|
Post by roverpup on Sept 26, 2017 18:59:22 GMT
I agree with your assessment sgev. All those points you mentioned were wonderfully portrayed in the film in a subtle way that came across more powerfully for me than if they had been done in a more "in your face" melodramatic way.
And because of that element of subtlety about the whole production, the film and the characters' relationships shown felt so real! That is incredibly hard - to make things look so easily done as to appear real and yet still get across the symbolic ideas contained within the "story". I think BC (and KM) nailed it! I also didn't see anything of BC in the "personality" of Stephen. He isn't Stephen at all (he is too much of a confident, social, balanced person to be anything like the character he was portraying) but he made me believe he was Stephen when I was watching him on screen. Especially tough when, like I said before, I would recognise a certain item of clothing that the character was wearing as being something I had seen before on the real BC! It was weird to experience that but it was almost like I thought "Oh, BC has that same shirt!!". LOL! But once he began to speak or act that sort of feeling went away immediately.
:-))
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Sept 26, 2017 19:53:30 GMT
It's okay not to like the film - not all entertainment will appeal to everyone. But I did feel I wasn't watching Benedict being himself. Granted, I don't know him. All I know of "the real" is what I see on the red carpet and in interviews, and even that is at least partly a persona. Stephen, I felt, was more insecure as a person (which fits with the effects of a giant error), not as gregarious as Ben is, with a different sense of humor. For example, I didn't think Stephen would appreciate fart jokes the way Ben does, lol.
It was a big departure for him not to be playing a larger than life "character," such as he's known for, and I really liked that about this film. I can see why he felt it was more exposing, and I liked that he took that risk. His Stephen was a real person - kinda boring at times, even. But certainly not empty or lacking in any way. Just terribly, painfully, introspective and wracked with guilt.
I wasn't so sold on the ending, actually. It took on a different tone than the rest of the film, and it seemed almost like a happy ending tacked on. Yes, life has to move on, Kate will always be a part of their lives, but it kind of came out of the blue.
I also have a question about hope, which maybe I'll go into in another post.
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Sept 26, 2017 19:58:27 GMT
It was weird to experience that but it was almost like I thought "Oh, BC has that same shirt!!". LOL! But once he began to speak or act that sort of feeling went away immediately. :-)) I always have to crack up when I do this, too. Can't remember if I was watching Sherlock or Dr. Strange, but the thought came to me, "oh, look. He has the same mole above his eyebrow that Ben does." And then I was like, hang on...🤔 It was kind of weird, actually. 😂
|
|
|
Post by miriel68 on Sept 26, 2017 20:00:38 GMT
Well, I am not talking a straightforward drama here - it was never intended to be such a thing, given the source material. And I am glad it got good reviews and so many people liked it. I liked a lot of things about it, as well. So when I say that I saw Benedict instead of Stephen, I don't intend that B. infuse Stephen with his "real" personality. But what do we know about Stephen as a character? About his dreams, his relationship with his wife, his being a father? Next to nothing. His "life before" is shown just in some happy idealized moments - happy dad, happy family. His friendship with Charlie and his wife? One short scene which doesn't really explain their relationship. His work in the committee? In the book all these things are expanded and round him as character, but in the film it's Benedict who gives Stephen the identity. Frankly, I felt for Stephen because I loved Benedict playing him, not because Stephen was a real person for me.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Sept 26, 2017 20:11:05 GMT
Of course you don't have to like the movie! It was a rhetorical question - not everyone is going to like something like this.
I didn't read the book, so I can only go by what I saw in the movie. But I did see a personality in Benedict's character - we can see it in his words and actions, and in his relationship with his daughter, with his wife, with his friend, with his parents and with his colleagues. We saw him show restraint when a neighbour warned him about letting strangers know he wasn't home. And we saw him getting carried away in the committee meeting when he disagreed with what was being said - and then he immediately regretted it. It's important that we (the audience) like these people because we need to care about what happens to them. I actually think that too many movies don't bother with that - they never show us why we should care about the characters.
I don't know what the character would have been like played by a different actor. I never wonder stuff like that!
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Sept 26, 2017 20:20:16 GMT
Really? You watched the scene of him in the principal's office as the realisation came over him of exactly what he was doing there and broke down in tears at the end... and felt nothing for the character - except that you liked Ben as this character??
I didn't see that scene and think I was watching BC act - I just wept for Stephen because he was so broken and lost. I never once thought of BC as an actor in that scene - furthest thing from my mind.
There were so many moments like that in this film I could draw out a tonne of examples.
:-))
|
|
|
Post by miriel68 on Sept 26, 2017 20:43:44 GMT
Really? You watched the scene of him in the principal's office as the realisation came over him of exactly what he was doing there and broke down in tears at the end... and felt nothing for the character - except that you liked Ben as this character?? Of course I felt a lot for the character - it is one of the most poignant scenes in the film - but I didn't feel for Stephen, I felt for the bereaved father. But I can see I am not able to explain mysefl clearly, so may be better stop trying.
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Sept 26, 2017 21:00:40 GMT
I think I understand what you're saying, and I think it could be applied to all of the characters. We knew nothing about them really, their likes or dislikes, what made them be this way instead of that way. Why the wife chose to retreat into solitude, why Stephen couldn't stop looking for Kate, etc. It was more of a tone piece than a character study. Is that what you mean?
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 26, 2017 22:30:54 GMT
Well, I am not talking a straightforward drama here - it was never intended to be such a thing, given the source material. And I am glad it got good reviews and so many people liked it. I liked a lot of things about it, as well. So when I say that I saw Benedict instead of Stephen, I don't intend that B. infuse Stephen with his "real" personality. But what do we know about Stephen as a character? About his dreams, his relationship with his wife, his being a father? Next to nothing. His "life before" is shown just in some happy idealized moments - happy dad, happy family. His friendship with Charlie and his wife? One short scene which doesn't really explain their relationship. His work in the committee? In the book all these things are expanded and round him as character, but in the film it's Benedict who gives Stephen the identity. Frankly, I felt for Stephen because I loved Benedict playing him, not because Stephen was a real person for me. IMO that's what made it a good adaptation. Things are much more explicitly explained in the book because the book it's about words. When things are explicitly explained on screen to cover the details in the book then it's not a good adaptation IMHO. I personally don't want more that one short scene to explain things. Suggestion is more interesting on film. Having said that, I know it's a common criticism it received. Some critics wanted more episodes to explain Charles and the Committee. IMO they are asking for a more straightforward narrative which it's more common on TV, including in today great series. To me the movie is more in tradition of European art cinema. More about little details: short scenes that suggest the internal life of the characters, mood and symbolism. The weaker scenes for me were when they tried to explain things or made characters and situations slightly more explicit: Stephen's mother talking about the pub encounter, the ghost boy which kind of tried to explain the same encounter, the obviously evil prime minister and his staff, even the funeral speech in which Stephen is trying to explain Charles (c'mon! The guy was a fetishist! Although I will watch it again because I think the director said in the Q&A that he was actually describing himself), etc. those in your face elements weren't so interesting like the intriguing humble moments.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 26, 2017 22:34:52 GMT
Really? You watched the scene of him in the principal's office as the realisation came over him of exactly what he was doing there and broke down in tears at the end... and felt nothing for the character - except that you liked Ben as this character?? Of course I felt a lot for the character - it is one of the most poignant scenes in the film - but I didn't feel for Stephen, I felt for the bereaved father. But I can see I am not able to explain mysefl clearly, so may be better stop trying. No, don't stop! It's an interesting chat! You are making me to understand better the film with its defect and virtues. It's boring if we all agreed! I hate pieces about random people on Twitter saying they don't understand something but genuine film discussion is great!
|
|