The basis of the fictional film is
the decidedly non-fictional life of Bea Miles, a busker in Sydney,
Australia whose unique form of street entertainment was Shakespearian
soliloquies. She became well known in Sydney, and she was able to
survive off the contributions earned by her eccentric performances.
Perhaps everyone knows of such a person. When in lived in London in
the early 90's, and made the walk every day from Waterloo station to
Shell-Mex House across the Thames, I passed the trumpet lady every day
on my way to the upper level of Waterloo Bridge. She performed (and
probably lived) in the bowels of the bridge, an environment which gave
her shelter from the elements and, just as important for her act,
great acoustics. Her impersonation of a trumpet echoed resoundingly
through the cavernous structure, and she could be heard for hundreds
of yards.
Bea Miles was the Sydney version of
the Trumpet Lady. She was the Shakespeare Lady.
Perhaps you've wondered where those
people come from. Were they normal children from normal homes? At one
point did they detach from the behavior limitations that govern the
rest of us? A novelist named Kate Grenville wondered about Bea, and
while "Lilian's Story" did not stay faithful to the facts of Bea's
life, it represented an interesting reconstruction of how she might
have come to be there, presumably synthesizing many such stories into
a single fictional character.
|
|
It is a good film with no artificial
happy turns of events, although it suffers in comparison to Shine,
which covers much of the same ground. Lilian's story is kind of the
grade b Shine, in that:
- it just isn't as luminously
well filmed, even though Kieslowski's D.P. worked on the
project. The flashbacks are all presented through an amber tint
which is quite an ugly shade of yellow, and which was completely
unnecessary. Why did the director think we needed to have the
old period in yellow? It was obvious that the young girl and
woman were Lilian 40+ years ago, and the yellow tint was nothing
but an aesthetic horror.
- in the same way that Shine was
filled out with piano music, Lilian's Story is filled out with
Shakespearian monologues. But David Helfgott, although unusual,
was a genius who won competitions. Lilian was a dotty street
performer who knew the words. I never got tired of good
Rachmaninoff in Shine, but I sure got tired of mediocre
Shakespeare in Lilian's story. In addition, music can act as
background to action, thereby allowing the pace to maintain
itself. Lilian's recitations simply stopped the forward movement
of the film until they were done.
|
The
Critics Vote
|
The People
Vote ...
- With their
votes ... IMDB summary: IMDB readers say an
astronomical 8.6, but based on very few votes. Apollo has
only two voters for this film. The score is thus
meaningless.
- with their dollars ... $1200 !
That's it. Americans didn't exactly take it to heart.
|
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, this film is a C+. Many good elements, tainted by
very slow-moving sections. In my opinion, the film has too many
Shakespearian recitations.
|
|