What a beautiful film. I regret missing it during its theatrical run. Visually, musically, thematically, and in terms of the actors' performances, there is quite a bit to chew on here, and I find I'm still thinking about it the day after I watched the DVD.
No time for a review, but two brief points.
First, I was struck by how this film seemed, at first, to follow that old rule of portraying marital sex by not portraying it -- the clothes stay on, the lights go out, etc. -- whereas the adulterous sex is portrayed a little more explicitly: we get hints of nudity, the sounds of passion, etc. For earlier examples of this sort of thing, see, e.g., Ryan's Daughter (1970), directed by David Lean. But then... as the bitter married couple begins to lose its bitterness... things get a little more interesting. And while the nudity isn't anything to write home about, it is worth noting that the male nudity is a little more pronounced than the female nudity, and it is interesting to compare and contrast the two scenes in which men get out of bed after being with the Naomi Watts character.
Second, this is at least the third time, following Girl with a Pearl Earring (2003) and Birth (2004), that I have found myself thinking, "Wow, this music is really good," and then seen the name Alexandre Desplat come up on the screen. I don't buy soundtrack albums anywhere near as much as I used to, but still, it's a little odd that I haven't got any of his stuff in my collection yet.
What a beautiful film indeed - so engrossing and heartbreaking.
ReplyDeleteI do wish to of my favorite actors (Norton and Watts) would have had more chemistry though.
I'm surprised you didn't comment on the film as adaptation, since that so often forms much of the basis for your assessment of films adapted from literary sources.
ReplyDeleteI happen not to care so much about the transition usually, but I was struck by Jessica Crispin's comments at her Book Blog. I don't think, based on her posts, she's a Christian or other sort of believer, however, she sees a big problem with the film adaptation of "The Painted Veil":
"When I saw The Painted Veil, I went off on a week-long rant to anyone nearby about how the changes made to the story from book to film sum up all that is wrong with the world in general. (Overblown, yes, but this is what happens when you drink before you sit down to e-mail.) I love W. Somerset Maugham. I have a picture of him hanging on my wall. (Wow, I just did a random Google search and found his astrological chart... anybody read French?) Finally I found someone who had also read the book and seen the film and we spent a car ride with over the top hand gestures and raised voices, expressing our outrage that the film turned Kitty from a woman on a spiritual quest to a woman who just needed to fall in love."
Full post here (fourth item):
http://www.bookslut.com/blog/archives/2007_05.php#011100
For all I know, she's misinterpreting the book, or making a sarcastic point that eludes me. I'm not familiar with the novel. But I'll now approach the film with caution, and read up on the novel a bit more.
Thanks, Christian. I am vaguely aware of some of the issues involved in evaluating this film as adaptation (cf., e.g., Edward T. Oakes at First Things), but I am unfamiliar with both the novel and the earlier film adaptations, so I don't have that sort of context for this particular film. At this point, I am just responding to the film itself.
ReplyDelete