|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 23, 2021 11:23:31 GMT
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Sept 23, 2021 13:05:19 GMT
You’ll be happy that you paid attention!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 23, 2021 13:14:33 GMT
The book has a pretty straightforward story but it's also charged with a lot of subtext. Especially around the theme of homosexuality. It was written in 1967 by a middle age married man with adult kids who had just decided to came out of the closet but it caused such a drama that he ended abandoning his male lover and returned to his heterosexual family for the rest of the life of his wife. He wrote about it but was censored by his editor so at the end of the day his novel after all the affair was the very subtle TPOTD.
The book could had been easily adapted without mentioning the gay stuff. I think that's why Hollywood was always interested on it. But things changed after Brokeback Mountain.
Anyway, it seems to me that Campion went for the "muted" "repressed" feeling of the book. She is clearly more explicit in the sense that there's nudity and some very open scenes but at the same time she apparently made her characters unable to express those feelings (as it should had been at the time!) so it seems to be a lot of innuendo and suggestion. Not just abo the homosexuality but also about where the story goes (which it a lot of ways it's relevant to the theme of reppresed homosexuality and its consequences)
The thing is some people who haven't read the book seems to have easily understood the plot meanwhile others think it's only random scenes!
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Sept 23, 2021 14:24:53 GMT
I think even some people who pay attention won’t “get” it. Folks always bring in their own projections, misunderstandings, and inability to see beneath the surface of things, not to mention scrolling on their phones while watching, lol. So stuff in the film gets overlooked, missed and/or misunderstood. That’s why it’s important to me to find critics who have the ability to tease out all those subterranean details and write about them clearly, bringing me a greater understanding. I adored Roger Ebert for that very reason. He was usually able to find the core of the movie and articulate it well.
In this day of amateur couch critics writing for clicks, you have to wade through a lot of personal garbage to mine the great, careful, thoughtful reviews.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Sept 23, 2021 14:48:39 GMT
It’s interesting that one of the reviews said that the best way to experience the movie is to go in knowing nothing about it. I guess I agree, even though I had read the book (quit a while ago!) and I knew what was coming. I still paid attention because the movie reveals things to us slowly before they all come together at the end. It’s a very different experience than reading!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 23, 2021 18:10:27 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 23, 2021 20:27:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 23, 2021 22:58:19 GMT
I just read a San Sebastián review. It wasn’t very positive but it was very clear that the person who wrote didn’t get it. The review was just all over the place and it gave me the impression the person behind it didn’t knew what to say. Anyway, the reviewer thought BC’s was the best thing in the film.
There was another one but it was by an “Oscar site”. They loved it but they mostly predicted nominations. They thought BC was a sure bet.
I haven’t seen a good piece about the film from the festival yet.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 23, 2021 23:18:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 24, 2021 0:41:03 GMT
This is a good report from the festival in Catalan,
|
|