by Allan Fish
(UK 2007 130m) DVD1/2
The story can resume
p Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Paul Webster d Joe Wright w Christopher Hampton novel Ian McEwan ph Seamus McGarvey ed Paul Tothill m Dario Marianelli art Sarah Greenwood cos Jacqueline Durran
Keira Knightley (Cecilia Tallis), James McAvoy (Robbie Turner), Saoirse Ronan (Briony Tallis, aged 13), Romola Garai (Briony Tallis, aged 18), Brenda Blethyn (Grace Turner), Harriet Walter (Emily Tallis), Benedict Cumberbatch (Paul Marshall), Peter Wight (police inspector), Vanessa Redgrave (older Briony), Gina McKee (Sister Drummond), Anthony Minghella (interviewer), Juno Temple (Lola Quincey),
Joe Wright’s film of Ian McEwan’s wartime romance is a strange piece, somewhat out of place in the in-your-face gadgetry of the 21st century, an old-fashioned romantic drama of the type that had long since been deemed as old-fashioned or exclusively reserved for adaptations of classic Edwardian authors by Merchant Ivory. In the last thirty or so years since David Lean withdrew into his shell following the critical battering of Ryan’s Daughter, one can only find one film sheltering under the same rarefied canopy; Anthony Minghella’s The English Patient. Indeed, it can be seen as no coincidence that Minghella himself appears as the interviewer in the present day in the film’s much-discussed epilogue. But hang on – epilogue? – we are getting ahead of ourselves…
Late thirties England; Briony Tallis is a 13 year old wannabe writer of precocious gifts who, one summer, makes a dreadful mistake. She misinterprets a scene in a fountain between her elder sister Cecilia and a young man, Robbie, who lives on the estate. Briony has always liked Robbie – indeed she once had a crush on him – but when Robbie makes the mistake of sending the wrong letter to Cecilia and hands it to Briony to pass to her, Briony reads it beforehand and, after seeing Cecilia and Robbie making love in the library later that evening, armed with the letter’s content, she assumes Robbie was assaulting her. Things are made worse when her young cousin, who is staying with them for the summer, gets sexually assaulted and Briony says she saw the attacker and blames it on Robbie. Needless to say, things go from bad to worse.
In so many respects the film could have been made a quarter of a century or more ago. So maybe not with quite the colourful – if accurate – language used (not least in that fateful note), and the visceral impact of the numerous shots of injured men in army camps and hospitals, but otherwise. One shot in particular belies the time of its making, a truly extraordinary extended tracking shot along the beaches at Dunkirk; a shot worthy of Altman or Anderson (or Welles’ Ambersons if they’d not butchered the ball scene) but matched against a war-tattered landscape straight out of a Lean or Selznick romantic epic. McGarvey (whose best work this surely is) sends his camera around dizzying 360 degree pans, in and out of various locations (most memorably a bandstand – try and think of the hymn ‘Dear Lord and Father of Mankind’ without thinking of this film) in a fashion reminiscent of Sokurov’s Russian Ark (indeed, at times one wonders when the shot will actually end). It does, but it’s one of the great impact sequences in modern cinema, helped no end by the extraordinary design by Sarah Greenwood. The war sequences themselves may be shot romantically and be little more than a sideshow to a thwarted love, but of course to people in love, everything else is a sideshow.
At its heart, seamlessly moving to the strains of Marianelli’s lyrical, rich emotional tapestry of a score, there are the performances. Knightley (luscious in thirties garb) and McAvoy are perfect as the star-crossed lovers, while Ronan and Garai – underused but still lovely – are exemplary as Briony. Then there’s Redgrave, whose performance alone is worth the admission ticket and one of her greatest screen contributions, full of a barely-suppressed regret, one waiting for the final peace that only death and possible forgiveness can bring. It might not be the most original piece of cinema of 2007, but it is one of the most memorable, nonetheless.
While certainly nowhere in the leaque of two films it was nominated against at the Oscars (NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN which won the big prize, THERE WILL BE BLOOD the best film of the decade) ATONEMENT is a mesmerizing tragic period piece. The downward, almost poetic spiral into tragedy is both beautiful and nauseating at the same time. All of the actors are in top form with praise going to the young Ronan who sets the pendulum swinging. Vanessa Redgrave is luminescent in her moments on screen and found it hard to concentrate on anyone else in the film whenever she’s present (that’s a good thing). The methodical pacing, creative editing and lush period details are superb as well as working naturally in conveyance with the slow and ominous narrative. I’m not as dizzy over this film as Sam was (he loved it), but I can see why it has obsessive followers (if ever there were a word perfectly describing Sam). This is a wonderful film that I won’t soon forget.
Well Dennis, as it was my #1 film of 2008 (ONCE and THE LIVES OF OTHERS do push very close though) so you would expect I’d be fiercely protective here.
He means 2007, even though Once and The Lives of Others were 2006…LOL 🙂
ONCE and THE LIVES OF OTHERS were 2006 for YOU, not for USA critics, audiences and year-end list makers.
Yes, ATONEMENT is 2007.
“Joe Wright’s film of Ian McEwan’s wartime romance is a strange piece, somewhat out of place in the in-your-face gadgetry of the 21st century, an old-fashioned romantic drama of the type that had long since been deemed as old-fashioned or exclusively reserved for adaptations of classic Edwardian authors by Merchant Ivory. In the last thirty or so years since David Lean withdrew into his shell following the critical battering of Ryan’s Daughter, one can only find one film sheltering under the same rarefied canopy; Anthony Minghella’s The English Patient. Indeed, it can be seen as no coincidence that Minghella himself appears as the interviewer in the present day in the film’s much-discussed epilogue. But hang on – epilogue? – we are getting ahead of ourselves…”
Interesting set-up and proclamation… what about something like THE PAINTED VEIL? What are your thoughts on it? I hope my asking doesn’t tip your hand either way, as I know this is something you don’t like to do.
This isn’t my type of film, but I enjoyed it nevertheless, as it’s quite pleasant. Not sure how high I’d place it in my decade list (definitely not top 50), or which I’d prefer (this or VEIL I mean). I do like the two leads here though, I generally like Knightly though.
If I can jump in here briefly Jamie, I rather liked THE PAINTED VEIL, though there wasn’t much chemistry between Watts and Norton, which was essential in Maugham’s work.
Actually, I disagree, Sam. TPV was no masterpiece, but Dryburgh’s photography, Desplat’s music and the performances were perfect. Watts and Norton were distant because they were supposed to be, their seeming lack of chemistry was deliberate. They were portraying a couple cold and out of love with each other.
I also liked it, THE PAINTED VEIL I mean, and prefer the photography in it over ATONEMENT’s. Weird because TPV just kind of came and went with no real hoopla.
I have never read the novel (the only Maugham I’m familiar with is ‘Of Human Bondage’) but I thought the distance shown by the two leads was also deliberate and necessary.
Look Allan, I read Maugham’s novel, and am aware of the legitimacy of the distancing. But there was an accentuated misogamy in the film that was not within the fabric of the prose. I said what I said knowing full well what the arc of the narrative implied, and still felt I needed to make this clarification. That said, you know full well how much I love Alexander Desplat (this is one of his best scores along with THE GIRL WITH THE PEARL EARRING) and there was technical artistry on display here. It does not, however, come within hailing distance of ATONEMENT.
I liked THE PAINTED VEIL TOO–a lot. The coldness (for much of the film) between Watts and Norton is interesting, because we sense it’s false at the core. He’s irrevocably in love with her, but furious that she’s betrayed him. She’s bored and shallow, but the plot lights some mighty fires under her which are going to wake her up. We can believe in the passion that she feels at last, because we’ve not only seen Norton smouldering, we’ve seen adult womanhood painfully dawning upon her.
Having said all that, I’ll admit to being one of those who will watch Ed Norton in anything. I still think his turn as the psycho kid in PRIMAL FEAR was one of the ten greatest debuts in cinema.
Margaret I agree on your comments on Ed Norton. I remember seeing the trailer for TPV and thinking to myself ‘ah this is just another period film’ (they aren’t my first choice at the cinema), but when I saw he was in it it pretty much secured my spot on opening night.
And I usually follow films by director not actor, he’s one of the few American actors that will get me there.
2007 was one of the great film years ever with modern classics including There Will Be blood, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Robert Ford, Zodiac, Eastern Promises, 4 Months 3 Weeks 2 Days, No Country for Old men, Ratatouille, I’m Not There, Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead, The Host, Sweeney Todd: the Demon Barber of Fleet Street, American Gangster, Knocked Up, Superbad, Paranoid Park, No End in Sight, Gone Baby Gone, This is England, and Hot Fuzz. Sadly Atonement, along with Across the Universe, weren’t really highlights from the year for me. Not a bad film, but not an especially memorable one either. Aside from a few good performances, especially the cameo from the always wonderful Vanessa Redgrave, the film just didn’t do it for me.
The Host, This is England were 2006, but how you can have Atonement below Knocked Up and Superbad and Hot Fuzz. In civilised countries the words MORON ALERT flash up.
In most civilized countries having Sin City, Across the Universe, The Good the Bad and The Weird, and Atonement above Adaptation, Grizzly Man, City of God, A Serous Man, A History of Violence, Pan’s Labyrinth, and Children of Man would do the same. But, anyways I will defend my position on each of those films. Hot Fuzz was my favorite action film of the decade (in a decade that didn’t have much to offer in that category) and both Knocked Up and Superbad were fantastic films about my generation and hit closer to home than any film of their kind. Were they artistic achievements? Maybe not, but they were a hell of a lot more enjoyable than Atonement for me.
I respect Anu greatly but every single film in that distinguished list falls BELOW Atonement, with the possible exception of FOUR MONTHS. I am now going to assault every poster on this thread who diminished this film. Don’t mind me, I know not what I do when I am incensed.
Bully alert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LOL.
Well Sam I did notice this high on your top 50 list and while I can understand the love (the film has it’s great moments), I just can’t get aboard. It just one of the many critically appraised, Academy award nominated films this decade (along with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Aviator, The Reader, Slumdog Millionaire, Munich, Babel) that fell short for me.
I loved the technical expertise that the director brought to the table. Brave narrative experimentation, wonderful photography and the unique type-righter score, all added up to make for memorable audio-visual experience. And who can forget that Dunkirk scene captured in one breathtaking long take.
However, having said that, the emotional aspect of the film left me a tad underwhelmed. It failed to strike a chord despite my honest efforts. Perhaps the director placed more emphasis on the technicalities than the emotional core of the plot. The acting too didn’t impress me much despite the appreciations it garnered for the leads.
Atonement, thus, is a good film but falls short of scaling the heights it should have.
Shubhajit, this is a terrific response, coming on your own excellent capsule appraisal at ‘Cinemascope’ on April 3rd:
http://cliched-monologues.blogspot.com/2010/04/atonement-2007.html
In a year filled with many great films ATONEMENT holds its own. A beautiful tragic story that does not tug artificially at your emotions. The film is filled with visually exquisite shots like the Dunkirk scene.
While I would not place it as high as There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, Assassination/Jesse James and some others I really am fond of this beautiful film.
John, I am thrilled to read your opinion here, which of course I’ve known from past threads at various sites.
Nice enough film, but I thought it was overrated. And despite your proclamation, it seemed like a lot of other “arthouse films” I’d seen over the years (maybe they were all Merchant-Ivory?). The tracking shot, while technically impressive, played more like a stunt to me than I well-integrated set piece (or a stand-alone flourish, which someone like Welles could pull off – but this didn’t appear to be the type of movie that could sustain a stand-alone flourish). Again, I enjoyed it but didn’t quite see where all the plaudits were coming from.
On another note, this has to be one of the more “anti-World War II” films out there; not sure what that says, but it’s interesting to note.
“Nice enough film, but I thought it was overrated.”
Joel, with this particular film, I dare say ‘personal taste’ takes on a stronger role than it would in a number of other films, and period romance is not any easy genre to warm up for so many. But I know I am generalizing here, and I don’t think you’ve ever slighted anything because of genre aversion.
No, I know you love this film – and again, I didn’t DISlike it just felt that in a very strong year, it was perhaps somewhat overpraised. Out of curiosity, since this conversation has been occurring on other threads, did you read the book, and how did you feel it “stacked up”?
Joel, I did indeed read the book AFTER I saw the film. In recent years I normally need some prodding to move forward with the navigation of novels, as time is so scarce, and we need to be selective. I needed no inspiration here though, as the film floored me, and I subsequently saw it 7 more times in the theatre after that first viewing at the Union Square Cinemas in Manhattan.
I thought this was one of the most faithful book adaptations in memory, as Christopher Hampton replicated the very essence of Ian McEwan’s novel in theme and setting, leaving out no important segment, nor taking liberties with the characters. This was no small achievement here, negotiating such a labyrinthine plot, and Hampton did “open up” the combat scenes as we know, with the spectacular visuals at Dunkirk, and in the war scenes (in a French hospital for example). The early estate scenes were virtual replication, and it’s been reported that McEwan himself was greatly pleased and flattered by Wright’s loyalty throughout. The scene with Vanessa Redgrave is one of the moving in all of contemporary cinema, and again, it followed the book closely.
By the way, an excellent review.
MORON ALERT!!!!!! That’s absolutely hilarious!
Your homage to the film is spot-on, Allan, although we differ about the value of huge, huge tracking shots (like the one at Dunkirk) which grab us by the lapels and head-butt us–“The misery! The carnage!” –as if we were too dumb to figure it out on our own. Yes, I know it was a historical fact and not a director’s invention; but in a movie, I’ll decide when I want to be played like a piano, thank you very much. And for me, it was the personal tragedy (not the endless vista of strangers’ tragedies) which pierced me: the words Redgrave says at the end which made me realize that Old Briony is as delusional as Young Briony. She speaks of atonement she has made. But it’s perfectly clear that she can never be forgiven, because those whom she injured are dead. Who is left to forgive her? Nor is atonement possible; certainly not with a liar’s tale of happiness she creates for the young people whose lives she destroyed. She lets us learn of their destruction only slant-wise, reluctantly, and late. And no matter how beautiful her book–or the profound consolations of art–art is not atonement.
Margaret, I didn’t find that showcase tracking shot, with Dario Marianelli’s ravishing musical underpinnings in full collaboration, as any kind of a “hit me over the head’ sequence, but rather as a sublime expression of artistry, which contributed mightily to the poignant and elegiac tone of this film of remembrance. This was remarkable coordination of cinematographer and composer, and Wright deserves much of the credit. The typewriter frame device technique earlier in the film works superlatively, and the master-class actor’s scene at the end with Vanessa Redgrave is one of the great segments in contemporary cinema. I do love your insightful discussion of ‘atonement’ here.
As with Shubhajit Lahiri, this film left me emotionally cold. I didn’t feel much of any warmth towards the two main characters, so when the twist was finally revealed, I wasn’t hit with the emotions of sadness I believe I should have. The tracking shot, for me, (and I am a huge fan of long take awesomely used and placed in a film), actually felt out of place. It seemed like a technical showcase and wonder if something simpler or different could have shown the ravages of war better.
I can’t recall if The Assassination of Jesse James by the Robert Ford was already listed in the first 100 films of the decade, but like anubhavbist, I think it was the more impressive film that year.
David, I don’t agree, but I fully understand how two people can react diametrically opposite to the same material. it’s what makes film watchingv and other forms so fascinating. Your attendance here is deeply appreciated.
Atonement is a great movie — great score, great photography, solid performances…and that Dunkirk tracking shot is one for the ages and more than worth the hype surrounding its endless discussion.
But in some ways, The Painted Veil, when talking about this genre in this decade, might be the superior film (though my love of Watts might be tipping that scale). It was more subtle…more interesting (in terms of the hate-to-love thread in the story) and I thought Watts and Norton were perfect. And the Desplat score…one of his best.
Depends on my mood though…both are magnificent films with similarly appealing elements.
Interesting…I apparently have Atonement exactly one notch about The Painted Veil on my list. Must’ve been the Dunkirk shot I was thinking of when ranking…it truly is unforgettable.
Aye David, your exquisite taste has always been much appreciated in these parts!
SAM’s off his fuckin rocker (where an old men like him should stay). I loved ATONEMENT, but I find it hard to believe that he could convince ANYONE that the film is better than JESSE JAMES, NO COUNTRY, ONCE, THE LIVES OF OTHERS and, particularly, THERE WILL BE BLOOD (a wealth of the intelligentsia are naming BLOOD best of the decade). I know of Sam’s love for this film, his opinion is valid and I defend his right to it, but, and he’s often criticised me for the same, a definative blanket statement like the one above is just embarrassing. Christ, even his dear buddy ALLAN, whose opinion he respects more than any other here has it at 94. I’ll bet you dollars to donuts, Schmulee that NO COUNTRY, LIVES and BLOOD place higher on this count. Stop! PLEASE! Besides, ALLAN and I are bigger bullies! LOL!
Yes, he gets on his higher horse about his sacred things. ATonement is a very, very, very, good film, exceptional even, but great? NAH! Never. And yes, the Coen and Anderson will follow, but when…drumroll…
Oh, and as for Sam respecting my opinion, Dennis, quite the reverse, I think he values it LESS than anyone else on the site 🙂
There is no one in this entire world whose opinion I respect more than yours, and there isn’t a single person who I praise more than you in all quarters. I think you know that well, but you do have this self-loathing streak that seems to rear its ugly head here and there. I think our friendship is so solid and so deep that it could survive even the worst calamity imaginable.
And that my friend is the true mettle of greatness.
As far as ATONEMENT as a great film, it is indeed for me, and it moves on the deepest level, a criteria that I hold as the dearest when watching film, or experiencing any other work of art.
That’s why you love opera, all that melodramatic false overemotion. It;s the Italian in you, all emotions and lies, and in a film about a liar, what’s for the Italian not to love?
Touche. Now can I pose that the ‘English’ in you embraces the more cyncial and unemotional side, that which disavows idealism for hard-bitten realism.
Perhaps it’s a good thing we’re both here.
As far as ‘lying’ though, I won’t even go there.
Allan, as far as opera goes, if you were set down in a remote Italian village of a hundred years ago and romanced somebody’s wife, you’d soon find out if opera–Cavelleria Rusticana, say–is full of false emotion and lies or not. You’d find it out, in spades, even if you were set down in some Italian neighborhoods today.
Basically, opera is about the music. But there are people with real lives to whom these full-arm gestures and diaphragm-searing emotions are not foreign at all.
Amen to that Margaret. Your probing comments are always a breath of fresh air here, and are deeply appreciated.
I agree with all the films you name here Dennis, but ONCE. I have little use for that film. It’s good I suppose, but whatever. If I had to sum it up in one word it would be ‘limp’. Take that as you will.
Umm, Dennis, now about that deification of THERE WILL BE BLOOD….there’s a tiny problem. Day-Lewis’s portrayal of the icy, ruthless oil baron is a stone cold steal of his ferocious king crook Bill the Butcher in GANGS OF NEW YORK. This is complete, from weird “American” accent, body language, bloody physical injuries borne with panache, demented glares, and unholy acumen in controlling his minions and torturing his enemies. The two are basically demon twins born in different eras.
This being so, and given Day-Lewis’s centrality to THERE WILL BE BLOOD…for me, the whole production is undercut because I keep seeing Bill the Butcher’s fantastic tophat haloing all the struggles, sins and crimes of the oil baron. Day-Lewis is known for his integrity in developing his roles (and yes, I do remember about those Oscars)– but I think that just this once, some subconscious naughty Daniel said to himself, “Waste not, want not. And chances are the American critics won’t even notice.”
Margaret is 100% correct here as far as I’m concerned. Day-Lewis’ striking performance in TWBB was really nothing more than an encore of his previous turn.
To think There Will be Blood an encore of Gangs of New York is an opinion that, while free to interpretation, is utterly and totally puerile and the opiner surely suffers from acute myopia.
Besides, if anything, Bill the Butcher was merely a cartoon rehearsal for Daniel Plainview.
Allan, that’s NOT what I said!!!!
I did NOT say that TWBB was an encore of GONY, but that the character was an encore. And for me in a sense BOTH have some cartoon tendencies.
JAMIE-we’re not gonna agree on every film. Sam LOVES ATONEMENT. You find ONCE limp. I think THE INCREDIBLES is a fantastic flick. Its when Sam comes in, makes a statement like that (God knows the ribbing I would take if I made one like that!) And then brow-beats the shit outta anyone who goes against it. We all have opinions. But, they’re opinions. And the majority opinion is that ATONEMENT, while an excellent film, could sniff the jock of any of the others listed. Sam should just follow Allan and Bob and My lead here. We’ll point him in the right direction one of these days. He’ll sleep better! LOLOLOL!
Jamie is just about the first person I’ve encountered who didn’t adore ONCE, but I respect Jamie mightily, so there’s no reason to take him on. The reviews were practically unanimous, and the film really impressed movie goers all around the world with its universality, it’s frehness, vibrance and energy, and beautiful songwriting, including that masterful central piece played in the music shop. It encompasses what dreams are really all about, and it showcases some amazing talents. As far as ATONEMENT, there are more dissenters than there are for once, generally about 1 of every five don’t care for it.
Allan, actually is another who liked but didn’t love ONCE.
Yeah my take on ONCE is purely my individual opinion nothing more.
To me a film about music, connection, dreams, etc would be something like RADIO ON. And I’m sure very few would agree with me, so it’s 100% subjective here.
ALLAN-I don’t think Sam disrespects your opinion, I just don’t think he HEARS it. I once told him he was driving too fast on ythe George Washington Bridge. “I’m fine, listen to this aria”, was his reply. Getting pulled over and ticketed a minute later, he looks at me and says: “was I really going that fast?” HE DOES WHAT HE WANTS, HE HEARS ONLY WHAT HE WANTS TO HEAR! HE ALWAYS RIGHT! LOL. And, I’m a jet pilot…..
No dennis, I hear it, I just don’t always agree. Is disagreement allowed on these threads?
Of course, ALLAN, you know SAM will look at this thread, call me up sreaming: “What the hell are you and Allan doing, littering up the board with that SHIT?!” Only to call me tomorrow, fresh as a daisy, not a memory of today and tell me: “Geez, we got gigantic comment numbers under THE ATONEMENT thread!” Uh, huh. I WONDER WHY?
I remember first watching Atonement and being torn on what to think of it – ultimately I have decided that it’s a very good film, but (probably justifiably) gets lost in the shuffle of all of the other great films released in 2007. I’d probably rank it around #6-7 for the year, but to show how high that kind of praise still is from me, my Top 25 will feature AT LEAST four films from 2007.
I really like the way that the plot is broken up, with scenes taking place out of order. It really reflects the kind of broken perspectives and points of view from everyone involved. The much discussed tracking shot really is impressive. My main complaint though eventually became that I lost interest in much of the war-set sequences. I almost wished that those could have been condensed and allowed more focus on the interaction between the three main people. The first third of the film, though, is genuinely spectacular. From there, I don’t think things maintain that same level. But still, a wonderful film and I can respect Sam’s passion for it.
This is truly a fantastic response in every sense Dave!!!
MARGARET-That tiny problem is NOT a problem at all. Day Lewis’s performance is NOTHING like his turn in GANGS OF NEW YORK. Bill Cutting speaks with a Brooklyn accent (my ex-wife came from there as well as most of my family) whereas Daniel Plainview’s drawl is a combination of mid-west fused together with Johnb Huston. Bill swaggers like he’s been on a horse too long and Daniel walks with a pronounced limp from a broken leg that never healed correctly. Bill is a ultra-violent, self-confident psychotic whose lot in life is to kick his views into the public conscience only to give into the notion his breed is going extinct. Daniel is a secretive, greedy, cowardly weasle who talks a good talk but can only prey on those that cannot fight back and, in the process of determined scamming domination, ends up a mad, raving misanthrope devoid of love and companionship because of his greed. They’re not even REMOTELY alike. But, again, these are opinions.
Hey Dennis, I never said the characters were exactly the same. I said there were strong similarities of physical presence and demeanor, which there are. Daniel Plainer does have triumphalist moments in which he carries himself with Bill’s satanic glee. They look the same when they’re plotting, and even when they have moments of warmth. Daniel does become ultra-violent and psychotic. I think that maybe WONDERS came the closest to getting it right when he said Bill was a sort of cartoon preparation for Daniel.
As for the accents, I don’t care if your family lived in Brooklyn all the way back to Adam. If you really listen to Bill’s speech in Gang of New York’s very first rumble–the one where he and Priest/Neeson are trash-talking each other–you’ll notice that it’s a Brit’s uneven and even comical stab at a Brooklyn accent, not the real deal. Inspite of Day-Lewis’s solid skills in other areas, I think it’s fair to say his accents pretty much suck. He just can’t do them, and given his obsessive preparation of his roles, I’m sure he tries. By the way, Daniel Plainer’s voice and speech are like no Mid Westerners’ I ever heard in my life–and I know from Mid-West. I lived there for decades.
MARGARET-ALSO… What’s with the hostility I’m detecting by calling THERE WILL BE BLOOD a DEFICATION???? I don’t recall ANYONE here on this thread, including myself, even remotely attacking ATONEMENT in this manner. I, in fact, happened to say above that I admired the film very much and called it one of the TEN BEST of its year. Now, perhaps you like it a helluvalot more than everyone else hear and are tired of the critical consensus lavishing raves over BLOOD, but I don’t think, as I’m sure many here do, that comparing the film to the product of a bowel-movement is necessary. Facts remain that ATONEMENT has not shown on any 10 best of the decades and many are calling BLOOD the best American film of those same ten years. I’m sure we’ll have more, ample time to discuss this as I’d bet we’ll see BLOOD further up on ALLAN’s count. My estimations say it’ll appear anywhere between 35 and 10. That’s a lot higher than ATONEMENT. I love ATONEMENT. I love THERE WILL BE BLOOD more. IMO.
Dennis, it’s DEIFICATION, not DEFECATION.
The former means to make Godlike, taken from the Roman practice of deifying emperors after their death or, in the case of Caligula, in life.
Defecation, yes, that’s taking a dump. Margaret is using word a not b.
Thank you. I’d even type a smiley face in gratitude, but for the fear of being thought puerile.
Margaret, there is a fair chance that Allan was referring to me as the puerile one here, as I just looked again at that exchange. LOL!!!
SAM-I find it really unsettling that you repremand me for “taking JAMIE on”. I said NOTHING that was remotely insulting and made it, I feel quite clear that everyone has and is entitled to his own opinion. As for the DAY-LEWIS debate, I think I’ve amply mapped out the striking differences between the two characters in a response to MARGARET and I’m sure you’ll agree, after muddling over them, that Day-Lewis doesn’t step wrong in making both characters originals. If anything, I think that Margaret is the one “taking” yours truly “on” for some reason as I happen to be a big supporter of BLOOD. I’ve also made it clear what all here know, that BLOOD is the more highly revered of these two films. This is NOT ONLY my opinion but a general consensus of critics and viewers alike. Show me one critics 10 BEST of the decade list where ATONEMENT is ranked No. 1. Again, I’m with you on ATONEMENT being a great film. I’m not stirring pots here.
Dennis, I would never be crass enough to dishonor your choices. (I’ve got way too much class for that, right?) It’s just that we disagree about the level of greatness. You’ve got THERE WILL BE BLOOD up there sitting at God’s right hand, and I’ve got it down here on earth with the rest of us.
To tell you the truth, I’ve got serious reservations about Eric Bana’s peformance as well…. But, Basta! (And please note that I’m saying Enough!, not some naughty word.)
Oops and whoops–it’s obviously REALLY early in the morning. That should be Paul Dano, not Eric Bana. Although maybe Bana would have been better in that role of the shameless Bible thumper…
LOL-LOL-LOL!!!!!!On my Blackberry the print is so small It looked like DEFICATION!!!! LOL. Anyway, MARGARET is still off course on the characters being the same.
I liked this film well enough up to the outbreak of war. Technical merits apart, the spell got broken at that stage for me. Would like to see it again though without being willing to shell out for a copy of it.
On it being an overt anti-WW2 film, it reminded me hugely of the Pat Barker trilogy about WW1, not to mention the poetry of Sassoon and Owen. In that sense, it felt a touch derivative to me, which may partially explain my ambivalence towards the final third.
P.S. Liked not loved “Once” too!
Longman, most people liked not loved Once…
Where did you get this information Allan? The reviews were spectacular on all sites, it made an overwhelming number of ten best lists, and was beloved worldwide. That translates to LOVE not LIKE, but you’re a lifelong party crasher, so no wonder.
YOU liked it. Everybody else LOVED it.
Another great review from Allan. It’s been a while since I saw ‘Atonement’ so I can’t comment in detail, but I vividly remember that great tracking shot on the beach at Dunkirk, as well as the fountain scene. I differ from Dave a bit on this one because for me the war sections were the most compelling parts of the film – as far as I remember, anyway. I always tend to think of this film together with ‘A Very Long Engagement’, because they both have that blend of war and epic romance.
Thanks Judy for that ‘welcome’ view!! LOL. You have great taste!
I am now leaving Fairview with my 11 year-old son Danny in tow to see a double-feature in the Film Forum’s ‘newspaper films’ series. PARK ROW begins at 1:00 P.M., and THE BIG CLOCK at 2:50 P.M. I’ll be back later today to check on this deliciously contentious thread, and to work on tomorrow’s Monday Morning Diary and on a review of the stage play I saw Wednesday night in Manhattan of Robert Anderson’s “I Never Sang For My Father.”
MARGARET-Please accept my apologies for questioning what I thought was hostility. My Blackberry print combined with my less-than-perfect eye-sight saw DEFICATION and not DEIFICATION. I also admit that I am a huge supporter of BLOOD. However, the tit-for-tat over Day-Lewis accent is coming from the fact that you can’t hear what is definately there. There is, as I’m accused of speaking with the SAME accent, a very distinct curving of words that are a mask for the Italian Bill is trying to balance with English. The area, at that time WAS dominated by the Italians, and I suspect Bill was, through osmosis, may have picked up certain inflections from his family and the people around him. Notice his use of the word “Benne” in the exchange with Neeson, classic Italian response. You may not give a fig about it in the end, but as I come from the parts Bill originates, I thought Day Lewis’s turn very thoughtful.