7 October, 2007 | Leave a Comment
I saw Atonement yesterday. Finally, a major film that opens over here before it does in the States. I’ve never read the novel upon which this film is based, nor any novel by Ian McEwan, though I did rub shoulders with him once when he was awarded an honorary doctorate at one of my many college graduations.
As I watched the film, I was thoroughly engrossed by it. I’m not a fan of Keira Knightley, but she was *almost* tolerable in this. The male lead, James McAvoy, is someone I am not familiar with, but he reminds me of a young Russell Crowe. That, my friends, is a good thing.
The first hour of Atonement is exquisitely done. It’s absolutely fantastic to watch and it’s ingenious in the way scenes are played from one character’s perspective and then re-played from another point-of-view. This first part takes place on a lovely English country estate and besides admiring all aspects of the production, I experienced major home furnishings lust.
The next part of the film takes place during WWII on the battlefields of France and in the hospitals and air raid shelters of London. Like so many films and stories about the War, it descends into sappiness and melodrama, which was a disappointment after the outstanding first hour. I resent it when filmmakers try to capitalize on the audience’s strong emotions surrounding WWII. That’s lazy film-making.
When the film was over and as the credits rolled, I sat in my seat, stunned into sadness. I couldn’t move right away. I think I heard someone in the audience crying. Though it’s taken me a while to form my response to this film, I instantly felt that I had been manipulated into responding the way I did. The film is all very tragic and tear-jerking, but in a forced way. The first hour lures you in, then the rest of the film is an orgy of contrived tragedies.
On the surface, I’m sure this movie seems like a masterpiece to many. It’s presented as a VERY IMPORTANT film, something profound. It has “please give me an Oscar” written all over it. Examined on a more critical level, I can’t help but think — What is the point of this film? [Again, I haven't read the novel, so my analysis is based strictly on the film.]
In my view, in order for a film or novel to be truly great, it needs to speak to a larger truth. The particulars of the story can and should be very specific, but its themes should be transcendent. To me, this is where the film fails. The story is a tragedy for the characters involved, but what does the viewer get out of it? It’s meaningless to me beyond thinking about these specific characters and their lives. Yes, the title is Atonement, so I know that’s supposed to be the theme. I didn’t buy it. This is in large part due to the novel-within-a-novel gimmick revealed towards the end that is supposed to convey some deep message to the audience about the nature of art and redemption, but which to me just cheapened the story and in fact, ruined it.
Coincidentally, I rented Enduring Love this weekend, another film based on a novel by McEwan. I noticed similarities with Atonement in that we are presented with an interesting set-up and we’re led to believe this story is something deeply profound, yet at the end I’m left wondering why I should care.
Again, I thought Atonement was an entertaining film and I enjoyed watching it quite a lot. Taken at face value, it’s a good film. It’s not, in my view, a great one. It annoys me that the critical consensus here in Britain seems to be that this film is a masterpiece. Given the sheep mentality of the press, I expect American critics to follow suit. A kind of momentum attaches itself to certain films and they become unstoppable. I think Atonement is going to benefit from that phenomenon and it doesn’t deserve it.
Tags: Atonement, Ian McEwan
Anglofille said @ 1:54 pm | film |
- Comments RSS | TrackBack URI
-
a friend of mine said the same thing about the first part and so on. maybe i will see it when it is out on dvd, maybe. i’ve read enduring love which is beautifully written but as you remarked, i really dont know what is in there - i did not hesitate in taking it to second hand bookshop once i finished it. mcewan is good with stream of consciousness techniques but i find the contents of his prose too bourgeois, too local (i find contemporary english prose a bit scopeless sometimes). i do not mind a not so deep plot but it has to be at least entertaining, clever narrative-wise. and honestly if I am to be entertained I’d rather watch something more cheerful or fun like a horror movie than another war drama. maybe it is that aristotelian thing - catharsis, give people a way to take things out of their chest.
-
I was quite surprised by your review of Atonement. I happen to genuinely think that it is an exceptional film. I think there is a real benefit in reading the novel - not so that you can understand the film better, but perhaps so that you can appreciate it more. I felt there was a great benefit to knowing the novel when I watched the film, especially because there was quite a lot left out of the second section of the film (the part dealing with the second world war).
I was also interested that you found the depiction of the second world war sappy and melodramatic. I found it the exact opposite. I thought there was a brutal truth in the way that it was depicted that has been missing in a lot of films that deal with the second world war. If anything I felt a great pang of sadness at the sheer waste of human life, a feeling I have never really connected with this part of or from my grandparents. What I felt was refreshing that this was the first movie for a long time that wasn’t from an American point of view - especially considering that the American involvement in Europe itself was minimal.
As for a transcendental truth, I was shocked you could think the film was meaningless. The themes (for me) were the awful waste of life that is forgotten in war, the forgotten narratives of people whose names are not included on epitaphs, how history forgets the little people, and the fact that love is an extremely precious thing and that one ought to sacrifice everything to be with the one they love. I haven’t seen such a heart renderingly romantic film for such a long time… we talked about the film incessantly when we left the cinema, and felt how important it is to not let life get in the way of love.
As for the narrative tricks - well, I for one appreciated them. It made the denouement all the more crushing. I think it is perhaps better constructed in the novel, but I think the film was brave in that respect. Rather that than watch a film with a run of the mill narrative from beginning to end.
Anyway - I suppose these are differences of opinion. I thought perhaps because of your writerly credentials you may have loved this film!
-
P. Viktor: First I just want to congratulate you on your novel! When I heard about it, I was in the middle of moving for the umpteenth time, so I’m sorry I didn’t acknowledge it before. What a great accomplishment! Perhaps some of your success will rub off on me.
As for my review, I imagine people who’ve read the book are going to have a very different view of the film than people who haven’t. You can fill in the gaps of the narrative and I can’t. I do think a film should be judged on its own merits though.
In regards to the WWII scenes, I found them to be moving (the field with the dead school girls comes to mind), but I felt the film was just capitalizing on emotions the audience already has about the war. Of course, people are going to have strong reactions to seeing dead and wounded soldiers and children – to me, the director was just using that horrible imagery to manipulate the audience into tears and add weight to his story. I just resent being manipulated in that way [or at least, I see this as manipulation]. It’s like the old cliché from writer’s workshops – did the writer earn this reaction from the audience?
I’ve been thinking about the film a bit more and what possible meaning it could have. It’s clear that the notion of atonement is at its heart. But in this story, who must atone? That is obviously Briony.
[SPOILERS!]
While the first terrific half of the movie involves Briony in the perfect way, in the second half of the film Briony is an after-thought. For this story to have any real meaning at all, it is Briony’s story that needs to be at the center. She is the one who made the fateful decision to lie, which caused a horrible chain reaction. She needs to atone. Yet she’s really just over-shadowed by Keira Knightley’s tragedy upon tragedy. Briony as a grown-up character is horribly underdeveloped. She almost seems like she’s had a lobotomy, the way she just stares off into space like a zombie. Did she really have any true remorse for what she’d done? It doesn’t seem like she’s even capable of understanding it.
Then at the very end, we are presented with the elderly version of Briony, her novel about Cecilia and Robbie, etc., and the “moral of the story” is virtually tacked on. I don’t know how this is handled in the book, but in the film it’s laughable. This is like a trick one of my first-year writing students would pull. It was just so shocking when this happened in the film – I was aghast.
Anyway, that’s my view of it. I know I’m in the minority. I was determined to love this movie, so I’m not taking any pleasure in picking it apart!
-
Thanks for the congrats - I look forward to reading your own novel when it comes out (well done on changing your course btw).
I do agree with you about the Briony character. I was underwhelmed by the actor who played her in the second part (not helped by the great performance in the first part of the film), but as you rightly said, her character is under-developed. It is a bit of a case of, who is this film about? Because it is called Atonement (and is essentially about Briony atoning for what she has done) one would conclude that it should be exclusively Briony’s story. I don’t know though - the audience I feel is made to dislike her character, almost from the outset, and inevitably one gets swept up in the romance between Robbie and Celia - which isn’t a bad thing.
As for the end - it is tricksy, and a lot of reviews I have read have said similar to you - they’re not convinced by it. It works much better in the book - the whole conceit is better executed. The majority of the book is written in an overly literary manner (unusual for McEwan) and you come to realise that the reason for this is because it is actually (supposed to be) written by Briony, the act of which seems to cement her all the more in the story because it is her narrative.
Though there is something of the ‘and I woke up and realised it was all a dream’ about the ending, there was still something powerful about the idea that we can often remember things wrong (either accidentally or deliberately) to make the pain of past events make more sense or just be less painful. The idea that the act of remembrance can sometimes be more powerful than actual events - that Robbie and Celia’s love wasn’t in vain, but in some small way was kept alive in Briony - I liked that idea. I know that seems somewhat sentimental, but I guess I am a bit of a sentimental fool. I don’t think anyone would have left that cinema satisified if the story had concluded solely with their deaths and there was nothing hopeful to come out of it. My novel has a brutally tragic ending, and I have only come to realise recently that if you don’t offer something hopeful at the end, then there is nothing to be learnt or taken away from it for the audience point of view.
As for the idea of manipulation - well, don’t all films do this? Isn’t a film just manipulated reality - all the boring bits cut out and the rare drama suffusing everything. In every film there is the soundtrack cranking up the emotion, the editing of scenes wringing every last bit of drama from the scenario, people saying things that we would never get the chance to in real life. I think the war scenes were necessary to the story, because (I felt) they were authentic, that they were possible if the characters were actually alive. They did add weight to the story, and also lifted it from being just another hundrum love story (which is what Titanic tried to do but rather miserably failed by its poor script).
Any way - it was really interesting to read your comments. You were the first person I have come across who didn’t like it. Thanks for explaining why!
