemed a bit off, from a lot off (Sweeney Todd) to the slightly disturbing (his daughter with her white-blond hair and huge and unblinking porcelain china-doll eyes).
I do think that this movie worked as a musical. While the lead actors didn't exactly sound like Pavarotti, they didn't sound half bad. I'm at least grateful that they made the effort. The songs were droll and dark, and the hearty sentiment was there. The throat slashing was also artistic and done well (the few scenes that I didn't cover my eyes for). One character that I didn't appreciate was Sascha Baron Cohen as a rival barber. It's terrible because I only see Borat whenever he comes on screen, and Borat is in an entirely different universe than Sweeney Todd. Despite the fact that I didn't care for the suspense, the movie wasn't terrible.
As an avid Austen fan and lover of Pride & Prejudice, I've wanted to see The Jane Austen Book Club for a long time, actually hoping that there would be semi-intelligent conversations about her various works. Of course, I toned down my expectations once I saw the trailers and read the 100 or so reviews on mrqe. I also have to admit that half of my enthusiasm comes from the fact that Hugh Dancy is in the movie. I've passed out of the Hugh Dancy phase, who has Orlando Bloom's good looks plus some talent thrown in.
This movie did flow very well, but there was no passion or inspiration in its presentation. The acting was solid if slightly rigid. Emily Blunt was the undisputed shining star in her role as a repressed and misunderstood snobbish French teacher who's never been to France. Although all of the characters are likable, the main question is, "Who cares?" Obviously, every woman is going through emotional turmoil in the movie. However, it was impossible to convey any depth because the screen time had to be split between six people. Of course, the one story that did get some screen time had to be between the cold man-hating Jocelyn and the affable computer geek Grigg. Emily Blunt's story was also done well until the ending, where it was killed by one completely unrealistic and sappy scene.
As for the book club itself, there were very few discussions of the book before some member of the club goes out sobbing about her failed marriage or Jocelyn and Grigg getting into a catfight. Considering how understated the drama was in Austen's novels, this movie's strange combination of unsympathetic melodrama seems inappropriate at times. Yes, we understand Jane Austen wrote about relationships. However, she wrote more about the intellectual component of relationships (It was the nineteenth century). If the movie had only followed along those lines and tried a bit harder at wittier and less at the emotional, it would have been much better. And even less moviegoers would have gone to see it.
Sweeney Todd, which I hadn't planned on seeing (although seeing Johnny Depp is always worth something, as well as Helena Bonham Carter), was good despite my aversion of horror. I've only seen three horror films in my life, and they weren't even scary by normal standards. No one but a child would possibly think of I know what you did last summer, The Blair Witch Project, and The Sixth Sense as scary movies. It's the suspense that makes me unable to sleep for a week and close my eyes in the shower.
Like all Tim Burton movies, Sweeney Todd is done with its own set of flourishes and eccentricities. Johnny Depp is excellent (as usual) as the demon barber. Helena Bonham Carter also turns in an excellent performance and almost threatening to hint at upstaging Johnny Depp (no one could upstage Johnny Depp). Together, they make a most wonderful neurotic, ugly, and dirty couple. Alan Rickman is not bad either, being his usual unsmiling, drier than sandpaper self. What I enjoyed about Sweeney Todd was that all of the characters seemed a bit off, from a lot off (Sweeney Todd) to the slightly disturbing (his daughter with her white-blond hair and huge and unblinking porcelain china-doll eyes).
I do think that this movie worked as a musical. While the lead actors didn't exactly sound like Pavarotti, they didn't sound half bad. I'm at least grateful that they made the effort. The songs were droll and dark, and the hearty sentiment was there. The throat slashing was also artistic and done well (the few scenes that I didn't cover my eyes for). One character that I didn't appreciate was Sascha Baron Cohen as a rival barber. It's terrible because I only see Borat whenever he comes on screen, and Borat is in an entirely different universe than Sweeney Todd. Despite the fact that I didn't care for the suspense, the movie wasn't terrible.
the fake and the fairytale
The Counterfeiters was solid enough, but not spectacular in my opinion. I wanted to see the film that nabbed the foreign movie oscar (perhaps no other foreign movies were made last year). Once again, the acting was very good, the script solid, and the storyline undoubtedly the weakest part. The main actor, Karl Markovics, was amazing in a gradual sort of way. For the first half of the movie, I was staring at this thin man with his pinched and ahem...slightly criminal looking face and few words and never really noticed him. Suddenly, I realized that he was spectacular. I could believe that he was a real man with his stubby fingers running over the sheets of fake pound notes and dollars. He reminds me slightly of Mads Mikkelsen. They're both so mysterious and the intenseness is hidden away behind layers. Nothing's exposed until it builds up gradually and slaps you in the face. Then you realize just how intense they are. It's frightening and more subtle than Clive Owen's brooding and sullen airs. With Clive Owen's characters, you know that he's about something from his first scene.
Although the story flowed much better than the one in In Bruges, it still felt choppy. The camera work was unspectacular, and the story felt undeveloped. Moreover, the ending didn't feel quite right. Although I guess it is the director's way of telling us that our emotions trump our work and art, it's still hard to sympathize with the main character even with the spectacular job that he did. Technically, this should be a superb movie, but it just falls a bit flat.
Enchanted is a completely different experience. No more concentration camps and unsavory characters (the realistic kind). Surprisingly, I enjoyed this movie quite a bit considering that I'm averse to Disney movies and this movie pretty much takes all of them and shoves them down its own throat. Amy Adams pulls off the sweet and naive heroine without falling into the pit of saccharine and melodrama, which is a mighty feat. James Marsden nails the bland Prince Charming (He was pretty bland in the original Disney movies as well), and I rather enjoyed Susan Sarandon as the evil stepmother in her S&M/teenage goth gear. Of course, McSteamy was rather nice as the down-to-earth lawyer with his expressive blue eyes and wrinkles. I'd have to admit that he definitely made the film better for me, especially in the climactic scene fitted with an eighteenth century blue waistcoat and white tights.
Being a Disney movie, there were some clever parts in the film. Surprisingly enough, the clever parts outweighed the cliched parts that we knew had to be there. The indispensable glass shoe and singing to the birds were given a slick contemporary twist. I'd even say that I like this type of satire better than Shrek because this one was so much fluffier and romantic. Or maybe I have a fondness for people in 3-D rather than in 2-D.
Although the story flowed much better than the one in In Bruges, it still felt choppy. The camera work was unspectacular, and the story felt undeveloped. Moreover, the ending didn't feel quite right. Although I guess it is the director's way of telling us that our emotions trump our work and art, it's still hard to sympathize with the main character even with the spectacular job that he did. Technically, this should be a superb movie, but it just falls a bit flat.
Enchanted is a completely different experience. No more concentration camps and unsavory characters (the realistic kind). Surprisingly, I enjoyed this movie quite a bit considering that I'm averse to Disney movies and this movie pretty much takes all of them and shoves them down its own throat. Amy Adams pulls off the sweet and naive heroine without falling into the pit of saccharine and melodrama, which is a mighty feat. James Marsden nails the bland Prince Charming (He was pretty bland in the original Disney movies as well), and I rather enjoyed Susan Sarandon as the evil stepmother in her S&M/teenage goth gear. Of course, McSteamy was rather nice as the down-to-earth lawyer with his expressive blue eyes and wrinkles. I'd have to admit that he definitely made the film better for me, especially in the climactic scene fitted with an eighteenth century blue waistcoat and white tights.
Being a Disney movie, there were some clever parts in the film. Surprisingly enough, the clever parts outweighed the cliched parts that we knew had to be there. The indispensable glass shoe and singing to the birds were given a slick contemporary twist. I'd even say that I like this type of satire better than Shrek because this one was so much fluffier and romantic. Or maybe I have a fondness for people in 3-D rather than in 2-D.
my movie binge
In the past week, I've suddenly been hit with an explicable urge to watch movies. This might be because I sit on my chair for 14 hours a day and need a proxy for the physical, mental, interpersonal, spiritual, and all other types of stimulation that I seem to be lacking. I've made my way through an impressive stack of stories and actors and have come to several conclusions:
1) There's no way I can go back to TV shows.
2) I need to hit the gym.
3) I need to talk to real people.
4) James McAvoy is absolutely amazing.
5) Edward Norton is ten times more articulate than my english professors in college.
Where do I begin? The most rational place would be the two that I actually saw in theaters: In Bruges and The Counterfeiters. Before I start critiquing, it seems to me that all movies I've seen (perhaps by coincidence) have a surfeit of acting genius, solid though unremarkable dialogue, and a less than stellar storyline. It's very puzzling. Moreover, the American actors are getting upstaged by their better trained, more sensitive, and deeper counterparts.
In Bruges is one of those movies that had potential until you noticed that it was limping on its three legs, much like the bloodied and bullet-ridden half-dead people that drag themselves over the cobblestones at the end of the movie (that was obvious from the very beginning). The story was semi-interesting, but the scenes just didn't flow. The pace was bad and the action just dragged and dragged.
Many aspects of the story line seemed disjointed and rather pointless, especially the midget/dwarf. The dwarf jokes were just gratuitous. In fact, the entire storyline seemed pointless, and directly contrasted the fact that the scenes were crafted very carefully. My main problem is that the movie was self-conscious of its own cleverness (or non-cleverness).
So that this movie doesn't get thrown into the same bin as Martin and Orloff (which is the absolute worst movie I've seen in my life. I don't remember anything about it except that it was utterly abominable), the acting is exceptional, especially the scenes and Ralph Fiennes as a delightfully assholish type of bastard with a slight anger-management problem. Colin Farrell is also not bad as the conscience-stricken hitman who never left adolescence. If anything, he was a bit overly emotional. And Brendan Gleeson blended into his role so naturally that I didn't even notice his performance.
Another great thing about the movie is its unflinching use of racial slurs and some virtuoso swearing (with words that I wouldn't even say). There might be fear lurking inside every character (except for Ralph's character, who's imbued with 110% bastardness), but the movie is unflinching in showing us its rawness, which is quite spectacular in a few terse scenes, not to say that the rest of the movie isn't sparse, because it certainly is. There are a few twists and turns, but everyone ends up exactly where you think they will. Overall, I wouldn't watch the entire movie again, but there are a few bright bits that I might be willing to see just for the sheer talent contained in a few raw moments.
1) There's no way I can go back to TV shows.
2) I need to hit the gym.
3) I need to talk to real people.
4) James McAvoy is absolutely amazing.
5) Edward Norton is ten times more articulate than my english professors in college.
Where do I begin? The most rational place would be the two that I actually saw in theaters: In Bruges and The Counterfeiters. Before I start critiquing, it seems to me that all movies I've seen (perhaps by coincidence) have a surfeit of acting genius, solid though unremarkable dialogue, and a less than stellar storyline. It's very puzzling. Moreover, the American actors are getting upstaged by their better trained, more sensitive, and deeper counterparts.
In Bruges is one of those movies that had potential until you noticed that it was limping on its three legs, much like the bloodied and bullet-ridden half-dead people that drag themselves over the cobblestones at the end of the movie (that was obvious from the very beginning). The story was semi-interesting, but the scenes just didn't flow. The pace was bad and the action just dragged and dragged.
Many aspects of the story line seemed disjointed and rather pointless, especially the midget/dwarf. The dwarf jokes were just gratuitous. In fact, the entire storyline seemed pointless, and directly contrasted the fact that the scenes were crafted very carefully. My main problem is that the movie was self-conscious of its own cleverness (or non-cleverness).
So that this movie doesn't get thrown into the same bin as Martin and Orloff (which is the absolute worst movie I've seen in my life. I don't remember anything about it except that it was utterly abominable), the acting is exceptional, especially the scenes and Ralph Fiennes as a delightfully assholish type of bastard with a slight anger-management problem. Colin Farrell is also not bad as the conscience-stricken hitman who never left adolescence. If anything, he was a bit overly emotional. And Brendan Gleeson blended into his role so naturally that I didn't even notice his performance.
Another great thing about the movie is its unflinching use of racial slurs and some virtuoso swearing (with words that I wouldn't even say). There might be fear lurking inside every character (except for Ralph's character, who's imbued with 110% bastardness), but the movie is unflinching in showing us its rawness, which is quite spectacular in a few terse scenes, not to say that the rest of the movie isn't sparse, because it certainly is. There are a few twists and turns, but everyone ends up exactly where you think they will. Overall, I wouldn't watch the entire movie again, but there are a few bright bits that I might be willing to see just for the sheer talent contained in a few raw moments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)