Now we have two
difficulties:
- In the course of the
investigation, Fiennes and Moore come together again, which means
that Fiennes himself is now being investigated by the operatives
of the very detective agency he hired to follow Moore. Since the
street detective and the representative in the office are two
different men, nobody is aware at first that the man they are
reporting to and they man they are reporting about are the same
man!
- More important, when Moore got
back with Fiennes, she thereby broke her promise to God. God is
not particularly happy about this. Not content simply to let her
be tormented by her guilt, he decides to strike her down
immediately with a fatal disease, even though she is obviously a
good person.
The final act of the play occurs when
Moore dies. The detective who had been following Fiennes and Moore met
Fiennes at Moore's funeral, and told him an amazing story. One day,
the detective's son had been helping him tail Moore. The boy fell
asleep at his post, and was actually awakened by Moore herself, who
gave him some money and led him to the Underground. The boy had a
severe skin disease on his left cheek. Moore touched him gently on the
left cheek, and the boy was cured!
Obviously, God knew that Moore was a
saintly and good person despite her broken promise.
|
DVD info from Amazon.
Widescreen anamorphic,
1.78:1
Full-length director
commentary
full-length
commentary by Julianne Moore
Making-of featurette
|
|
I'm not really into the whole guilt
and punishment and miracle part of the story, but what I liked were
the subtle and human touches. When the husband found out about
Fiennes' real relationship with his wife, they all worked it out
sensibly. Moore was obviously a deeply religious person, racked with
guilt over her adultery, and she still loved her husband even though
they had no passion together, and she still loved Fiennes deeply after
they broke up. When Moore got fatally ill, the husband and Fiennes took
turns caring for her. When she died, the two of them became best of friends,
joined by something more powerful than that which separated them. 90%
of the film carries a mood of resigned sadness, loss, and spiritual
pain, and who better to play the husband than Steven Rea, that
infinitely world-weary actor who specializes in resignation. I also
enjoyed the performance by Ian Hart as the deferential but determined
detective.
The movie is beautifully
photographed, and was nominated for an Oscar for best
cinematography.
This tear-jerker is not everyone's
cup of tea, but it is a beautifully mounted interpretation,
beautifully acted, and I liked everything about it except the damned
miracle. By the way, there was a 1955 movie made from the same popular
novel, which was written in 1951.
|
TUNA'S THOUGHTS
|
It was hard to
sort out my feelings about this film. One of the reviewers at
IMDB said it was probably the best film that could be made from
the novel. I probably agree with that. The settings and costumes
were very appropriate for the period and location (WW II
England), and soft focus and subdued lighting were used for
atmosphere. The technique was effective, but not much help for
capping.
Warning: Spoiler Ahead
The story is a simple one. Julianne Moore is married to a
Govt. official, but it is a sexless arrangement. She has an
affair with a friend/neighbor who is researching her husband for
material for a book. When he is caught in a bomb blast and seems
dead, she begs God to save him, and promises to end the affair
in return. God keeps up his end, and she tries for two years to
keep up hers. Meanwhile, the author feels it was his jealousy
that drove her away and becomes very bitter. They meet again,
and the author hires a Private Eye to find out who she is
cheating with now. He discovers the truth, and falls in love
with her all over again. Unfortunately, she is terminally ill
with some un-named coughing disease.
End spoiler
Several things detracted from the enjoyment of this film for
me. First, the sexual interludes were scattered throughout in a
series of flashbacks, which kept them from developing any sort
of sexual energy. Second, neither the author nor the husband
were very likable. Third, the "miracle" at the end (she kisses
the Private Eye's son on a strawberry birthmark that completely
covers one side of his face, and it goes away after her death)
was a little over the top for me, and not necessary to the
story. Last, there was a serious continuity problem. She was
baptized Catholic by her mother who was Catholic, but was not
raised in the church because her father was Jewish. After her
death, the priest she had been seeing said that she could have
been given a Catholic burial because "the church recognizes
baptism of desire."
For those who are not familiar with Catholic Doctrine, here is a
brief explanation:
1) You become a Catholic by being baptized. 2) There are three
kinds of baptism; water, blood and desire. 3) Water involves
pouring, sprinkling or submersion, and someone saying the proper
words: "I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son and the
Holy Ghost." 4) Blood covers those martyrs who gave their life
for the church before they could be baptized. 5) Desire is the
catch-all that makes every sincere person a Catholic. If you
admit the existence of God, and desire to do everything
necessary for salvation, you have a baptism of desire and are a
Catholic. Given that she had seen the priest several times, and
that she would have been asked by him about baptism in the first
meeting, the priest would never have mentioned baptism of
desire, as she already had the baptism of water. |
|
The
Critics Vote
|
The People
Vote ...
- With their
votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters
score it 7.3, Apollo users 68/100
- With their
dollars ... it bombed, both in America and the UK. Made
for $23 million, it grossed only $10 million in the USA,
and about another $5 million in the UK.
|
IMDb
guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of
excellence, about like three and a half stars
from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm
watchability, about like two and a half stars
from the critics. The fives are generally not
worthwhile unless they are really your kind of
material, about like two stars from the critics.
Films under five are generally awful even if you
like that kind of film, equivalent to about one
and a half stars from the critics or less,
depending on just how far below five the rating
is. My own
guideline: A means the movie is so good it
will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not
good enough to win you over if you hate the
genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an
open mind about this type of film. C means it will only
appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover
appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you
like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if
you love the genre. F means that the film is not only
unappealing across-the-board, but technically
inept as well.
Based on this
description, Scoopy says, "This film is a C+. Excellent period romantic drama.
If you like weepy-ass dyin' woman movies, bring out an extra
box of Kleenex for this one, because it is the
state-of-the-art in that sub-genre. Constant rain and fog,
kisses under umbrellas, innumerable farewells, achingly
beautiful images, hangdog expressions, punishment from God
himself, and Steven Rea. Nearly the perfect recipe for a
severe depression, lacking only Juliette Binoche to complete
the great mandala of sadness." Tuna says,
"All in all, I would say that it is a
well-made film (other than the continuity error I noted
above), and I enjoyed what was achieved technically, but I
didn't relate to the story or the characters. C."
|
|