| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 09/19/2007 : 13:47:16
Atonement has a pretty fine pedigree from the Booker Prize shortlist for McEwan's novel, a screenplay by Christopher Hampton, direction by stylish Joe Wright, and starry old hands like Brenda Blethyn and Vanessa Redgrave to the modern passions of James McAvoy and Saoirse Ronan/Romola Garai who both play Briony Tallis. Even [as Mark Kermode calls her] Ikea Knightly isn't turning in a slot-it-together job.
Praise first to the production design which is stunning and will surely be nominated for both Oscar and BAFTA. The camera-work too is superb, capturing period whether of the opulent kind, the ordure of war, or the sheer dullness of small lives. There's one scene - much written about - which reveals Wright's capacity for cinematic genius, it really is that good. It's on a par with Orson Welle's electric opening shot in Touch of Evil, and has even more power that Spielberg's beach landing in Private Ryan.
So what's gone wrong? I've been thinking about this since I saw the film a couple of weeks ago, and put as simply as possible, it's a matter of point-of-view. The clue is in the title. A film called Atonement implies this is the story of the one who atones. In this case it's Briony Tallis, youngest of a wealthy clan who know all the right people and are guided by the kind of aristo-charity that assures Robbie - the highly intelligent son of their housekeeper - will be put through university after his father abandoned them.
When young Briony [we see her at three stages of her life] misinterprets what she sees going on between her older sister [Knightly] and Robbie, and then, when there is doubt about a later act of more brutal passion, Briony blames Robbie, thereby ruining his life.
What Hampton forgets in the tale of consequences is whose story this is. For all kinds of reasons that have nothing to do with the film - stuff like money choices and box office - the film's focus is on McAvoy, seasoned with a dash of Knightly. The Briony character is dotted in like slivers of garlic in a meaty stew.
Briony must be the meat of the stew or the dish dissolves. In story terms that's exactly what happens. But we're kept entertained because everything else really is so good.
The ending is wrapped up too neatly, I thought, by a very old Briony [Vanessa Redgrave] who, having become a successful novelist, spouts some silly nonsense about her books being her atonement. Bollocks!
But DO go see it!! I suppose I'd give it just short of 4 out of 5.
|
| 13 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| randall |
Posted - 01/14/2008 : 21:46:20
Well, I DID read the book a few years ago. Like Baffy and Whippy, I found it sumptuous but felt this movie's cup was full only 90% or so. I'm glad somebody put a spoiler warning on the thread, because if you weren't familiar with the story------
[SPOILERS AHEAD]
---you shouldn't know that Briony survives to become a professional writer and that Vanessa Redgrave plays her in a superlative scene at the end.
However, I have to side with the folks who were dazzled by the Dunkirk scenes, even though Whippy's right: they have nothing near the intensity of PRIVATE RYAN [this isn't a competition, mind]. They took the film visually from a Jane Austen parlor piece to the edge of David Lean-type scope. And they are absolutely vital to Briony's epiphany, especially when their true gasp-worthy nature is finally revealed by Redgrave toward the end. Seeing it is even more wrenching than reading it. To test this out, if you're new to the story, try seeing the movie a second time. I'll bet the Dunkirk sequences, and Briony's final fantastique, really make you squirm.
I'm very glad I caught this one in a movie theater. Last weekend we saw LA VIE EN ROSE and HAIRSPRAY at home [it's Netflix awards season at our house], both very good jobs, but it just ain't the same. A pox on theatergoers who talk during the feature, and who spill their candied crap on the floor! |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 01/14/2008 : 21:27:07
I'm not sure I would have spent any more time with Briony and away from Robbie and Cecilia. The power of the twist comes only if the audience has a significant investment in the romance. I do agree that maybe too much time was spent in France, maybe more time should have spent on the romance, but I don't think of this as a crippling flaw, no, and I wouldn't have spent more time with Briony.
And the reason I wouldn't is probably because I don't think of this as a story of atonement at all, but one of metafiction. I came in expecting a bog-standard Merchant-Ivory-style costume drama shitfest, and I got something far more complicated. The title is a con; the whole movie is kind of a con. The more predictable it looks, the bigger the impact of the twist. I think it has more in common with Memento or Adaptation than The English Patient.
As far as I'm concerned, the worst scene is when Robbie comes across an array of tastefully arranged dead schoolchildren -- it rings completely false. This encapsulates what I think is the real flaw in all of this: It's too damn pretty.
Examining the "fake" ending, it seems to be at least fairly real and honest, to the credit of McEwan's (Briony's) writing and solid acting. Had the movie continued that thread, it wouldn't have felt unearned. It seems more honest, in fact, than the "real" ending -- McAvoy's buddy tearfully wishing his friend goodbye while pretty Keira floats delicately in suspended animation. Were I to make this film, one thing I would definitely do is make the death scenes nastier and uglier, less crying friends and more blue bloated corpses; basically, I would take what is already a cruel suckerpunch of a move and make it even crueler.
Ah, but the "real" ending is a tale told by Briony, just like the rest of the film, so how stylistically different can it logically be? I dunno; this is a very complicated film. I think the film takes Vanessa Redgrave too much at her word; my version of the final shot would have come across as far more sarcastic. I think those final scenes are a sign that this isn't a movie that's trying to trick you into thinking it's another English Patient, but a movie trying to be The English Patient. Thank God it wasn't completely successful in that regard. |
| turrell |
Posted - 01/01/2008 : 05:31:25
Beautifully made and filmed.
Solid acting.
Interesting story and storytelling style (non-linear).
I was a little let down as I had heard this was the big award movie of the year, but it was a very good film, perhaps had my expectations too highly raised. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/01/2007 : 09:12:23
Yup, I do wish I had read the novel first.  |
| demonic |
Posted - 09/30/2007 : 21:48:33
Finally caught up with this one and felt a bit underwhelmed, as I'd expected. I can't get past Keira Knightley, no matter how much I try. Any attempt to make her sympathetic or sexual falls utterly flat for me as I find her as compelling as a log. In turn that made Robbie less interesting, even though McAvoy did sterling work in what I found to be a thankless script. Unfortunately the clipped accents sounded ridiculous coming out of both of them - not at all lived in, only put on, and as a result I saw melodrama and pretence where I should have felt longing and loss. Like Sal I thought the long Stedicam shot was technically impressive but not especially illuminating or innovative. I hope this film doesn't clean up at the awards as there are far better lower profile films making a greater impact far more quickly than this strives to do in its entire running time. Finally, it struck me that the power of the novel to undercut your experience and attachment to the characters in the final chapter as you discover the truth is one uniquely connected to the medium of the novel and is far less successful on the big screen. Perhaps it was a fault of the adaptation or of Wright's direction but that final twist seemed without sufficent dramatic impact. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 09/21/2007 : 10:17:37
Saw this last night and really enjoyed it. It's always a good sign when a film can take one from loathing a character (Briony) to sympathising with them.
I have no idea what is supposed to be impressive about the beach scene, though - it seemed completely standard to me. I agree that too much is shown of Robbie in France, which perhaps contributed to my (lack of) interest in this scene. However, that is the only way in which the story is misfocused - Briony is completely central, just as BaftaBabe thinks that she should be.
I also agree with napper that her T.V. studio ramblings are not 'silly' and that a novelist might very well consider a fictionalised life as the best compensation she could offer. It is quite clear that she feels ambivalent about this - that it is not a truly satisfactory solution but it is the best that she can do.
Before all that was revealed (I haven't read the novel), I had been struck by how many timelines did not add up properly. This is presumably supposed to tie in with the distortion of truth/memory, but it was far too crude (ambiguity between three and a half and five years and some ordering, for example) - a character like Briony would get her dates right, and the distortion would not have been needed for the changes she has made to the story. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 09/20/2007 : 19:17:43
quote:
Originally posted by duh
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Well Duh, the viewer could be shown that, but it seems that is not the writer's view.
Rather, being a novelist allows her, at least in part, to come to terms with what she had done, even though this may be a logically irrational process. She has rewritten the story of Cecelia and Robbie - I didn't see any sign that she would need to continually rewrite it, even if the outcome is less than perfect. In fact, she specifically states that this is her last novel.
However, all of this is very much the domain of the very end of the film. For the most part it is pretty much a high class romance story and any discussion as to whether the ending is silly or not is unlikely to be central to anyone's overall enjoyment of the film.
I meant a figurative hell of eternal rewrites, not that she should be shown doing so literally. I meant that perhaps it would have been more effective if she weren't allowed to achieve a feeling having actually atoned for her sin by rewriting what happened, but that she is in the ACT of atoning for it by continually rewriting it in a futile attempt to make what she writes become the reality.
I understood you meant a figurative hell. It is said in the film that she had been rewriting it for many years, but clearly the novel is her last word, as her useful life is running out.
I'm trying to make the point that the film, which is adapted from a book by Ian McEwan, who is widely regarded as the greatest living English novelist, is unlikely to simply be "silly" about the nature of a novelist's work. McEwan is trying to say something about what writing a novel does for the novelist, and that seems to be that it helps, on an emotional level, come to terms with one's failures. These guys spend their working lives creating and managing characters who are fictional so it could be for them the happiness of two fictional characterisations of real people can, in some way, compensate, for the writer, for the happiness that the real people didn't get. This may seem silly, but we don't spend maybe 6 hours a day living with fictional people. 
On the other hand, I could be completely wrong. 
|
| MM0rkeleb |
Posted - 09/20/2007 : 17:20:10
An interesting story involving a film adaptation of Atonement ...
In college I took a few courses with John Sutherland, who was a visiting professor at Caltech for a few semesters. One of those courses was Contemporary British Literature, and one of the books we tried to get to (but didn't) was Atonement. John and I talked a lot, and knowing about my interest in film, he suggested that for my final, instead of writing a paper, I could write, in screenplay format, a beginning (~10 minutes) of an adaptation of Atonement.
Later on that year, Ian McEwan actually visited Caltech, and being a student member of the group that brought him there, I had a chance to meet him briefly. John said I should show him my script. I didn't though, because I had written it before I had actually finished the book, so I didn't know where was the best place to start - I was more or less forced to start where the book did, which may or may not have been the best place to start the film version. And later, when I finished the book, I wasn't interested enough to think further on the matter.
Anyway, that's my story. I might even still have that script kicking around somewhere ...
|
| duh |
Posted - 09/20/2007 : 17:15:21
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Well Duh, the viewer could be shown that, but it seems that is not the writer's view.
Rather, being a novelist allows her, at least in part, to come to terms with what she had done, even though this may be a logically irrational process. She has rewritten the story of Cecelia and Robbie - I didn't see any sign that she would need to continually rewrite it, even if the outcome is less than perfect. In fact, she specifically states that this is her last novel.
However, all of this is very much the domain of the very end of the film. For the most part it is pretty much a high class romance story and any discussion as to whether the ending is silly or not is unlikely to be central to anyone's overall enjoyment of the film.
I meant a figurative hell of eternal rewrites, not that she should be shown doing so literally. I meant that perhaps it would have been more effective if she weren't allowed to achieve a feeling having actually atoned for her sin by rewriting what happened, but that she is in the ACT of atoning for it by continually rewriting it in a futile attempt to make what she writes become the reality. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 09/20/2007 : 16:24:33
Well Duh, the viewer could be shown that, but it seems that is not the writer's view.
Rather, being a novelist allows her, at least in part, to come to terms with what she had done, even though this may be a logically irrational process. She has rewritten the story of Cecelia and Robbie - I didn't see any sign that she would need to continually rewrite it, even if the outcome is less than perfect. In fact, she specifically states that this is her last novel.
However, all of this is very much the domain of the very end of the film. For the most part it is pretty much a high class romance story and any discussion as to whether the ending is silly or not is unlikely to be central to anyone's overall enjoyment of the film.
|
| duh |
Posted - 09/20/2007 : 15:45:21
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
The ending is wrapped up too neatly, I thought, by a very old Briony [Vanessa Redgrave] who, having become a successful novelist, spouts some silly nonsense about her books being her atonement. Bollocks!
But DO go see it!! I suppose I'd give it just short of 4 out of 5.
I am unfamiliar with the novel but will look forward to seeing the film. After reading Baffy's review here, I went and looked up some spoilers; that doesn't ruin it for me at all. From what Baffy says, I gather that the film's conclusion just wasn't done with quite the right tone.
I can imagine how instead, the viewer could be shown that Briony will not die a peaceful death, that she will be consigned to a special place in hell where she must continually attempt to rewrite the history of Cecelia and Robbie. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 09/19/2007 : 19:23:13
I saw this yesterday.
Baffy's right that there's something wrong with it, but any criticisms are of a very good, intelligent piece of filmmaking.
I felt the scenes in France were essentially extraneous to the real story, which is kind of what Baffy's saying, those scenes being McAvoy's experiences during WW2 and only the indirect consequences of Briony's action. Personally I don't care how breathtaking the beach scene is supposed to be technically, I just didn't see what why an examination of the conditions on Dunkirk beach was really part of the story. (Incidentally, I don't agree these beach scenes were more powerful than those in "Saving Private Ryan" although they were special.)
The acting is all pretty excellent until the last scenes with Vanessa Redgrave. Then it picks up a gear. Yes, the idea of people gaining happiness through being fictionalised in novels was pretty absurd, but then I'm not a novelist. I took this to be a confession of novelist as self-therapist rather than rather than of mere "silly nonsense". Isn't McEwan telling us that the validity of the novel form is emotional rather than rational?
|
| Rovark |
Posted - 09/19/2007 : 17:17:22
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Atonement has a pretty fine pedigree from the Booker Prize shortlist for McEwan's novel, a screenplay by Christopher Hampton, direction by stylish Joe Wright, and starry old hands like Brenda Blethyn and Vanessa Redgrave to the modern passions of James McAvoy and Saoirse Ronan/Romola Garai who both play Briony Tallis. Even [as Mark Kermode calls her] Ikea Knightly isn't turning in a slot-it-together job.
Unfortunately all this is the kind of thing that just puts me right off seeing it at all. It has "Worthy Oscar-fodder" writ large all over it and despite all the positive elements it may have, well, on sunday I went to the flicks and given what was on offer, opted for "1408" |
|
|
