Joe Wright's ATONEMENT

[mouton]

ATONEMENT
Written by Christopher Hampton
Directed by Joe Wright

Robbie Turner: The story can resume.

Tap tap tap goes the typewriter. The tapping is coming faster and hitting harder. The pace is set and the race has officially started. Director, Joe Wright’s ATONEMENT bursts out of the gate from the moment it starts, as a pan away from a modeled replica of the Tallis manor reveals a parade of toy animals and ends aptly on the purported queen of this particular animal kingdom, Briony Tallis (Saoirse Ronan). Briony is only thirteen years old but she is just about to finish her very first play. This precocious child is captivating. She is at once frightening while just as frightened. Her focus is eerily burning and her need for command of the situation and those involved motivate her every decision. On this particularly sweltering day, Briony believes her play to be her greatest accomplishment yet and sees her future more brightly boundless than even before. She has no idea that everything is about to crumble beneath her. Chance allows her to witness a few things she was not meant to and before long she makes a desperate play to regain control of her destiny. Who knew that one little girl could cause so much trouble for so many people and invite turmoil into her family for the rest of her days by telling one misguided lie?

When Briony falsely accuses Robbie (James McAvoy), her sister, Cecilia’s (Keira Knightly) lover, of a horrible crime, he is arrested and sent to prison. It isn’t clear whether Briony was aware of how serious her accusations were or how far Robbie would be taken from Cecilia and his future as a result but it is clear that she interrupted a love of immense proportion. ATONEMENT’s first act goes back and forth between Briony’s breakdown and the escalating sexual tension between Robbie and Cecilia. Cecilia is not your typical period drama maiden. She is provocative and sharp-tongued. For all her fierce self-awareness though, she has made a point to repress her longing for Robbie out of respect for status. Robbie too has been hiding how he feels to appease the rules that apply to status and boundaries, not so much out of respect though but rather for blind tradition. Society’s restraints cannot hold back a love of this magnitude. The passion bustling between them is palpable and exacerbated by the heat; it is no wonder that it all comes to a head on this fated day and is halted no sooner than it is just begun. As they are only given the chance to wet their lips with each other’s taste before being ripped apart, theirs is a relationship that will live in a suspended state of foreplay for a long time to come.

When Robbie is taken prisoner, ATONEMENT shifts into a new and noticeably different movement. The intensity carefully crafted in the first act dissipates as the characters enter their own individual limbos, left to meander aimlessly in search of repair. The build toward Briony’s lie was punctuated by a sharp, concise score by Dario Marianelli and highlighted by Seamus McGarvey’s bright and elegantly fluid cinematography. Both artists employ entirely new approaches toward the action that unfolds in the lie’s aftermath. The score becomes dark, somber - less driven and more haunting. The visuals follow suit, feeling heavy and dense. The change halts the flow of the film and feels like a misstep momentarily. Once you catch the breath you were holding previously, the severity of the scenario sinks in and the fresh aesthetic takes on its own significance. It cannot help but feel longer or slower in comparison but how else are we or the characters expected to feel when they are living their new lives lost and haunted by a past they could not control? Besides being relevant to the tone of the story, the shift also gives birth to a four and a half minute shot depicting the 1940 evacuation at Dunkirk Beach that is mesmerizing in its grace and awesome in scope.

ATONEMENT is a fresh and surprising spectacle. Wright impressed with charm and poise last time out in 2005’s PRIDE AND PREJUDICE (also starring Knightly) but his latest grabs the period drama by its snotty superiority and turns it inside out, thanks in no small part to Ian McEwan’s much loved novel of the same name. The gravity of how one bad decision can ruin many lives resonates loudly and the guilt that follows gives way to the need for forgiveness from those who were hurt and from the one that caused the pain. ATONEMENT does not judge Briony for what she’s done; instead it allows her the chance to heal and make things right without ever presuming that her recovery is inevitable. For breaking convention and for demonstrating sincere respect for the story, the characters and the audience, Wright has absolutely nothing to be sorry for.

www.blacksheepreviews.com

[Chris Knipp]

What do you say to all the bad reviews this has been getting? So many to the extent that I, though I've read all Ian McEwan's novels and was impressed and disturbed by this one , am losing my enthusiasm for seeing the film (it hasn't come to this area yet and there have been no screenings). Too bad for me, because I like James McAvoy.

A recent review that I saw said that the war sequences seem routine and not truly involving, and yet they distract from the story, are overdone.

My favorite Iam McEwan film adaptation is definitely (so far) The Cement Garden, with Charlotte Gainsbourg.

[mouton]

Hmm ... I wasn't aware that it was being poorly received. Last I checked Rotten Tomatoes, the rating was still in the 80's. Like I mentioned, the war footage does throw the film somewhat off course in terms of tone and pace but it serves the story well. It feels slower than the beginning of the film but it is meant to. The period they are apart is meant to feel long and arduous. That said, there are war scenes that are fresh and unexpected and images that are fairly disturbing. I would have to disagree with the reference you mentioned.

[mouton]

I didn't find it the least bit pretentious. I found it to be genuine and earnest. I was moved. It's hard to go against a consensus amongst a group of people you ordinarily trust but this film never once felt like an exercise to me and I highly recommend it.

[Chris Knipp]

[Sorry I reedited my summary to include more of the reviews I'd come acrross--this should come before mouton's last comment.]

You're right about the positive critical consensus. I hadn't consulted the collations of reivews but Metacritic is 85 too. That is the majority--it's popular with the arthouse crowd. I don't always follow along. I am not a fan of Cinema Paradiso or Il Postino or Amelie.

One review cited on Metacritic: "A handsome film, an earnest film, a film with taste in music and photography and a real sense of intelligence. But too often it feels like an exercise." That's what I'm worried about. That it won't be convincing, and that it'll be too full of itself. But I hope I'll like it and I'll take into consideration what you say.

It's just the particular critics I tend to consult who've been quite unimpressed--for example The New Yorker's Anthony Lane, who didn't find the movie believable, and The New York Press's Armond White, who finds it pretentiontious and derivative, though he enthuses over Vanessa Redgrave's brief performance at the end. A discerning friend of mine who came to visit yesterday who'd recently seen it (it is showing in San Francisco, just not in the East Bay) and said it was "awful." The NYTimes' Scott: "Atonement fails to be anything more than a decorous, heavily decorated and ultimately superficial reading of the book on which it is based." David Edelstein of New York Magazine: "Atonement works reasonably well as a tragic romance, but that sting is dulled. As a book, it was a blow to the head; as a movie, it’s an adaptation of a book." The Village Voice's Ella Taylor is cruel:
Wright wouldn't recognize unobtrusive if it tapped him on the nose--he's cross- pollinated the first half of Atonement into an Oscar-buzzy brew of Masterpiece Theatre and "Upstairs, Downstairs," with the wild English countryside tamed into an artfully lit fairy glade, and into just enough of a bodice-ripper to reel in the youth market. And not a bad one at that. These are some of the places I always look--I'm a New York kind of guy and spend a lot of time there--and as you can see, they are not impressed.

But it's silly for me to go on about it till I've seen it, but I was just trying to get a discussion going.

[Chris Knipp]

JOE WRIGHT: ATONEMENT (2007)

http://www.chrisknipp.com/links/atnm.jpg

Perils of expanding a novel into a glossy movie

Review by Chris Knipp

Atonement starts at a great English country house on a hot summer day before the Second World War. It speaks of the attraction between two young Cambridge graduates, Cecily Tallis (Keira Knightley) and Robbie Turner (James McAvoy). Despite their shared educational background, Cecily is upper class (her family owns the great house) and Robbie is the son of one of the family’s servants, and out of this disparity comes a remarkable and rather tragic story in the novel by Ian McEwan which Joe Wright—who directed Ms. Knightley in Pride and Prejudice—working this time from a screenplay by the skillful Christopher Hampton, has made into an impressive movie.

The trouble with a movie that's a literary adaptation is that you may have read the book, especially when the book is as good as Atonement. Ian McEwan may not be a great writer but he’s certainly a very good one. He writes delicious, intelligent sentences and with them tells surprising, quietly bold tales. The best film adaptation of a McEwan novel is Andrew Birkin's The Cement Garden. The Cement Garden, it's worth noting, is haunting and strange and touches on one of the most ancient of taboos, but as a story it's simple in its basic elements. Atonement is many-leveled and far grander and more emotionally fraught, encompassing as it does the decline of a ruling class and a great war and themes of sex and love and class and the danger of ignorance and the capacity of literature to redeem a life—or not. Filming this novel is an ambitious task.

McEwan’s Atonement is a particularly dangerous novel to film because it’s so easy to make the details overblown and lose the essence of the thing. This is what Joe Wright has done. He’s still produced a beautiful, occasionally engaging and involving (but sometimes fatiguing) movie replete with moments of shock and sorrow and grandeur. But the book wasn’t about wounded troops massed on the beach or an Underground tunnel being flooded—though these are among the more memorable images of the film. McEwan's Atonement really isn't about the grandeur of pre-War upper class English country life—whose details are just sketched in deftly by the novelist while he focuses on the emotions, the suspicions, the doubts, the passions. Nor, as one reads McEwan's novel, does one hear in one’s mind the sound of a large string orchestra playing with the incessant overlay of a loudly clacking typewriter. But in the film one never gets away from that. This is one of the reasons that novels about or from any period are timeless: the period t rappings don't overwhelm, because we don't have to see them. And heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard are sweeter.

As Henry Green wrote, "Prose is not to be read aloud but to oneself alone at night, and it is not quick as poetry but rather a gathering web of insinuations ... Prose should be a long intimacy between strangers with no direct appeal to what both may have known. It should slowly appeal to feelings unexpressed, it should in the end draw tears out of the stone ..."

Atonement, the novel, is about the mistake of a naïve, willful, dangerously over-imaginative girl that plays into the class prejudices of a great English family and ruins several lives. These are events that at various points you really cannot stage at all. They’re things you have to tell about—or rather, hint at, and make the audience think about. Where the book is delicate—yet disturbing—tears from the stone—the movie is much more operatic, and not always opera of the highest order. It may be Merchant-Ivory or Masterpiece Theater, but it’s not Brideshead Revisited. As Beresford-Howe said in Film Threat, “Imagine if the team that made The English Patient tried to make the same kind of movie, with even more brave-lads-fighting-the-Jerries porn and this time with Extra Added English country manor porn, and without really good actors, and this movie is what you’d have.”

This is the sad truth. One wants to like Knightley and McAvoy and they’ve been excellent in other roles, but they aren’t quite up to their jobs this time, and neither are the two young women who play the younger sister Briony, Saoirse Roman as the eleven-year-old girl who makes the false accusations, and Romola Garai as the repentant eighteen-year-old. Briony is central. She needs to be infuriating, yet sympathetic—which isn't so easy, and neither actress quite has those qualities. There is a great actress at the end in Vanessa Redgrave, with her immense authority and wisdom, as the aged, soon-to-die Briony, who appears in one speech to a TV interviewer about her latest, and last novel, which is called Atonement. But this is just last-minute exposition and since the message is one of failure and quiet despair, it’s not the grand finale the elaborately staged scenes have led one to expect. Too much of the movie’s time is thrown away on great paneled hallways and country house lawns, bright lipstick, period hairdos, silk blouses, little boys talking as little English boys no longer do, and haggard battle scenes that could as well be of the First World War as the Second.

I don’t side with those who think the vast scene of troops on the beach is a mere tour de force without emotion. Well, maybe it is, but it’s still the most mesmerizing sequence in the movie—perhaps it’s involving because we don’t know where it’s going to go. And ultimately, pointless or not, the post-battle sequences are the closest thing we get to an objective correlative for the human tragedy the young girl has wrought. Other scenes, which can be evoked in a few lines in the novel, are so elaborately staged they overwhelm the ideas McEwan meant to evoke. We don’t need to see that flood in the London Underground. It’s far more affecting just to learn what happened without seeing it. I don't say that McEwan's novel is perfect either—it feels manipulative—but the shadow of it that lies hidden beyond the grand facade of the movie forms a better story.

[oscar jubis]

Mostly posting to say hello to everyone and to express regret at my inability to comment at length due to time constraints. I thought I posted a response to Chris Knipp's review of Blame it on Fidel a few days ago but now I can't find it and I can't explain why. If I had time I would post very loving tributes to the last two films I watched that I liked a lot: I'm Not There, which was no surprise coming from one of my favorite American filmmakers, and Atonement, a film that took me by surprise in terms of the complexity of the storytelling and the dynamism of its filmmaking. I'm also incredibly grateful to John Turturro for having the guts to experiment with the musical genre and taking risks at every turn in his film Love and Cigarettes. Some of you might find it risibly silly, and it's no masterpiece, but some numbers are outstanding and the ones that fall flat are endearingly unpredictable.

[Chris Knipp]

ROMANCE AND CIGARETTES is coiming out really late, since it was released officially, in some sense, in 2005, and shown at the SFIFF then. I reviewed it, not too favorably. Of course it is unusual. I just didn't fall in love with it.

I think you'll find your post on I'M NOT FIDEL in a French series thread that was open. I saw it and replied to it. However, I can't find it either. You should have started a thread on it in the General forums, as I said. Too bad it's disappeared.

My comment on it in the Festivals section is here. (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=16916#post16916) I'm glad you liked ATONEMENT and I'M NOT THERE. I got more out of the latter, which was in the NYFF. "It's brilliant, but it'll be a hard sell," an Industry colleague said to me, and in fact it's been a hard sell with the mainstream critics, with a Metacritic 73--too low, but it takes too many chances for some people. It has been paridied, using Britney Speers. I assume you have seen J. Hob erman's review. It ran from the cover of that issue of THE VOICE. "THE MOVIE OF THE YEAR." Yeah!

Just saw finally the Dylan at Newport doc by Murray Lerner that was a sidebar at the NYFF this year but I had to miss it then. I was blown away. Just posted a review and opened a thread on it.

THE SAVAGES is excellent. Just saw it. Not surprising that Alexander Payne is one of the producers. It's worthy of him, but for my mondy better than him. MOre real, less pushed.

I also loved JUNO, though it isn't as serious as SAVAGES. It's much more fun though.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
ROMANCE AND CIGARETTES is coming out really late, since it was released officially, in some sense, in 2005, and shown at the SFIFF then. I reviewed it, not too favorably. Of course it is unusual.
Romance and Cigarettes had world premieres almost simultaneously at Toronto and Venice 2005 but it was officially released in the US in September 2007. I'm debating whether to list it under "Honorable Mention" on my 2007 list (which basically means between 21st and 30th place overall). The ending was almost painfully moving to me and some of the musical numbers are among my most joyous moments at the movies this year; then again others amount to failed experiments.

I think you'll find your post on I'M NOT FIDEL in a French series thread that was open. I saw it and replied to it. However, I can't find it either. You should have started a thread on it in the General forums, as I said. Too bad it's disappeared.
I posted it in one of your French threads that one can respond to (not the one in the Festival section). The reason I didn't open a thread is that the comment was in direct response to your review.

I got more out of the latter, which was in the NYFF. "It's brilliant, but it'll be a hard sell," an Industry colleague said to me, and in fact it's been a hard sell with the mainstream critics, with a Metacritic 73--too low, but it takes too many chances for some people. It has been paridied, using Britney Speers. I assume you have seen J. Hoberman's review. It ran from the cover of that issue of THE VOICE. "THE MOVIE OF THE YEAR." Yeah!
Yes, I read Hoberman's review with particular interest, not solely because he's one of our best film critics but also because he wrote one of the best books I've read about the 1960s. Few seem to have noticed that I'm Not There has a longer title in which the director makes clear the film is not only about Dylan but also about "the time" in which he lived (which in this case means roughly 1959 to 1979). It's obviously the type of film that just can't be appreciated in one viewing. By the way, as much as folks are hailing Blanchett's performance, it's apparent to me that her "Dylan-touring-England-in-the-mid-60s" is not nearly as funny and talented as the Dylan of Don't Look Back but just as cantankerous.

Just saw finally the Dylan at Newport doc by Murray Lerner that was a sidebar at the NYFF this year but I had to miss it then. I was blown away.
The PBS stations here have been playing it over and over during fundraising season. It is just wonderful, isn't it?

THE SAVAGES is excellent. Just saw it. I also loved JUNO, though it isn't as serious as SAVAGES. It's much more fun though.
Both are playing here so I'll check them out soon. Have you seen I am Legend?

[Chris Knipp]

I AM LEGEND: I thought I had posted my review of it here, but I cannot find it. If there is no thread, I'll start a new one and post my review there.
Few seem to have noticed that I'm Not There has a longer title in which the director makes clear the film is not only about Dylan but also about "the time" in which he lived (which in this case means roughly 1959 to 1979). It's obviously the type of film that just can't be appreciated in one viewing. By the way, as much as folks are hailing Blanchett's performance, it's apparent to me that her "Dylan-touring-England-in-the-mid-60s" is not nearly as funny and talented as the Dylan of Don't Look Back but just as cantankerous.So what is the longer title? Well, it's I'm Not There: Suppositions on a Film Concerning Dylan. However that was the "working title," not the official title now. It sounds a bit awkward to me. Maybe he could have called it SIX CHARACTERS IN SEARCH OF AN AUTHOR [FILMMAKER], but Pirandello already had that one, and it has an unfavorable ring, as can be seen by the fact that Mick Lasalle used it in his not at all favorable review (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/11/21/DDODTF2KN.DTL) of the film. The explanations aren't needed. I'M NOT THERE is fine. If anybody's interested, they'll figure it out. No need to make it sound like a doctoral thesis. To do so is only to underline the film's weaknesses.

I "appreciated" it in one viewing plenty, and so did the Industry guy who made that remark. I guess maybe you mean "fully appreciated" but isn't it just true that if a movie is any good, you'll find more on subsequent viewings? However, if you're perceptive, you mostly will perceive all the essential elements--at least all the ones you're capable of grasping at that stage of your life-- the first time.

What you say about Blanchett is true in that her acting in I'M NOT THERE, largely just a schtick really, has been somewhat overrated as a performance. But you yourself said that the different Haynes "Dylans" shouldn't be considered separately, and the 8 1/2 Blanchett-featured segments ought to be seen within the context of Haynes' concept rather than a patch on the DON'T LOOK BACK Dylan. That said, he certainly is wittier and more cantankerous there, but to speak of talent, you're comparing apples and oranges. He isn't an actor. He's just playing the role he has chosen for himself at that point, which is different. And as THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MIRROR film collection complied byMurray Lerner shows, if we needed proof still at this point (we didn't but it's always nice to have it), Dylan was tremendously talented--more than Blancett or in more important (but different) areas. When it comes to talent, if you're going to single anybody out, I'd single out Marcus Carl Franklin, and his talent more closely mirrors Dylan's, because he's an excellent singer and musician, not just an actor.

Hoberman has his ups and downs as a day-to-day movie reviewer, like pretty much everybody else. I completely agree that he's one of the best we've got, but I do not agree that we should ignore everybody but him and Jonathan Rosenbaum or that everything he says is pure gold.

[Chris Knipp]

I posted it in one of your French threads that one can respond to (not the one in the Festival section). The reason I didn't open a thread is that the comment was in direct response to your review. Yes, but where is it?

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
So what is the longer title? Well, it's I'm Not There: Suppositions on a Film Concerning Dylan. However that was the "working title," not the official title now. It sounds a bit awkward to me.
No, no! The complete title of the film is there on the screen for everyone to see but every one except Hoberman has completely ignored it, and has subsequently failed to properly appreciate the film. The title of the movie is I'M NOT THERE: THE LIVES AND TIME OF BOB DYLAN. The film is not only about Dylan but also about American society during the 60s and the 70s. There's a lot of stuff, mostly in "collage form" that only has to do with Dylan in that "the time" in which he came-of-age as a cultural icon has an impact on him (just like it did on you and me and millions of people). What's perhaps most salient about Dylan is his resistance to allow the public and the media to create a fixed image of him; his insistence on being free to create himself as he goes along; it's always about "becoming" for him. Haynes' approach to a Dylan project is brilliantly subservient to this quintessential idea. Everything else emanates out of that central conceit. However, it is a biographical film, a very rich and nuanced one that makes sense in proportion to how much you know about him. A casual Dylan fan would not know what to make of, for instance, those images of spiders that keep popping up.

I "appreciated" it in one viewing plenty, and so did the Industry guy who made that remark. I guess maybe you mean "fully appreciated" but isn't it just true that if a movie is any good, you'll find more on subsequent viewings?
Of course, but there's more here to be discovered on subsequent viewings than there is in most "good" films. And there's more than enough to satisfy the average viewer, like my daughter with whom I watched it, on first viewing.

What you say about Blanchett is true in that her acting in I'M NOT THERE, largely just a schtick really, has been somewhat overrated as a performance. But you yourself said that the different Haynes "Dylans" shouldn't be considered separately, and the 8 1/2 Blanchett-featured segments ought to be seen within the context of Haynes' concept rather than a patch on the DON'T LOOK BACK Dylan.
I know I'm being overly simplistic when I regard to Blanchett's Dylan as Don't Look Back Dylan, but not NEARLY as much as reducing the Richard Gere-Dylan to the Pat Garret and Billy the Kid-Dylan_the Richard Gere character has more to do with Dylan's late-60s rural retreat than the Peckinpah western or Dylan's attraction to western tropes. Blanchett somewhat overrated here? Yes.

That said, he certainly is wittier and more cantankerous there, but to speak of talent, you're comparing apples and oranges.
Dylan is wittier and exudes more charisma in Don't Look Back but is less cantankerous than Blanchett's performance, which is mainly but not completely inspired by Dylan as seen in that highly circulated doc about his British tour.

Hoberman has his ups and downs as a day-to-day movie reviewer, like pretty much everybody else. I completely agree that he's one of the best we've got, but I do not agree that we should ignore everybody but him and Jonathan Rosenbaum or that everything he says is pure gold.
Jean Luc Godard compared Rosenbaum to Bazin and Agee and wished there was a French critic of his stature. Hoberman is Rosenbaum's equal, in my humble opinion. Every critic's degree of insight and elucidation has ups and downs. And lesser (and younger) critics surprise sometimes: Jim Ridley's Voice/New Times review of Margot at the Wedding is as good as anything I've read all year.

*Brief comment regarding Atonement:
One aspect not often discussed in writings about the film is how the first half of the film, which basically amounts to a chamber drama shot entirely in a country estate, is as dynamic a piece of cinema as I've seen all year (and nothing like "Masterpiece Theater", you're way off Ella Taylor). The camera is highly mobile and deployed with such finesse, but it's the editing that propells the film. It's hard to put into words but I'll try: basically when a scene is cut, there is someone or something moving within it, and the following scene also has some type of physical displacement that has begun just before we cut to it. It is exhilarating to watch, it leaves you almost breathless; but not so that it keeps one from grasping any of the visual information contained or creating a sense of disorientation.

[Chris Knipp]

Of course only Hoberman would have seen the entire title! Okay. . . but is this a big deal? Obviously any biography is also history. Of course one likes this variability of Dylan, which is found notably also in Miles Davis and Picasso.

I'm sure you're right on Blanchett and the Gere episode's implications, and these points have been noted by lots of people.

I don't know how your are interpreting cantankerous, perhaps a rather loose and imprecise word. Dylan is sort of a young prick in Don't Look Back. Actually his style was a style of the time, one I shared in, irony and provocation, and making fun of Babbitts and dunces. He gets more of a chance to be mean that way than happens in the Blanchett- 8 1/2sequences.

Your being able to cite Godard's homage is a new coup for your confirmed Rosenbaum--worship. Where exactly does he say that? Rosenbaum has a lot of French allies I'm sure, for obvious reasons. Maybe it's true there aren't any film critics in France right now as good as Rosenbaum, I just don' know. The level of cinema appreciation by the public there of course is, however, higher than in this country, and film writers often write there on quite a serious intellectual level. Rosenbaum represents something valuable to us, and so does Hoberman, but there are a number of others, and one would hope for more younger people to come along. Rosenbaum's annual Best Lists alienate me. But he has a considerable range of tastes on a day to day basis.

I'm glad you got such a kick out of Atonement. It doesn't work that well for me.

[oscar jubis]

Your being able to cite Godard's homage is a new coup for your confirmed Rosenbaum--worship. Where exactly does he say that? Rosenbaum has a lot of French allies I'm sure, for obvious reasons.

He has a lot of "allies" in a lot of places. He is basically a worldwide critic and that is why he only writes about one long review per month. He travels from film festival to film festival, usually giving lectures or appearing in debate panels or being part of juries. One of my favorite books of his is a collection of correspondences with major critics from Iran, Argentina, Japan, and Australia. The Godard blurb is printed the back of Rosenbaum's "Essential Cinema". If I was at home, I'd post the entire quote. One doesn't have to share Rosenbaum's taste to realize he is one of the most knowledgeable and insightful art critics we have. I also happen to share his democratic and globalized worldview on cinema, and his attitude towards Hollywood and commercial filmmaking in general.

[Chris Knipp]

Fortunately Rosenbaum still finds time in his busy schedule as the Maharishi of international film criticism and festival land to see plenty of new movies--including the ones we poor slobs get to see. .

One of the things that makes him a good guru (for you: I don't buy into that) is that he considers himself one himself, and has frequently defined himself (in prefaces to his books and elsewhere) as superior to many others in the field. And you buy into that too; again, I don't.

The good thing about his championing of "world cinema" is that he wants it to be something with guts to it, not the sweet, safe stuff we're chiefly fed as "foreign film."

If Godard's "homage" as I called it is just a blurb from one or Rosenbaum's recent books then it has no other known context other than promotionn of Rosenbaum by his publishers. Surely Godard owed R. a favor, since R. has spoken highly of G. over the years. Not exactly a neutral source. Not sure R. has played the role Bazin played; too bad he hasn't.

Isn't the phrase "globalized worldview" just a bit redundant?

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by Chris Knipp

The good thing about his championing of "world cinema" is that he wants it to be something with guts to it, not the sweet, safe stuff we're chiefly fed as "foreign film."
Right, Los Muertos was technically distributed in 2007 but still very few got a chance to see it. The "foreign films" or "art cinema" that get wider distribution is the "sweet safe stuff" or stuff that fits neatly into commercial genres.

If Godard's "homage" as I called it is just a blurb from one or Rosenbaum's recent books then it has no other known context other than promotionn of Rosenbaum by his publishers.
I know it was extracted from a wide-ranging interview of Godard.

Surely Godard owed R. a favor, since R. has spoken highly of G. over the years. Not exactly a neutral source.
You're right about your characterization of the source. Rosenbaum was close friends with Tati, Welles, Ruiz, and many other filmmakers. The Maharishi's list of 1000 Faves includes more Godard films (19) than films by any other director. Godard doesn't need any favors from critics, only from producers.

Isn't the phrase "globalized worldview" just a bit redundant?
I see your point, except that one can talk about a provincial or narrow worldview, which would be the opposite of a globalized one.

[Chris Knipp]

I know it was extracted from a wide-ranging interview of Godard.
I guess you don't however know where the interview of Godard is to be found. I just read a preface by Rosenbaum where he explains how much he has written over the years in so many places, and some of them he would just as soon lose.

"Globalized worldview" may be logical but it's still awkward. you dno't need "world" in a phrase that already has "globe" in it. You could start by eliminating that and you've got "globalized view." But then "globalized" is ugly, so you can cut out the "-ized" part and just say "global view." But maybe "global outlook." Basicaly you're just saying he's not parochial.
Godard doesn't need any favors from critics, only from producers. You happen to know that? Maybe he doesn't need any favors from anybody. But as a critic himself, he may value criticism, maybe more than you seem to do, and be glad to have had an important American critic who understands and appreciates his work as a dirrector.

[tabuno]

I am clearly and resolutely going with Mouton's wonderful and well-written commentary on this movie. This movie reminds me of Cold Mountain (2003), Brazil (1985), and Lost in Translation (2003). The sounds and set design, the long experiential shots, all contribute to the brilliance of this movie. It's likely that again the controversy between movies adapted from a novel raises its ugly head again. I have not read the novel on which this movie is based and I don't ever really want to read it. This movie stand strong, proud, and for me easily rates as a classic in its creative approach to cinema. I loved it. I believe that this movie uses the cinematic media to its fullest, artistic, creative extent and thus deserves best movie of the year designation.

[tabuno]

ATONEMENT is truly special because it brings together in one cinematic experience some of the best of what the medium of cinema can offer. The execution of shifts of perception from the little girl's perception of reality to our perception of what she is experiencing is flawless and mind-consciously expanding - like a trip without drugs. The immersion of the audience into this period piece is visceral in its extensive use of photography and an inordinate use of sound effects that rivals and probably exceeds any radio program that was solely dependent on sound for its success. Along with a strong script, a wonderful climactic twisted ended that will haunt forever like another movie

[spoiler notice]

the ENGLISH PATIENT and one ends up with truly a remarkable movie that I hope will become one of the best this decade along THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD.

[oscar jubis]

All the media attention generated by the controversy about the cancellation of the show and the announcement of the wards shoud generate more viewers for Atonement and to a lesser extent The Assassination of Jesse James.... Here's hoping Casey Affleck gets an Oscar nomination so that his film becomes better known among the general public. A return to theaters is perhaps too much to ask, but it would be nice to get a chance to watch the film again on the big screen.

Good point by you about the clever use of sound in Atonement.

[cinemabon]

Atonement – directed by Joe Wright

I should have guessed when my wife insisted I see this film that this was a ‘chick flick.’ Sounds derogatory, doesn’t it? Well, it was meant to be. Frankly, I don’t enjoy watching someone else’s misery as entertainment, generally, unless a message of hope or change is attached. I can watch the news and see all the misery in the world. “Atonement” is all about wallowing in misery, feeling miserable all the time, and later, feeling so miserable, that the person feels the need to share their misery with the rest of us. Welcome to the feminine view of the world, or at least one female’s version of it (shared by many women).

I should have guessed at the ‘tone’ from the start of the film, since the tapping of typewriter keys should have given the rest of the film’s plot away. Something happened in a young girl’s past for which she feels guilty about. She then spends the rest of her life trying to atone for that sin, and that is the crux of our story. The romance, the war and its impact on society is really superfluous. For the impressionable girl, whose actual age is rather vague in the film, sees something that she believes is something else. This starts her down a path of misunderstanding that results in tragedy for everyone involved. The accusation of child molestation, as we saw in the famous McMartin Preschool 1983 California case, cannot only tear families apart, but communities and even those involved in the trial. Twenty years later, the subject of investigation found those charges baseless. The same turns out to be true in this film. How tragic for those involved, that promising careers, relationships, and the course of future events should revolve around such nonsense. Yet, that is the case in life and the subject of this very long and drawn out exercise.

As to the quality of “Atonement” in regards to its making, one can hardly argue with the performances, the expert camerawork or even the sets, elaborate and detailed. The long complex continuous shot on the beach replicating the disaster at ‘Dunkirk’ rivals that of the opening shot in Welles’ “Touch of Evil.” I whispered to my wife in the theater, “Do you realize it must have taken them weeks to set up a shot like that?” To which she answered, “Huh?”

As if the jumping around in time were not disconcerting enough, the ending (also a scene on the beach) is positively ludicrous. I won’t reveal it, however, by the time it finally rolled around, I’d had enough. I rose, put on my jacket and left.
I know that Hollywood is changing and the world is too, for that matter. I don’t long for the days of the 1950’s or anything like that, because most of the acting and filmmaking back then left much to be desired. However, the simple telling of a story can be something more than a tale of woe, a morose experience that leaves one cold and wishing for a warm place with people smiling, a warm fire burning, someone telling a joke, food without indigestion, and perhaps a cuddle or two. “Atonement” is all about wallowing in self-pity, wishing you (in this case, the writer) had made a different choice, and then spending the rest of their life regretting it. However, spending one’s life in such a pursuit is the pity, and more for sharing it with us and calling it art!

[tabuno]

While cinemabon complains about Atonement wallowing in self-pity, I found it just as interesting as to how some many, I assume male critics, can be so hypnotized by the equally morose and dismal demonstration of cruel and inhumane treatment of others in such movies as No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood . Just as one can complain about the internal emotional tragedy that unfolds in Atonement , one can just as easily complain about the male movie's penchant for almost insane violence and torture. The senseless and ambigious endings of both these movies have actually been praised while the ending of Atonement is relegated by cinemabon as ludicrous. One can argue that at least from the feminine perspective, Atonement does more than just offer up sound bites of news reporting and delves much more deeply into how our perceptions and past memories can result in tragic consequences. This movie instead of just entertaining us and providing more violence for violence seek, for adult greed, Atonement offers its audience, hope, redemption, and understanding. We seen one person's attempts to atone, something the other movies do not. We see how our childhood innocence can hurt but that as adults it doesn't need to be so. The other movies do not offer such a positive outlook, only destiny like condemnation to be killed by fate or by cruel mean men. If I had to choice as to which movie I would rather go see, I'd rather see Atonement for its gorgeous ability to look behind the trappings of human psychology which the other movies do not and provide its audience a much more positive hopeful and inspiration message that yes we can look at life differently, understand how one decision can have major emotional impacts in other people's lives and perhaps even with our past wrongful decisions perhaps we can emotionally heal. I can't think of a better message to provide the American public in a time of war and hate.

[Chris Knipp]

Well, cinemabon, I agree in not really liking Atonement, but not for the reasons you give. Chick flick, wallowing in misery? I don't think those are the problems. Anyway, what about schadenfreude? Observing the misery of others can be positively enjoyable. And whether they're a fun watch or not, for sure there are some really great movies (and stories) that are primarily about misery--or at least contain a heck of a lot of it, from the Odyssey to The Count of Monte Cristo on down. I don't agree with objecting to the film on those grounds or arguing that this film is " is all about wallowing in misery" or that that is "the feminine view of the world." And though there's no doubt that there is such a thing as a "chick flick," I also don't accept that as a damning category. "Chick flicks" can be great. Is Juno a "chick flick"? Evidently the long Dunkirk evacuation tracking shot isn't really "chick flick" stuff. When a "chick" writer is as good as Jane Austen, for example, such a categorization becomes silly. Are the Jane Austen films "chick flicks"? And what about horror movies, which are full of human suffering? Aren't they more "guy" flicks than "chiek flicks," yet about human misery?

There are various problems with this film's "gorgeous ability to look behind the trappings of human psychology" as tabuno calls it. The story does seek to offer the audience "hope, redemption, and understanding," as tabuno says. But the whole thing, a literary adaptation, but not spare and accurate one like the Coen's of Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men but one that's over glossy and full of unnecessary fat, like that intriguing but irrelevant long tracking shot and that noisy background of clacking typewriter keys, which tries vainly to convey that this is a tale about a writer seeking in vain to achieve atonement through the printed page. It's not, as I've said, an easy thing to turn into a film, and Joe Wright & Co. have fooled a lot of people into thinking they've done a bang-up job, but they haven't. My problem with Atonement ultimately is that it's a literary adaptation that's not successful.

[cinemabon]

My outspoken views regarding violence in cinema are well documented on this site.

Yes, Chris, I have to admit liking several "Chick Flicks" and did not mean to offer that as a criticism per se, only that the overall body of this work appeals more to women than most men. I'll admit to enjoying movies like "Sleepless in Seattle" for example, as I like Nora Ephram (? spell, too lazy to look up). I own the deluxe edition of "Pride and Prejudice" and enjoy watching it once or twice a year. I'm not trying to be a feminist or chauvanist.

Let us stop and examine; what is the message of "Atonement?" Is it redemption? I can't see how writing a novel redeems one of wrong doing. To me, the definition of atonement, (the word means making amends or reparation for wrong doing) is showing a sense of regret. Writing a novel to make money is hardly atonement. She paints the people she wronged in a light she hopes will make up for her shortcomings. However, in the end, nothing she can do will straighten the mess she created. Should we then be careful about accusing others of impropriety? Of course! Only a fool would say no! As to the lesson... there isn't one... this is a tragic tale, with no ending of any kind, either in the novel, or in real life. The tragedy goes on, everyday, whenever someone uses malicious gossip about others... one only need turn on television after 5 pm and have their ears and eyes filled with such drivel for hours. To me, Atonement is a pretty film, but a waste of time.

[Chris Knipp]

I'm glad, cinemabon, that you've withdrawn your implied disparagement of "chick flicks," but I don't see that what you say about Atonement's themes shows why you should say it's "a pretty film, but a waste of time." I wouldn't say it's "a waste of time." It's beautifully made. And it's essential to see it to find out what all the fuss is about. But the word "pretty" is appropriate because it substitutes glossy sets and epic manner for the sutleties of the novel it's based on. Atonement's, the novel's, subject is roughly the hazards of imagination and the inability of fiction to atone for real wrongdoing.

Vadim Rizov's review (http://www.thereeler.com/reviews/atonement.php) online for "The Reeler" states the shortcomings of the movie in a way I'd tend to agree with. Here's how he concludes:
If you haven't read the novel, you'll wonder if there's something missing, and there is: the sense of writing as fundamental to a sense of moral culpability and the (im)possibility of redemption. What's missing, in short, is the whole point of the book -- that writing matters, that literature is important. The titular atonement is Briony's, and it's rendered confusingly here; she grows to be a writer, polishing her work during the Blitz, but her urgency never translates to screen.

"It wasn't only wickedness and scheming that made people unhappy," Briony concludes in the book, "it was confusion and misunderstanding; above all, it was the failure to grasp the simple truth that other people are as real as you. And only in a story could you enter these different minds and show how they had an equal value. That was the only moral a story need have." McEwan's Briony grows to epiphany and clarity through her craft; the movie is about everything but the writing. A short review still can't get this quite right, though. It's a bit more compicated than that, I think. Because I don't think we're meant to accept Briony's conclusion as really valid. Or else McEwan himself is a bit confused about where it all leads.

In his first paragraph Rizov makes another point I consider essential: this really wasn't very movie-ready material in the first place (though it was a "bestseller" novel):
there's no effective way to faithfully adapt a book whose climax revolves, in part, around a rejection letter from Cyril Connolly that takes time to evaluate the positive/negative effects of Virginia Woolf on modern prose; try making that cinematic.

[cinemabon]

I would be inclined to agree with both of you. The clarity of the novel, regarding her way of arriving at atonement, which in essence is not about writing, but about the process, does not translate to screen in this instance. Had we been aware of that from the beginning, I believe the impact of the surprise aspect of her being an author at the end would be different on the audience, but the crafting of the picture would be vastly changed.

I'm glad you found that review, Chris. My wife read the novel; and while she enjoyed the film, she found it confusing and understood why I disliked it. She explained the differences regarding the plot to me, as laid out in the book versus the film. I intend to read the novel to find those differences for myself.

[tabuno]

Chris Knipp commented:


But the whole thing, a literary adaptation, but not spare and accurate one like the Coen's of Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men but one that's over glossy and full of unnecessary fat, like that intriguing but irrelevant long tracking shot and that noisy background of clacking typewriter keys, which tries vainly to convey that this is a tale about a writer seeking in vain to achieve atonement through the printed page. It's not, as I've said, an easy thing to turn into a film, and Joe Wright & Co. have fooled a lot of people into thinking they've done a bang-up job, but they haven't. My problem with Atonement ultimately is that it's a literary adaptation that's not successful. .

Ok. So Atonement didn't get nominated for best adapted screenplay by the Academy Awards. So what? Just because a movie isn't adapted well from its source material, the movie can still be judged on its own merits. There are so many movies that are based on, inspired by that even a movie such as Bladerunner can only be considered loosely based on Phillip K. Dick's novel which I felt was even better than the novel itself. The focus on a movie's ability to go from source material to the movie screen is irrelevant to me, especially since I haven't read the book and I'm not going to read the book, don't care to read it and I still enjoyed the movie - a lot. It still can win best picture on its own merits. Let the two leading favorite films split the votes since they have more in common with each other than Atonement.

[Chris Knipp]

Great. I think you'll enjoy the novel more than the movie. As I've said, I don't entirely like the novel either, but I like it much better and it makes much more sense. And I'm enough of a fan to have read all McEwan's novels to date.

It shouldn't be a "surprise" that Briony winds up as a writer. If it is, that's because the movie hasn't kept it clear that that's what she wants to do--though of course it does begin with her writing a play when she's just a young girl.

[Chris Knipp]

My previous comment was addressed to Cinemabon. Now, to tabuno, I'd just say, okay, a movie like Bladerunner is a great movie without being an exact adaptation of a Phillip K. Dick novel. But that doesn't mean that Adtonement is a great movie. And the quality of an adaptation is more significant when the novel is a good one. I don't know, I haven't read Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Sometimes for sure a loose adaptation is a good way to go. But I'm not so sure you can see Atonement as a loose adaptation of McEwan's book. It just isn't one that captures the essential qualities of the book and substitutes other things that are less satisfying and less convincing. That's my view.

I personally would advise everybody to go out and see There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men, if they haven't. Not to mention the many other terrific new movies that are still showing, such asThe Diving Bell and the Butterfly and The Savages and maybe Lars and the Real Girl and maybe in some locations Michael Clayton etc. And in the case of No Country...., I can attest that it is everything a literary adaptation needs to be, and more. It's true to the book and it's also a great movie. If it's "too violent" for you, try reading some of Cormac McCarthy's other books. But to think it's amoral or immoral is mistaken. The movie carries through the moral message of the book quite well.

You don't have to worry about that in the case of There Will Be Blood. It's an original screenplay by Anderson that takes off very loosely from Sinclair's Oil!, which not too many people would want to read anyway. Cormac McCarthy and Ian McEwan they do want to read, and those are good writers.

Oh yeah, and see Juno. That's still showing. It's not on my top list for the year but it's still a really good one. And if the screenplay owes debts to a lot of sources, it's still not an adaptation of anybody else's book, loose or otherwise.

No deal on splitting those two for a prize, tabuno, no deal at all.

[tabuno]

The Reeler review:


If you haven't read the novel, you'll wonder if there's something missing, and there is: the sense of writing as fundamental to a sense of moral culpability and the (im)possibility of redemption. What's missing, in short, is the whole point of the book -- that writing matters, that literature is important. The titular atonement is Briony's, and it's rendered confusingly here; she grows to be a writer, polishing her work during the Blitz, but her urgency never translates to screen.

"It wasn't only wickedness and scheming that made people unhappy," Briony concludes in the book, "it was confusion and misunderstanding; above all, it was the failure to grasp the simple truth that other people are as real as you. And only in a story could you enter these different minds and show how they had an equal value. That was the only moral a story need have." McEwan's Briony grows to epiphany and clarity through her craft; the movie is about everything but the writing.


I saw movie Atonement, haven't read the novel, and didn't ever wonder if there was anything missing from the movie. The movie stood on its own and answered its own question at the end. In response to "writing matters, that literature is important," a film production of the same subject matter that was available to be experienced both visually and auditorily from two different angles was brilliant and in fact for the purpose of real life was likely to be even more effective for today's visceral generation than a literary generation in the form of a book. Instead this film as opposed to book makes me believe that "Film matters, that perception is vital." What this movie is able to do that the written word cannot is to replicate and recreate and manipulate sight and sound along with intention, speculation, and belief and mix it up in an incredible craziness that became the torment lying at the center of this movie. And what happens in this movie happens in real life with real consequences. This drama re-enacted on the screen zeros in on something that we human beings do everyday and we are rewarded by looking at this movie by becoming aware of something often we blindly are unconscious of. This is an important message movie and has larger implications for that possible tragedies that occur in so many families because we just don't pay attention. As for atonement for Briony, urgency isn't part of this movie except for the idea that as an aging writer who is becoming senile, it is urgent but that is only a secondary motive for Briony to bring forth this writing at this time.

[Chris Knipp]

I saw movie Atonement, haven't read the novel, and didn't ever wonder if there was anything missing from the movie.You didn't wonder what was missing, because you didn't know what was missing.
What this movie is able to do that the written word cannot is to replicate and recreate and manipulate sight and sound along with intention, speculation, and belief and mix it up in an incredible craziness that became the torment lying at the center of this movie. That's nice, and I admire your enthusiasm for the film, but as I said above, and I'll stick to it, when a film is a literary adaptation and a close one of a book that's of literary quality, then the film has to be judged in relation to the book, whereas that can be discounted in cases like Blade Runner or There Will Be Blood. NOnetheless if I hadn't read the book, I'd still have felt uncomfortable and unsatisfied with the film. I personally found the movie as cinemabon says, "pretty" and lush and full of nice tracking shots but curiously unconvincing, and I know the reason why. This film is beautiful, because it is a skillful tissue of facades. Atonement has a lot of nominations, but unlike the other Best Picture contenders, it doesn't have one for the direction. I think it's among those nominated for best directing that you'll also find the best motion picture in the Oscars list.

[oscar jubis]

Yes, Atonement has a lot of Oscar nominations. Among them, a nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay. Only the members of the Academy who belong to the Writers Branch, who are perhaps more likely than the rest of the members to have read the source novels, are allowed to participate in choosing the nominees for Adapted Screenplay. It would seem that many who've read the book think Mr. Hampton has done a fine job of adaptation.
Here's a glowing review of Atonement by J. R. Jones, who has read the book and discusses its transfer to film: A Novel Treat (http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/moviereviews/2007/071206/)

[Chris Knipp]

It would seem that many who've read the book think Mr. Hampton has done a fine job of adaptation.
Mr. Hampton is good at adaptations. And he does what he can, well. Jones says: Hampton’s screenplay is admirably concise in dramatizing all these developments and presenting the same events from both Briony’s and the lovers’ perspectives. But the movie never really explains why all the Tallises except Cecilia would side with an impressionable girl. . .That, of course, is a key point. As I've said, the problem is that this is a book that's very difficult to adapt adequately. As Vadim Rizov says in the review I cited, an adaptation of Atonement can get at its many romantic high points but the central point about human perception and interior guilt is an extremely subtle and elusive one. And that's the central point, not just "a"point. . You may call Jones' review "glowing," but he points out key places where the book doesn't get into the film and he even ends his piece with a wistful remark about the ways novels are ininimitable:
Briony’s sudden insight explains as well as anything why the novel as a form has endured for nearly four centuries: no silver screen can rival the ones we carry inside our own heads. And earlier: "The movie fully honors the romance and tragedy of McEwan’s novel, but in the end the book is most fascinating for its self-reflexiveness:" The essential point of the novel is missing, and the grand scenery is carried to an impressive extreme to mask that shortcoming that Hampton couldn't find ways to overcome.