Early 1920s, London - and Vita-Sackville West (member of the 'Bloomsbury set' of dilettantes - played here by Gemma Arterton) wishes to ingratiate herself with author Virginia Woolf (Elizabeth Debicki) and puts herself in the writer's presence. They hit it off and you don't have to wait that long before they're away together and engaging in some rumpy-pumpy, the suspecting Woolf husband aware of his wife's inclinations. while Vita has more of a carefree, butterfly persona. Social gatherings abound with much lah-di-dah talk, most of which I found quite uninteresting. The film leads up to Woolf's writing of what was to be regarded as her masterwork, 'Orlando', the gender-fluid title character being based on Vita, evincing disapproving noises from certain quarters.
I think it helps maybe a bit if you're familiar with the novel 'Orlando' - there's also the 1992 film with Tilda Swinton in the title role. That book and 'To the Lighthouse' are the only novels of V.Woolf which I've read.
I found the film, notwithstanding the inauspicious conditions I watched it in, quite non-captivating, even boring. It took all my effort to keep my eyelids up.
A curious, rather exasperating, feature is that most of the indoor scenes (very little shot outside) are dimly lit (often candlelight), washing out what little colour there is. That also didn't help much in maintaining interest.
I've no doubt that the intentions of the film (director Chanya Button) were honourable, but dear me, it was a slog! However, as I infer, I might have had a higher opinion of it had I watched it in better circumstances where attention to the screen was not distracted by the unfavourable conditions. I think it's really one for fans of that period and of Virginia Woolf in particular.............4.5.
(IMDb..............5.3 - Rott.Toms (critics only)................5.42/10)
None for ages then two in quick succession Ray! Rachel didn't think too highly of this one either so between the two of you I will give this one a miss.
ReplyDeleteCould be another one tomorrow, Carol, this time not pre-booked so we'll see - or not, as the case may be.
DeleteI've always struggled with Virginia Woolf. I want to say that I like her work but, frankly, I'd be lying. However, this post does give me the opportunity to boast that I once chatted up Vita Sackville-West (not that one, the current one) at a party (c.1979), and she was thoroughly delightful. Definitely no intention of seeing this film though.
ReplyDeleteReassuring to read that you also have difficulty with V.W.'s works, Chris. With both books of hers which I've read ('Lighthouse' twice) I found it hard to get a handle on her style. Too nebulous for me to fully appreciate. But not to be deterred, I'll soon be giving 'Orlando' another go.
DeleteIf this film was anything to go by it was Vita who had the more attractive, bubbly, devil-may-care personality. Sounds like it might have been passed down.
Nebulous is precisely the right word. I always need to hear "the voice" of the character/writer talking to me as I read, and I can never make out Woolf's voice. Even worse, I sense I can hear the wrong voice, which really puts me off! Does that make sense?
ReplyDeleteOf course we all know by now that V.W. had mental difficulties/challenges and this film doesn't shy away from those. Maybe that at least partly accounts for her hard-to-pin-down way of writing and critics are too well mannered to even mention it.
Delete