i think this great movie, its sweet pictures and happy ending are highly ironical. a euthanasia which can never be justified, is accepted by everyone, including us. selling the child is accepted even by the child herself... any idea?
shareI don't think it's supposed to be realistic. More like a dream or fantasy.
shareyes because if that was real, Amy would not look that well given the circumstances.
shareyes because if that was real, Amy would not look that well given the circumstances.
Yes, also considering in that day and time.
http://fathersloveletter.com/fllpreviewlarge.html
and what is even more ironic was what happened to Connie. She went from being the female head of the household to a penniless woman without a home, which is what the governess had been.
I really enjoyed this movie. What about the writer missing the boat on the most glaring of the all the "firelight"- opening the windows, pulling back Amy's bedding etc all would've been forgotten etc had blown out the lamps and done all this by firelight prior to his cooling the embers. As far as how "good" Amy looked- I would have like her to have been alittle more "dolled up" but that would have pused the tone into Psycho/Baby Jane territory. Also, (and I know this is the nittiest of picky and I adore Kevin Anderson but) anyone from Ohio in 1830 would have anything BUT a midwestern accent. There was no midwestern accent in 1830. All the caucasians were immigrants. There I said it.
The early 19th century seems to have been a cruel time for everyone-both he and she being held responsible for their parents debts while the parents were alive. Surrogate mothers used in that way seems awful but on par with the desparation of the time as does the euthanasia of the wife. It didn't seem like there were many options for any of them.
I know this is almost seven years later, but the American WOULD have had an American accent. We don't speak the Queen's English because it didn't exist at the time of the American Revolution. They changed. We didn't.
sharei feel bad for Connie she had been in love with Charles for a long time and then in comes this beautiful governess who steals his heart.That had to hurt
shareI've taken care of people who are in comas. Depending apon the person's general health at the time they go into a coma, how it is over a period of time, how well they are taken care of, and how they are able to accept food (remember, Amy may have been able to eat, just not talk or take in what was going on around her. There are many types of comas depending on the part of the brain injured), Amy was believable to me.
shareOne irony is that it was their respective father's debt that brought Charles and Elizabeth together twice.
As for the euthanasia, I think the position of the audience is irrelevant. In the film, it is clear that Charles and Elizabeth saw it as a crime. And the acceptance I saw was in the fact that they had committed a capital sin. It's interesting that their guilt was in 2 fronts: for the crime and manipulation (the way I see it Charles precipitated the liquidation of the estates and got rid of it before he really had to) and for not being sorry to be together at last. So their happily-ever-after will be a tainted one.
Louisa's easy acceptance of being sold (for a fortune to boot by her poor mother) is not farfetched. Kids' logic and interpretation are not as complicated as adults'. Louisa has always longed for a mother. She had already started to bond with Elizabeth. She understood about poverty (having even taunted Elizabeth about it.) And lastly, she had read Elizabeth's journal before confronting her so she knew Elizabeth loved her, never forgot her, and kept looking for her.
In all that was a lovely film and now among my all time favorite.
[deleted]
The movie does not indicate that Charles hastily disposed of the Estate. Remember the scene where the Men in Black came to take inventory to make sure that nothing was taken away before their eviction?It's not stated specifically but there were some subtle clues into that I think. I believe the trigger was during the dialog by the lake, when Charles expresses his wish to leave it all and asks Elizabeth if she would go away with just him and Louisa. When she reminds him that he can't leave because of his duty to family, estates, and wife, he murmurs something like "I don't think I can bear it." When Charles returns from town after meeting the debt collectors, he seems oddly aloof and a bit forced with Connie but exchanges a loaded look with Elizabeth (those 2 communicated a lot with their eyes.) In any case, his was not a look of a man upset after loosing his estates. Then there was the scene after the funeral when Elizabeth anguishes on how her desire had destroyed Charles' wife, home, and world.
I have to say that for me the biggest tragedy and sin was the charade inflicted on the child for the "honor" of the vegetative wife ....In the Victorian era, honor, and propriety was very important, so it should not be judged with our contemporary eyes. We can however judge Charles’ lousy parental skills. Elizabeth came about at the nick of time to save her daughter. As for the number of dresses Louisa had, to be fair there was not much variety of clothing with the other characters either. I think it’s more a movie budget issue. I read that costumes for those era period films are expensive.
[deleted]
It is obvious that we both are quite taken by this very fine movie and have analyzed it carefully. Sometimes we come from different perspectives.
Louisa is a poor, lonely girl, growing up in an almost hostile environment. Her only close attachment is her father, who unfortunately can't give her the attention she both wants and requires, because he's always having to go and clean up the messes left around by his own father. The only other friend that Louis would seem to have is the Mr. Ames, since she's pick up so much on his speech patterns: 'Bugger away Lady, bugger away!'
From that clue alone, it would seem that she spends a lot of time with him, and/or at least around him. There must be some attachment between them, because men who engage in husbandry are usually more sensitive to the feelings of those within their charge. He is both secure and knowlegable in his world, and therefore doesn't feel the need to put on airs to bolster his ego. It would be natural therefore for him to assume a sort of 'Uncle' role for her, and to look upon her as a sort of niece.
As for her, he's obviously a close friend and associate of her fathers, and therefore one to look up to, and respect.
As for the women of the house, for them she has naught but scorn. They DO feel the need to bolster their meager egos by scorning her as a foundling and a charity ward of the Master. She, in her emotional self-defense, returns their feelings ten-fold, regarding them as 'Servants' whose opinion is of no account!
These are my insights, they may not be completely correct, but I've been thinking about this for a long time. This movie is more than just a movie, it's an Opus Dei of the first rank!
Yours truly,
David P. Hoadley
My Gallery: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/member.php?my_gallery
[deleted]
Dear Dorisa;
Watching this movie is like PEELING an onion! There are just SO many layers to it, it's incredible! The more I peel away, the more I discover that I haven't YET discovered!! I truly doubt that my own CGI graphic retelling of the story will even come CLOSE to William Nicholson's original, but it's still fun to do. See my latest installment in my gallery below.
Yours truly,
David P. Hoadley
My Gallery: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/member.php?my_gallery
[deleted]
Actually I did make a separate thread of Bratty Louisa following your recommendation. Not very familiar with the works of Flaubert, as I generally stick to either English or American authors. I haven't even read Jules Vern. I am thinking also that Charles Godwin is a sort of Male Lady Chatterley, seeking a surrogate to fulfill him in the ways that his permanently disabled spouse in unable to: especially in propagation.
Not quite sure what is meant by the phrase: "Madame Bovary, c'est moi."
I wouldn't say that Elizabeth is the perfect woman. She seems to me to be human enough, posessed with both strengths and vulnerabilities. In many ways, she reminds me of a female John Thornton, from Elizabeth Gaskell's (another Elizabeth) novel: North & South.
More of your thoughts on this matter will be appreciated.
DPH
PS: Renderosity membership is Free, trust me, there is nothing to be feared by it. -And it has a very lively forum, and with moderators who insist on maintaining civility! As Elizabeth said: "I like it!"
My Gallery: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/member.php?my_gallery
[deleted]
Dear Dorisa;
Well, in my gallery, the last few of my pics have been devoted to Firelight, and/or Jane Eyre, and/or North & South. I've got a portrait of Stephen Dillane, where I try to clone his face onto one of my CG figures in Poser, the same with Sin'ead Cusack, and Richard Armitage. But then, in my version of the retelling of Firelight, I also trying to incorporate these other figures into the story.
If you're interested, I'll be happy to outline my ideas more for you, and to hear your ideas too.
'perfect woman=abstract Madonna'.: Not really into Madonna, the most unvirginal virgin I ever heard and/or saw perform on stage: "Just like a virgin, touched for the very Fiiiirst time! A viiiiiirgin..."
Not my cup of tea! Read one of your posts on the Classic Music Forum, and downloaded Ravel's Bolero to see if it was really a sexual metaphor: rather than an o***sm though, I saw tanks clashing in battle! Go figure!
Yours truly,
David P. Hoadley
My Gallery: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/member.php?my_gallery
[deleted]
I love Firelight, and I want to retell the story, that's why I'm doing the image serial in my gallery at Renderosity. I thought though that it's be fun to interleave some of the characters from other period stories into the plot of Firelight, as long as they don't distract too widely from the basic story. Thus I thought to use John Thornton of Milton (North & South) instead of John Taylor of Ohio. Instead of Buying sheep, he comes to buy raw wool for his cloth weaving mill. I was also thinking of changing the name of Milton to Milcote, and thus connect with Jane Eyre also (Mr. & Mrs. Rochester as guest at the Winter Ball that Lord Clair throws at the Manor House?). It's be interesting to create a scene where the two Governesses juxtapose and measure each others' mettle. Any thoughts or comments of yours will be most welcome.
Yours truly
David P. Hoadley
My Gallery: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/member.php?my_gallery
[deleted]
Dear Dorisa;
Actually your commentary confirms much of my own thoughts, even though you seem to think otherwise, so again, I think that we are of twin minds here!
Any movie that glamorizes the South at the time of slavery is foreign to me, unless totally artistic and perfect.
[deleted]
Hey Dorisa ... reading this thread.
North and South is not about the American North and South. It is about the turning of the times in England from the "idyllic" Regency era (I'm referring to the upper class) to the hardness of the Industrial Age. It is depicted by a girl and her family moving from the beautiful idyllic south of England to a hard mill town in the north. Thus, North and South.
To be fair, I thought exactly this same thing when I first heard of the movie. And I do hope you see it. It is quite an excellent movie. The main actor in particular. And not just for his looks. His acting was astounding.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Well Jane? Are you overwhelmed?"
~Mr Rochester
Jane Eyre 2006
I would be very happy just keeping the book "'Firelight':
deconstructed and reconstructed"..
A more 'Commercially Sexy" title would be your challenge .. ah
The relationship between mother and child is just one more point where the film fails the reality check.
If a child is told that is has been sold, it is likely to be shocked, to cry, to accuse the uncaring mother: "Why did you do this?", and to run away. It is most unlikely to smile and say: "I am glad it was a lot", to crawl into your arms and tenderly call you: "Mama".
This scene doesn't convince me, it's a quick happy ending at the cost of credibility.
One of the reasons why, much as I liked the film in many respects, I can impossibly rate it higher than 8/10.
This scene doesn't convince me,...
I thought it was great
"The Lord Commander of Kingsguard Gabste of house Musgood"
Louisa had seen her mother's watercolor book, so she knew that her mother loved her, missed her and was searching for her. Louisa also knew that her father was married to the "sick lady." So she knew there was an obstacle to her parents being together. She understood poverty, and initially taunted Elisabeth with the fact that she was poor. Louisa understood who had leverage in their world and who did not. The sensibility of those times on illegitimacy was not the same as that which has developed only in the last couple of decades - had Elisabeth kept Louisa, they might have starved. Louisa likely understood that, too. I thought that all of this psychology was very well established. Perhaps because the director is a screenwriter.
What was missing was Louisa confronting her father on why he separated her from her mother. That was thinly addressed. All we are left with is Louisa realizing that the sick lady was the obstacle. Though if Charles was motivated to pay a surrogate when he realized that his wife's condition was hopeless, you might think he would have shut off the fire much earlier.
[deleted]
It was a different time. Maybe back then it was less outrageous to sell kids.
share