Never having seen the 1970 Don Siegel/Clint Eastwood film of this title - my recollection is that although I was aware of it coming out at the time, it didn't get a wide general release - I didn't have any preconceptions about this new version, which is partly based on that earlier film as well as on the original novel by Thomas Culinnan. Director of this new version, Sofia Coppola, has taken both sources and fashioned, in my view, a product of some distinction.
In any case, with two of my current favourite actors, Colin Farrell and Nicole Kidman as the leads (both as good as one could hope), I would never have resisted seeing this, and I'm glad it turned out as pleasing as it did. (Quite a number of reviews I've seen are damning, on the "boring!" line). It's true that there's little dramatic action for the first two thirds of its 90 minutes, an hour that is completely devoid of any music (apart from a couple of songs in subdued fashion) and with no sound effects. When they come it's all sensibly understated as to be hardly noticeable.
It's a couple of years after the start of the American Civil War, and Colin Farrell, a Unionist corporal, is found wounded in the woods by one of the half-dozen pupils of a small residential girls' school in Virginia (actually shot in Louisiana). He is taken in by the girls under the instruction of head Nicole Kidman who nurses his leg wound and keeps his location secret to the outside world (a passing troop of soldiers). Among the school staff is also Kirsten Dunst. There's much submerged sexual feelings among both the elder female players and Farrell, but it's not over-played at all - only the occasional very slight suggestion of a smile. Kidman, all the while, tries to maintain a starchy, governess-like, no-nonsense mien.
One can imagine jealousies arising among the females, with their hopes and expectations of being the object of Farrell's attentions - and resentments when it's discovered where they actually are directed.
Photography is just stunning - nearly all in whites, ochres, sepias and browns - sun's rays filtered through leafy tree branches (which was the sort of scene one saw a lot in photographs which used to grace L.P. sleeves - e.g. 'Pastoral Symphony'), but it's not out of keeping with the sultry, pent-up mood of the first hour or so.
Criticism has been made of Coppola's decision to excise out of the story a significant, and the only, non-white character. All the participants in this film are white. That complaint may well be justified - this is, after all, the Civil War! But I didn't find the omission distracting.
The film for me was engaging throughout, including the first hour where very little happens. It's beautiful to look at and, not knowing the story, I was intrigued as to where it would go next and how it would end.
This is the fifth of Sofia Coppola's films that I've seen, 'Lost in Translation' included, of course. But I do think that 'The Beguiled' is her best to date.......................7.5.
6 hours ago
I went to see this yesterday Ray but have had no time nor much inclination to write anything about it. Unfortunately I am one of those who found it boring and lacking in substance and rather shallow. I thought the repeated same shot of the plantation house was as if they were on a money saving exercise in making the film! So on this occasion we must agree to differ! Thank you for the review. One thing I do agree about is the fine acting of Colin Farrell and Nicole Kidman, in fact the whole cast were without fault.
ReplyDeleteFair enough. Rachel. I realised as I was watching that it wouldn't be everyone's cuppa - and your opinion of it being a bore is probably the most frequent anti comment and, believe it or not, I can see why. But the atmosphere of the piece drew me in, and I did find it visually sumptuous. The actual 'plot' as such was hardly a anything new, and the devices used to convey it was a well-trod path. But, as I say, it captivated me, and that's why I think in my terms it deserves a rating in the upper reaches of my scale.
DeleteFor a film that was only 92 minutes in length it is amazing that for the first hour (I didn't time it but it seemed interminable) nothing much at all happened. I just sat fidgeting and yawning. As I am only a recent returnee film goer I did not find the plot particularly predictable or the ending which I thought was as if the director was suddenly in a hurry to end it. (I had no idea of the story line before I went).
DeleteVery much like the original rachel
DeleteI read the book last week, and am slightly dismayed to hear that the one black character was omitted! I do love Nicole Kidman and Colin Farrell though. I kept waiting for a dramatic ending, and to me, the actual ending fell a little flat.
ReplyDeleteThe ending could have been forecast with some ease, Jennifer. In fact one can almost call it a cop-out. But you'd have to agree, I think, that there was ten times (at least) more drama in the final 25 mins than in the hour+ that had gone before. Whether that is a weakness depends on one's own interpretation, of course.
DeleteYes, the omission of that single character was odd, though there was an interview with Sofia C on the radio when she attempted to justify it that seemed convincing - well, only just.
Now I hated the original.....which was a bore from start to finish......so I think I shall pass on this one as the story IS somewhat pedestrian
ReplyDeleteI'm keener now to see the Siegel 1970 version than I was before, if only for comparison purposes.
DeleteI am quite the Colin Farrell fan but not sure that is enough for me to see this one...We are off this weekend to see The Big Sick. I am looking forward to it.
ReplyDeleteBeen thinking of you and your gang. Hope you are feeling better.
'Big Sick' not here yet, nor any trailers, though there have been newspaper ads. Not sure about seeing it, but one never knows.
DeleteStill painfully missing my little late friend every single day and numerous times through each day, Elle. The reminders are all over the place. But what can one do but soldier on? Thanks for your thoughts.
I'm with you, Raybeard, Nicki Kidman and Colin Farrell are worth the slow pace.
ReplyDeleteWithout those two I may well have found this as dull as others are already saying it is, Bob. Their presences have made what seems to be a critical, positive difference.
DeleteRay,
ReplyDeleteThis story sounded intriguing but after reading some of your commenters reviews I'll pass on this film. Unlike many others, I don't care for Nicole "Mumble" Kidman or Colin "Unibrow" Farrell, both too self involved actors for my taste. And for the life of me I don't understand why film makers insist on casting foreigners (British and Irish) to play Civil War characters. What? There aren't enough American actors?
Thanks for your heads up review because I was going to rent "Beguiled" from Netflix.
Ron
Split opinions on this, Ron - but if your not a fan of Kidman and Farrell then there's 'only' the pretty pictures to attract you but, I must say that a lot of them really are stunningly beautiful. Anyway, as t doesn't seem to be your 'cuppa' then avoiding it is probably best.
DeleteWe are going tonight
ReplyDeleteบอลพรุ่งนี้
Hope you're on the side of the 'likers', P.S. There are just as many on the other side.
DeleteI'm with you, Raybeard, Nicki Kidman and Colin Farrell are worth the slow pace.
ReplyDeleteทางบ้าน
It helps when, like you, we appreciate them no matter what film they're in. They never disappoint.
DeleteVery nice post.really I apperciate your blog.Thanks for sharing.keep sharing more blogs.
ReplyDeleteโคนัน
Thanks to you, K.
Delete