Post by roverpup on Nov 21, 2017 18:08:18 GMT
We finally got a chance to watch the Sophia Coppola version of The Beguiled the other night and I liked it quite a bit. Not a stellar movie by any means (Dan was so bothered by the lighting of the film that he downgraded it by quite a bit) but it was, in its own right, a worthwhile film to watch.
Of course it is natural to want to compare it to the 1971 version starring Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page, but I did try, while I was watching this one, to not think of the older film as “canon” and presume that if there was any variation then it was “wrong”.
Things I really liked about the 2017 movie:
1. The location was divine! The southern plantation had the exact look and feel that I think it should have had. The set design was perfection.
2. The cast. Colin Farrel was excellent as John McBurney and Nicole Kidman was perfect as Miss Martha. Kirsten Dunst was also really good as Edwina. The rest of the “schoolgirls” were spot on too.
3. The direction. Sophia Coppola is a skilled director and I really appreciate her choices here in this film. She took very familiar material and made it her own. I like that she decided to take a female perspective on the story (as opposed to the very male perspective that the 1971 version did) and in doing so it gave the film a whole fresh approach. The sense of fear and desperation of the women (and girls) was much more palatable in this version (as compared to the 1971 film). And the character of McBurney was a much more sympathetic one (again as compared to the 1971 movie) - he was not so conniving and cynical as CE’s McBurney. I also like that his character was rooted in the immigrant experience as being a foreigner conscripted into fighting as a mercenary. That gave another fresh perspective to the film, I thought through a class stratification lense (focused on the dichotomy of the poor Irish immigrant vs. the wealthy “aristocratic” Southerners). Really interesting themes.
4. The sound of the film. It had a minimalist musical score (which was effectively used) but OMG the precision of the the sounds of things like shoes on the floor, keys locking doors, crickets, cannons in the distance... they were so clear and real that it really added to the authenticity of the film. It was one of my favourite things about watching this film.
Things I didn’t really like about it:
1. The lighting. It was too dark. It didn’t ruin the film for me (like it did for Dan) but I have to admit the sets were almost too authenticly lit (using candles and window light) to see clearly sometimes.
2. The writing was weak in spots. Sometimes there wasn’t enough dialogue to give the viewer enough information to see the motivation behind some of the characters’ actions. Especially concerning the represssed sexuality of Miss Martha and her feelings of lust toward Corporal McBurney. I think the dynamic between those two characters was better articulated in the 1971 version.
The second movie we watched was Victoria and Abdul (2017) directed by Stephen Fears, who I have tracked (on and off) ever since he directed 5 episodes of Tom Gratton’s War (1970).
It starred Judi Dench and Ali Fazal in the lead roles. We both love biopics and both love history so that was a great beginning for this film for us. And we both loved the IOW, which we spent a lot of time on when we visited England earlier this year.
Osborne House was Queen Victoria’s summer get-away palace on the IOW and was one of the places we roamed around for the better part of a day while on the isle.
And Osborne House was VERY prominent in this movie! What a treat to see it again! The last half of the film was almost exclusively filmed on location there and they took full advantage of the magnificent architecture of the place (especially the beautiful dinning hall known as The Durban Room -
Believe me, this picture doesn’t even begin to do it justice - it is just breathtaking in it’s beauty!)
Anyway, on to the actual film...
It was very enjoyable and in parts very funny. But it did have a very serious side too when it examined racial prejudice and class divide. Some have accused the film of putting rose coloured glasses on about British colonialism but I don’t think this film did anything of the sort at all. It was definitely not an apology to colonialism. In fact I think it did a very good job of exposing it for the evil it did.
Dench was perfect (as she was when she did the same character in Mrs. Brown) and Fazal was a perfect foil to her Queen Victoria as Abdul Karim, the Muslim who becomes a confidante of royalty.
As a funny aside, since we watched this film, Dan has taken to saying “Never mind that we walked the hallways that Victoria did - we walked the same hallways the DAME JUDI DENCH DID!!!” LOL!
:-))
Of course it is natural to want to compare it to the 1971 version starring Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page, but I did try, while I was watching this one, to not think of the older film as “canon” and presume that if there was any variation then it was “wrong”.
Things I really liked about the 2017 movie:
1. The location was divine! The southern plantation had the exact look and feel that I think it should have had. The set design was perfection.
2. The cast. Colin Farrel was excellent as John McBurney and Nicole Kidman was perfect as Miss Martha. Kirsten Dunst was also really good as Edwina. The rest of the “schoolgirls” were spot on too.
3. The direction. Sophia Coppola is a skilled director and I really appreciate her choices here in this film. She took very familiar material and made it her own. I like that she decided to take a female perspective on the story (as opposed to the very male perspective that the 1971 version did) and in doing so it gave the film a whole fresh approach. The sense of fear and desperation of the women (and girls) was much more palatable in this version (as compared to the 1971 film). And the character of McBurney was a much more sympathetic one (again as compared to the 1971 movie) - he was not so conniving and cynical as CE’s McBurney. I also like that his character was rooted in the immigrant experience as being a foreigner conscripted into fighting as a mercenary. That gave another fresh perspective to the film, I thought through a class stratification lense (focused on the dichotomy of the poor Irish immigrant vs. the wealthy “aristocratic” Southerners). Really interesting themes.
4. The sound of the film. It had a minimalist musical score (which was effectively used) but OMG the precision of the the sounds of things like shoes on the floor, keys locking doors, crickets, cannons in the distance... they were so clear and real that it really added to the authenticity of the film. It was one of my favourite things about watching this film.
Things I didn’t really like about it:
1. The lighting. It was too dark. It didn’t ruin the film for me (like it did for Dan) but I have to admit the sets were almost too authenticly lit (using candles and window light) to see clearly sometimes.
2. The writing was weak in spots. Sometimes there wasn’t enough dialogue to give the viewer enough information to see the motivation behind some of the characters’ actions. Especially concerning the represssed sexuality of Miss Martha and her feelings of lust toward Corporal McBurney. I think the dynamic between those two characters was better articulated in the 1971 version.
The second movie we watched was Victoria and Abdul (2017) directed by Stephen Fears, who I have tracked (on and off) ever since he directed 5 episodes of Tom Gratton’s War (1970).
It starred Judi Dench and Ali Fazal in the lead roles. We both love biopics and both love history so that was a great beginning for this film for us. And we both loved the IOW, which we spent a lot of time on when we visited England earlier this year.
Osborne House was Queen Victoria’s summer get-away palace on the IOW and was one of the places we roamed around for the better part of a day while on the isle.
And Osborne House was VERY prominent in this movie! What a treat to see it again! The last half of the film was almost exclusively filmed on location there and they took full advantage of the magnificent architecture of the place (especially the beautiful dinning hall known as The Durban Room -
Believe me, this picture doesn’t even begin to do it justice - it is just breathtaking in it’s beauty!)
Anyway, on to the actual film...
It was very enjoyable and in parts very funny. But it did have a very serious side too when it examined racial prejudice and class divide. Some have accused the film of putting rose coloured glasses on about British colonialism but I don’t think this film did anything of the sort at all. It was definitely not an apology to colonialism. In fact I think it did a very good job of exposing it for the evil it did.
Dench was perfect (as she was when she did the same character in Mrs. Brown) and Fazal was a perfect foil to her Queen Victoria as Abdul Karim, the Muslim who becomes a confidante of royalty.
As a funny aside, since we watched this film, Dan has taken to saying “Never mind that we walked the hallways that Victoria did - we walked the same hallways the DAME JUDI DENCH DID!!!” LOL!
:-))