I couldnt understand why, despite being the bestselling childrens author, the film features no children reading the books at all. We dont get to see the impact of the books, the publics admiration, the word-of-mouth factor. Its strangely excluded, making it difficult to appreciate the context of her success and wealth.
I actually hated the movie and found it to be another irratingly superficial missed opportunity.
Why do we have to see children reading the books? The adults talk about gifting their grandchildren or hearing about others buying the books for their children. The adults find the books charming and I thought this was clearly stated.
The movie isn't so much about the author, but about the woman.
Team Jolie
I think thats a weak argument. If the film wants us to understand the woman, we should surely understand the context of her success. The fact that no children are present offers a stange implication that she didn't really care about her audience, just expressing her own whimsical fantasies. Just one scene of her crouching down to talk to a child about her book and smiling would have done it.
Anyhow, there are much bigger flaws in this horrible, superficial film. I don't feel it does any justice to the real woman at all, unless she wants to be remembered as one of Zellwegers cutesy pouts.
I agree with rabbitmoon. It was a strange movie. I did not like RZ at all in it.
It did make me want to read some Peter Rabbit!
The fact that no children are present offers a stange implication that she didn't really care about her audience, just expressing her own whimsical fantasies.
Regretfully agree. And I love B.P. and British movies.
shareI didn't find it strange that there were no children reading her books in the film. After all, we get to follow her life, and since there are no children in the household - what other children would she meet? Victorian social life was a privilige to adults only. Children were to stay at home, guarded by nurses, while the parents were off socializing. In fact, I found the lack of children very realistic.
shareI think saying that the lack of children made the film realistic is a bit like saying the lack of Time Travel in Star Wars made that film seem realistic. Miss Potter was a typical schmaltzy, superficial movie and could hardly be called realistic on any level. Plus, the real Miss Potter took her pet hedgehog everywhere, which the movie excluded, so its unrealistic on the old taking-hedgehogs-around-with-you front as well.
sharethe film wasn't about her sucess tho, it was about her struggle
shareI don't think the film needed children or the public's admiration to be shown. It would have made the film a bit too long for me. I felt that the 92 minutes running time was just right. We see Beatrix Potter as a child. So we see the child's fascination with the stories through her. The animals who inspired her were much more important than any children's participation in the film.
shareThere are very few children in the world these days, period.
It is a pity because they are the future.