OK, I admit to having limited viewings of the nominees for 2007 so I will base my picks on what I did see and also make an educated guess. I confess to having only seen the best picture nominees and few of the other nominated films.
PICTURE-Atonement might have won in the past, but this kind of film doesn’t win anymore. There Will Be Blood is hailed as a Citizen Kane of sorts but it worked for some and really turned off others. Juno is that little film that could but, like Little Miss Sunshine from year’s past, won’t make it here. Michael Clayton is wonderful but its nominations are award in itself for this kind of film. I can get past its abrupt ending and admire No Country for Old Men (think The Departed which had an unsatisfying end) which should win.
DIRECTOR-Coen brothers get their dues for No Country for Old Men.
ACTOR-Daniel Day-Lewis towers above them all.
ACTRESS-I will stick my neck out even though Julie Christie is the favorite; I will go with my heart and pick upset winner Marion Cotillard’s knockout job in La Vie en Rose.
SUPPORTING ACTOR-Javier Bardem period.
SUPPORTING ACTRESS-toughest, most unpredictable category….Tilda Swinton could get the consolation award for Michael Clayton
ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY-Juno!
ADAPTED SCREENPLAY-No Country for Old Men
The rest of the tech categories should evenly split such films as Transformers, Sweeney Todd, Atonement, Bourne Ultimatum, and La Vie en Rose.
ANIMATED-Ratatouille
SONG-Once gets its just due
SCORE-Atonement
MAKEUP-La Vie en Rose
VISUAL EFFECTS-Transformers
EDITING-Bourne Ultimatum should win in the tradition of Bullitt and all great action films.
CINEMATOGRAPHY-Atonement
ART DIRECTION-Sweeney Todd
FOREIGN FILM-Counterfeiters
COSTUME-Sweeney Todd
SOUND MIXING-Bourne Ultimatum
SOUND EDITING-Bourne Ultimatum
DOCUMENTARY-Sicko
Have not seen any of the short subject so I won’t hazard a guess.
The totals award count should go to No Country for Old Men with at least 4 awards.
ENJOY!
Vertigo
Vertigo
Sunday, February 24, 2008
MICHAEL CLAYTON and His Conscience
Tony Gilroy, who has scripted all three Jason Bourne adaptations recently and helped revive the spy genre, has his directorial debut of his script in Michael Clayton, and the results are nothing short of spectacular with a story that harkens back to the conspiracy laden, morality plays of the 1970’s and passionate acting to boot by a strong cast.
Michael Clayton (George Clooney) is a fixer of problems for a leading law firm which experiences a crisis as its leading legal mind, Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson) has a breakdown as he defends an industrial giant, U-North, from a multi-billion dollar lawsuit. U-North’s corporate counsel Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton) grows worried and later realizes that Edens may have some other agenda in mind, a trump card of sorts, that may threaten U-North, and she orders a couple of men to eliminate the problem. Add to this Clayton’s own woes as he owes loan sharks big money. As Clayton attempts to help Edens, a tragedy occurs which reverberates with Clayton’s own values and tests his resolve to delve deeper into an insidious world of corporate greed and murder. How far he is willing to go to save his own skin or find justice even if it risks his well being brings him to a defining point in his life.
You know this movie has a high minded agenda and stamp of quality when some of the producers include Steven Soderbergh (Erin Brockovich), Sydney Pollack (Absence of Malice), Anthony Minghella (The English Patient), and Clooney (Syriana) himself. Production values from camerawork to music are all topflight. Gilroy proves a sure-handed director and the film feels like the work of a veteran director of thrillers in the mode of The Insider or any John Grisham adaptation. like The Firm.
Clooney does a very good job as Clayton, a man who solves problems for a law firm. A smart, talented man who knows the legal business, he also is human with a mysterious past. He is far from perfect with shortcomings including a gambling problem and debt, which makes him more identifiable to the audience. Tom Wilkinson (In the Bedroom) is quite convincing with his American accent as the legal giant who has apparently lost his mind (like Bulworth or Network’s Howard Beale), and Tilda Swinton’s company woman, is so good, you wish there were more of her. Swinton’s talent is on the rise after such films as The Deep End. Sydney Pollack has been displaying his acting chops lately and proves to be equally adept at character roles (Tootsie, Eyes Wide Shut) as he is at directing.
The film is quite strong and when it reaches its bravura, concluding scene, it rises to the occasion and elevates the plot to lofty heights and rarefied air. It is a supremely crowd pleasing moment and cinches Michael Clayton as not only an interesting thriller and mystery, but an intelligent, literate morality play highlighting a talented writer now director and its ever shining star.
***1/2 of **** stars
Michael Clayton (George Clooney) is a fixer of problems for a leading law firm which experiences a crisis as its leading legal mind, Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson) has a breakdown as he defends an industrial giant, U-North, from a multi-billion dollar lawsuit. U-North’s corporate counsel Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton) grows worried and later realizes that Edens may have some other agenda in mind, a trump card of sorts, that may threaten U-North, and she orders a couple of men to eliminate the problem. Add to this Clayton’s own woes as he owes loan sharks big money. As Clayton attempts to help Edens, a tragedy occurs which reverberates with Clayton’s own values and tests his resolve to delve deeper into an insidious world of corporate greed and murder. How far he is willing to go to save his own skin or find justice even if it risks his well being brings him to a defining point in his life.
You know this movie has a high minded agenda and stamp of quality when some of the producers include Steven Soderbergh (Erin Brockovich), Sydney Pollack (Absence of Malice), Anthony Minghella (The English Patient), and Clooney (Syriana) himself. Production values from camerawork to music are all topflight. Gilroy proves a sure-handed director and the film feels like the work of a veteran director of thrillers in the mode of The Insider or any John Grisham adaptation. like The Firm.
Clooney does a very good job as Clayton, a man who solves problems for a law firm. A smart, talented man who knows the legal business, he also is human with a mysterious past. He is far from perfect with shortcomings including a gambling problem and debt, which makes him more identifiable to the audience. Tom Wilkinson (In the Bedroom) is quite convincing with his American accent as the legal giant who has apparently lost his mind (like Bulworth or Network’s Howard Beale), and Tilda Swinton’s company woman, is so good, you wish there were more of her. Swinton’s talent is on the rise after such films as The Deep End. Sydney Pollack has been displaying his acting chops lately and proves to be equally adept at character roles (Tootsie, Eyes Wide Shut) as he is at directing.
The film is quite strong and when it reaches its bravura, concluding scene, it rises to the occasion and elevates the plot to lofty heights and rarefied air. It is a supremely crowd pleasing moment and cinches Michael Clayton as not only an interesting thriller and mystery, but an intelligent, literate morality play highlighting a talented writer now director and its ever shining star.
***1/2 of **** stars
A Bold NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN
Starting with the film noir hit, Blood Simple, co-directors and screenwriters, Joel and Ethan Coen have had a productive output of auteur films that range from manic comedies (O Brother, Where Art Thou?, Raising Arizona) to thoughtful crime dramas (Fargo, Millers Crossing). With their latest, No Country for Old Men, they have excelled at personal filmmaking that just misses the mark by not delivering a more pronounced ending. Under the trappings of a mystery and then chase thriller, this film is an exercise in movie making at its best while taking chances with conventional characters and plot. It also features splendid performances by Josh Brolin and Javier Bardem.
Set in 1980 after the Vietnam War, an aged sheriff, Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), talks of a long line of lawmen in his family. One day, in the desert a welder named Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) comes upon the remnants of a drug deal gone badly and a case of money and decides to take it. It turns out that some Mexicans are on his trail and mean business. So does a mysterious stranger, a clever, psychotic assassin, Anton (Javier Bardem). And the chase is on with Mexicans, the law, and worst of all, Anton, in pursuit. Moss sends his wife Carla to her mom’s, and he hightails it to an obscure motel. Apparently a syndicate has hired Anton to get the money and dispatch anyone who gets in the way, but Anton has other ideas and begins to eliminate not just the Mexican competition, but nearly everyone connected with him! Anton’s weapons of choice are a lethal air gun and the largest silencer rifle ever. He methodically hunts down Moss through detective work and a tracking device. You know that despite his resourcefulness, Moss is simply overmatched. Meanwhile, the syndicate hires another hitman, Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson) to recover the money and eliminate Anton. All the while, Bell is adding up the clues and the growing trail of bodies to form an ominous picture of what is happening and what is to become. As much as he tries to help Moss and his wife, he cannot compete with the likes of Anton. By the end, Bell contemplates retirement knowing a killer is on the loose.
Josh Brolin really makes a strong impression as the doomed Moss. His character reminds one of a younger Kris Kristofferson. Not since Michael Madsen in Reservoir Dogs has there been a hideously terrifying character as Bardem’s hitman, Anton. His calm, dispassionate killer is surely inspired by past movie villains as the ones in Point Blank and The Terminator. Yet, in his own strange way, Anton has his code and motivation. He even gives his potential victims a second chance based on random luck. And he is most unforgiving if he is crossed.
There are a number of well constructed scenes to enjoy including a marvelous one at a convenience store which illustrates Anton’s manic state, and a moment in a Mexican hotel that is unbearably tense as Moss is cornered in his room by someone who could be Anton.
The cinematography by Roger Deakins (The Shawshank Redemption) is quite effective as it illustrates a desolate, barren landscape in which this cat and mouse game is played out.
There are a couple problems with the films narrative, however. While it is good that the film attempts and mostly succeeds at being unique and offbeat, a few things are confusing like what really happens toward the end at a motel as Moss waits for his wife. What happens to the money? Some killings are off screen or suggested, and you have to make assumptions based on the context of a given scene.
The abrupt conclusion is a bit baffling; it won’t work for most audiences, and even the most ardent cinephile may need to digest the last several minutes to make sense of it. Pay attention to the film’s underlying theme. Reread the title of the film and understand that it is about the tradition of the lawmen being displaced by a new world order. Jones does a voice over at the beginning and he concludes it with a melancholy lament and recounting of a disturbing dream. If only the structure of the film could convey that more clearly, there would have been a better narrative flow to its finale. Some may call the device brilliant, but it does not work as it may have been intended. But don’t let this slip deny the pleasures of a marvelous ensemble of actors and some great camerawork. It could easily be the Coen brothers’ best work to date, and that is something to truly appreciate.
***1/2 of **** (mostly for Bardem and the terrific narrative until the unconventional, confusing ending)
Set in 1980 after the Vietnam War, an aged sheriff, Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones), talks of a long line of lawmen in his family. One day, in the desert a welder named Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin) comes upon the remnants of a drug deal gone badly and a case of money and decides to take it. It turns out that some Mexicans are on his trail and mean business. So does a mysterious stranger, a clever, psychotic assassin, Anton (Javier Bardem). And the chase is on with Mexicans, the law, and worst of all, Anton, in pursuit. Moss sends his wife Carla to her mom’s, and he hightails it to an obscure motel. Apparently a syndicate has hired Anton to get the money and dispatch anyone who gets in the way, but Anton has other ideas and begins to eliminate not just the Mexican competition, but nearly everyone connected with him! Anton’s weapons of choice are a lethal air gun and the largest silencer rifle ever. He methodically hunts down Moss through detective work and a tracking device. You know that despite his resourcefulness, Moss is simply overmatched. Meanwhile, the syndicate hires another hitman, Carson Wells (Woody Harrelson) to recover the money and eliminate Anton. All the while, Bell is adding up the clues and the growing trail of bodies to form an ominous picture of what is happening and what is to become. As much as he tries to help Moss and his wife, he cannot compete with the likes of Anton. By the end, Bell contemplates retirement knowing a killer is on the loose.
Josh Brolin really makes a strong impression as the doomed Moss. His character reminds one of a younger Kris Kristofferson. Not since Michael Madsen in Reservoir Dogs has there been a hideously terrifying character as Bardem’s hitman, Anton. His calm, dispassionate killer is surely inspired by past movie villains as the ones in Point Blank and The Terminator. Yet, in his own strange way, Anton has his code and motivation. He even gives his potential victims a second chance based on random luck. And he is most unforgiving if he is crossed.
There are a number of well constructed scenes to enjoy including a marvelous one at a convenience store which illustrates Anton’s manic state, and a moment in a Mexican hotel that is unbearably tense as Moss is cornered in his room by someone who could be Anton.
The cinematography by Roger Deakins (The Shawshank Redemption) is quite effective as it illustrates a desolate, barren landscape in which this cat and mouse game is played out.
There are a couple problems with the films narrative, however. While it is good that the film attempts and mostly succeeds at being unique and offbeat, a few things are confusing like what really happens toward the end at a motel as Moss waits for his wife. What happens to the money? Some killings are off screen or suggested, and you have to make assumptions based on the context of a given scene.
The abrupt conclusion is a bit baffling; it won’t work for most audiences, and even the most ardent cinephile may need to digest the last several minutes to make sense of it. Pay attention to the film’s underlying theme. Reread the title of the film and understand that it is about the tradition of the lawmen being displaced by a new world order. Jones does a voice over at the beginning and he concludes it with a melancholy lament and recounting of a disturbing dream. If only the structure of the film could convey that more clearly, there would have been a better narrative flow to its finale. Some may call the device brilliant, but it does not work as it may have been intended. But don’t let this slip deny the pleasures of a marvelous ensemble of actors and some great camerawork. It could easily be the Coen brothers’ best work to date, and that is something to truly appreciate.
***1/2 of **** (mostly for Bardem and the terrific narrative until the unconventional, confusing ending)
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Oil and Family in THERE WILL BE BLOOD
Having been praised for his Altmanesque work on such multi-character and interweaving storyline films as Boogie Nights and Magnolia, Paul Thomas Anderson has set out for completely new territory, and the results, while not necessarily commercially palatable for mainstream audiences, is a unique tale of greed, power, and the loss of one’s soul in There Will Be Blood. Adapted loosely from Upton Sinclair’s novel, Oil, this is truly a labor of love by Anderson, who has elicited a stunning performance from Daniel Day-Lewis.
A struggling oil miner in 1898, Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis), slaves away on a dig until it begins to yield oil. Years later, he raises a child as his son amid the rural setting and buys oil fields while paying little or nothing for them. One day a stranger, Paul, offers to sell his family’s land knowing there is some oil. Plainview sets forth to this property in the guise of a hunter and makes an offer to the religious family. The elder son, Paul’s brother Eli (Paul Dano), is mistrustful. Eventually Plainview gets his land, begins to pump oil, and coddles the locals in a public relations sleight of hand. Although not a religious man, he subjugates his convictions to secure needed land rights. As Eli becomes a rising force of religious zeal, Daniel becomes a wealthy oil baron. Enter a mysterious man who has family ties to Plainview, and the quest for money and power takes on another aspect that complicates matters. Plainview’s thirst for oil will stop at nothing until he is eaten away to a vindictive, monstrous self, setting the stage for a macabre reunion with an old face.
This is a slice of the industrial revolution and the horrors of quality control in keeping with author Sinclair’s The Jungle. The period setting, with its raw, forbidding environment and dangerous existence, is vividly realized. This was a time where greedy men dealt with their own kind for personal gain, and women stood their place. Its antecedents are other similarly themed films like Giant, Greed, and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, while it’s lack of warmth and stark visuals would have impressed director Stanley Kubrick. It was a time where future billionaire’s were in the making. As such it is a fascinating history and culture lesson all at once. Is this how the West was really won? Is this the darker side to Manifest Destiny?
Aside from watching Plainview’s amassing of wealth, the core relationship he has with his son, who witnesses much of his machinations, is an interesting one. Plainview at times shows paternal affection only to betray any semblance of loyalties and love for the prospect of oil. In fact, the film is filled with betrayals such as the way Plainview cheats families out of their potential wealth and a gut wrenching scene with his son on a train. It is a bleak film, but you’ve got to admire the singular vision with which Anderson and Lewis convey this character. We are fascinated by Plainview, but we don’t have to like him.
There is a scene that illustrates Plainview’s willingness to sacrifice his beliefs (or non-beliefs) in order to gain more oil fields. Set in a small church, this baptism scene is the highlight of the film and goes so over the top that it is a hoot. Further, when Plainview makes a play for land rights among sellers, his pitch becomes canned and rehearsed like a well ‘oiled’ commercial. He is a selfish con man, a liar, and a cheat. As much as you want to find something redeeming about him, it never fully emerges. He is also a most unforgiving and vengeful man in the worst way.
Former Oscar winner (My Left Foot) Lewis, like legendary actor Paul Muni, has limited his film output over the years. That he chose to do this based on Anderson’s script speaks highly of the attraction of other high profile stars (e.g. Tom Cruise in Magnolia or Adam Sandler in Punch Drunk Love). Paul Dano (Little Miss Sunshine) is pretty compelling as Eli, quite a weird, and ominous figure. The cinematography (Robert Elswit) recalls Days of Heaven. The minimalist score (Jonny Greenwood) is a bit unusual as it almost becomes an accompanying sound effect than theme.
The movie does have some impressive, opening minutes that are visual without talking. Some of the dialogue has a sadistic bite to it while the staging of scenes lends itself to a strong theatricality; despite its wide expanse of land setting, it has a claustrophobic feel. The pace of the film, which may test the audience’s patience, is quite deliberate and almost slows to a halt, but Lewis surprises and fascinates at every turn. Watch out for the bizarre ending which may perplex some viewers. Although some may not appreciate it, others will simply relish this informal history lesson in the making of a turn-of-the-century mogul as personified by an acting giant who is about to add another gold statuette to his collection.
*** of **** stars (**** for Lewis’ performance)
A struggling oil miner in 1898, Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis), slaves away on a dig until it begins to yield oil. Years later, he raises a child as his son amid the rural setting and buys oil fields while paying little or nothing for them. One day a stranger, Paul, offers to sell his family’s land knowing there is some oil. Plainview sets forth to this property in the guise of a hunter and makes an offer to the religious family. The elder son, Paul’s brother Eli (Paul Dano), is mistrustful. Eventually Plainview gets his land, begins to pump oil, and coddles the locals in a public relations sleight of hand. Although not a religious man, he subjugates his convictions to secure needed land rights. As Eli becomes a rising force of religious zeal, Daniel becomes a wealthy oil baron. Enter a mysterious man who has family ties to Plainview, and the quest for money and power takes on another aspect that complicates matters. Plainview’s thirst for oil will stop at nothing until he is eaten away to a vindictive, monstrous self, setting the stage for a macabre reunion with an old face.
This is a slice of the industrial revolution and the horrors of quality control in keeping with author Sinclair’s The Jungle. The period setting, with its raw, forbidding environment and dangerous existence, is vividly realized. This was a time where greedy men dealt with their own kind for personal gain, and women stood their place. Its antecedents are other similarly themed films like Giant, Greed, and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, while it’s lack of warmth and stark visuals would have impressed director Stanley Kubrick. It was a time where future billionaire’s were in the making. As such it is a fascinating history and culture lesson all at once. Is this how the West was really won? Is this the darker side to Manifest Destiny?
Aside from watching Plainview’s amassing of wealth, the core relationship he has with his son, who witnesses much of his machinations, is an interesting one. Plainview at times shows paternal affection only to betray any semblance of loyalties and love for the prospect of oil. In fact, the film is filled with betrayals such as the way Plainview cheats families out of their potential wealth and a gut wrenching scene with his son on a train. It is a bleak film, but you’ve got to admire the singular vision with which Anderson and Lewis convey this character. We are fascinated by Plainview, but we don’t have to like him.
There is a scene that illustrates Plainview’s willingness to sacrifice his beliefs (or non-beliefs) in order to gain more oil fields. Set in a small church, this baptism scene is the highlight of the film and goes so over the top that it is a hoot. Further, when Plainview makes a play for land rights among sellers, his pitch becomes canned and rehearsed like a well ‘oiled’ commercial. He is a selfish con man, a liar, and a cheat. As much as you want to find something redeeming about him, it never fully emerges. He is also a most unforgiving and vengeful man in the worst way.
Former Oscar winner (My Left Foot) Lewis, like legendary actor Paul Muni, has limited his film output over the years. That he chose to do this based on Anderson’s script speaks highly of the attraction of other high profile stars (e.g. Tom Cruise in Magnolia or Adam Sandler in Punch Drunk Love). Paul Dano (Little Miss Sunshine) is pretty compelling as Eli, quite a weird, and ominous figure. The cinematography (Robert Elswit) recalls Days of Heaven. The minimalist score (Jonny Greenwood) is a bit unusual as it almost becomes an accompanying sound effect than theme.
The movie does have some impressive, opening minutes that are visual without talking. Some of the dialogue has a sadistic bite to it while the staging of scenes lends itself to a strong theatricality; despite its wide expanse of land setting, it has a claustrophobic feel. The pace of the film, which may test the audience’s patience, is quite deliberate and almost slows to a halt, but Lewis surprises and fascinates at every turn. Watch out for the bizarre ending which may perplex some viewers. Although some may not appreciate it, others will simply relish this informal history lesson in the making of a turn-of-the-century mogul as personified by an acting giant who is about to add another gold statuette to his collection.
*** of **** stars (**** for Lewis’ performance)
Friday, February 08, 2008
ATONEMENT and the Power of Love and Lies
With the sweep of an epic and the intimacy of romance, Atonement comes across as a pretty good piece of period filmmaking until its devastating truths elevate the film to even greater heights. Joe Wright, who is becoming the torchbearer to period filmmakers, Ivory and Merchant (Room with a View), has been down this path before with his terrific Pride and Prejudice.
It is 1935 at a wealthy estate in England where two sisters contemplate life. The older sister, Cecilia (Keira Knightley), is at odds with the housekeeper’s grown son, Robbie (James McAvoy). The younger sister, Briony (Saoirse Ronan), is an impressionable teen and budding writer. Cecilia’s brother, Leon, arrives with a male friend, Paul, who takes keen interest in some children staying at the home. One evening, a passion erupts between Cecilia and Robbie that is interrupted by Briony. Later that night a girl is brutally assaulted by an unknown assailant. The subsequent allegations will have tragic consequences. The story shifts between London where Cecilia is a nurse and Dunkirk where Robbie fights to survive the early stages of World War II. The couple struggle to be reunited from afar even as a maturing Briony comes to terms with her past deeds. It is only later in life that she faces her guilt by paying tribute to the undying love of a tragic couple.
Atonement sets out to be an ambitious undertaking of love corrupted by outside forces and those from within as it spans the decades. It shows how mere words can hurt in ways that cannot be imagined. In this, the plot is not dissimilar to The Children’s Hour where a child’s words hurt deeply. The story focuses less about the horror and effects of war, and more on the purging and cleansing of sins. Briony chooses to deal with her misrepresentations and redeems herself with a final act of poetic justice (think Titanic), even if it takes a lifetime.
The film suffers a bit from confusing points of view as seen through the eyes of Briony by replaying the same scene to depict her point of view. What remains somewhat unclear are her motives. Is she jealous of the love between Cecilia and Robbie or is she making wild assumptions based on distortions?
The acting is quite good with teen Saoirse Ronan a standout as Briony. In fact, all three actresses who play Briony at various stages of life are a splendid tandem (much like the tandems in Shine or TV’s Life with Judy Garland).
Almost functioning as a Greek tragedy, the film most people will compare this to is The English Patient, which is ironic because there is a scene that has a television interviewer played by Patient’s director, Anthony Minghella! Atonement benefits from some good cinematography (Seamus McGarvey), which depicts some startling, surreal imagery especially in a tracking shot that says all that need be said of the horrifying evacuation of British troops at Dunkirk. The editing flashes back and forth to make a point or give background, and yet you wonder what is real or imagined. The musical score (Dano Marianelli) is in keeping with the dramatic mood quite nicely.
By the finale, we get to have an ending of sorts. Is it reality or the fabrication of an author’s guilt-ridden imagination? One thing is for sure: the feelings of longing and love are real. Atonement is like reading an epic romance novel with a bit of Jane Austen thrown in for good measure. As such, it’s pretty compelling.
***1/2 of **** stars (for romantics)
It is 1935 at a wealthy estate in England where two sisters contemplate life. The older sister, Cecilia (Keira Knightley), is at odds with the housekeeper’s grown son, Robbie (James McAvoy). The younger sister, Briony (Saoirse Ronan), is an impressionable teen and budding writer. Cecilia’s brother, Leon, arrives with a male friend, Paul, who takes keen interest in some children staying at the home. One evening, a passion erupts between Cecilia and Robbie that is interrupted by Briony. Later that night a girl is brutally assaulted by an unknown assailant. The subsequent allegations will have tragic consequences. The story shifts between London where Cecilia is a nurse and Dunkirk where Robbie fights to survive the early stages of World War II. The couple struggle to be reunited from afar even as a maturing Briony comes to terms with her past deeds. It is only later in life that she faces her guilt by paying tribute to the undying love of a tragic couple.
Atonement sets out to be an ambitious undertaking of love corrupted by outside forces and those from within as it spans the decades. It shows how mere words can hurt in ways that cannot be imagined. In this, the plot is not dissimilar to The Children’s Hour where a child’s words hurt deeply. The story focuses less about the horror and effects of war, and more on the purging and cleansing of sins. Briony chooses to deal with her misrepresentations and redeems herself with a final act of poetic justice (think Titanic), even if it takes a lifetime.
The film suffers a bit from confusing points of view as seen through the eyes of Briony by replaying the same scene to depict her point of view. What remains somewhat unclear are her motives. Is she jealous of the love between Cecilia and Robbie or is she making wild assumptions based on distortions?
The acting is quite good with teen Saoirse Ronan a standout as Briony. In fact, all three actresses who play Briony at various stages of life are a splendid tandem (much like the tandems in Shine or TV’s Life with Judy Garland).
Almost functioning as a Greek tragedy, the film most people will compare this to is The English Patient, which is ironic because there is a scene that has a television interviewer played by Patient’s director, Anthony Minghella! Atonement benefits from some good cinematography (Seamus McGarvey), which depicts some startling, surreal imagery especially in a tracking shot that says all that need be said of the horrifying evacuation of British troops at Dunkirk. The editing flashes back and forth to make a point or give background, and yet you wonder what is real or imagined. The musical score (Dano Marianelli) is in keeping with the dramatic mood quite nicely.
By the finale, we get to have an ending of sorts. Is it reality or the fabrication of an author’s guilt-ridden imagination? One thing is for sure: the feelings of longing and love are real. Atonement is like reading an epic romance novel with a bit of Jane Austen thrown in for good measure. As such, it’s pretty compelling.
***1/2 of **** stars (for romantics)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)