If this hasn't aired in U.S. yet....

I think it aired here in the U.S. only this year, though, on the premium movie channels on cable. That's where I saw it, anyway, just a few months ago.

If you think this film was non-captivating and boring, I humbly submit that you're missing the deep thread of psychological drama going on between and within these characters.

The title is a clue-- CAPTURING Mary. Someone says in an earlier post that she should have just told him he was a creep and walked away. Well, if she COULD have done so, she would have. That is the point, isn't it?

The film's focus is on how we can become obsessed with someone who HURTS us or, as in Mary's case, completely destroys her vision of reality, and maybe also on how a person like Greville can deliberately destroy her and, in the process, destroy himself. If that's not enough drama for you, then maybe this is just the wrong genre for you.

Myself, I was enthralled by this movie, riveted to the screen. It's also about the desire to free one's self from that ghost of torment, from the grip that the PAST has held on her all these years, and if you've seen Joe's Palace, then you know that Joe is precisely the fellow to help her do that. So, it is a film about damnation and redemption and Joe's choice of sacrifice, of braving the darkness to pull her out of captivity. Exquisite script, amazingly beautiful cinematography. And Maggie Smith's acting is heart-wrenching.

Now, that doesn't mean that someone else won't win the Emmy. I'm thinking that Claire Danes probably will-- all the pundits say so. And Temple Grandin was the kind of thing they like to reward at the Emmys. (I haven't see it yet, so I can't say, but I do love Claire Danes' acting.)

I am just astounded at how many people on this board have complained about this beautifully deep film. A viewer should go back to Transformers if that's what they like; there's nothing wrong with knowing what one likes and watching that.

Why should all films have to conform to "action=development"? In this film, the development is internal, purely internal. Hence so many scenes take place inside the house, in a kind of claustrophobic lighting and looming blankness of the present empty house, and significantly in the cellar (the house as an allegory of the self, making the cellar the symbol of the subconscious). But notice that at the end, when she is freed, she is outside in the expansive park, chosen precisely because it is not very wooded-- very open and airy.

There is plenty that "happens" in this movie, if you look for it, I believe. It's all underneath the surface, though, kind of like the cellar at the base of the big house. You have to be willing to go down there, to look in the cellar, to "get" this movie.

Joe is the one person who is able to "go into the cellar," so to speak (that is, see and hear about the worst actions and inclinations of humanity), and yet still retain his love for people and his faith in goodness. This seems to be the theme in "Joe's Palace" and "Capturing Mary"-- finding a way to live in this world without being broken by it.

Well, just to drop the second shoe, Claire Danes DID win the Emmy for "Temple Grandin". "Temple Grandin" won numerous Emmy's, and deservedly so. It was one of the best TV movies ever made, and is based on the life of a real and remarkable person. Every scene rang true, every actor was perfection. Claire Danes did a beautiful job with a very different, and difficult, person to portray.


Dame Maggie Smith is ALWAYS good - that is a "given". I haven't seen this movie yet, but have seen three of this director's movies so far. The first was good (The Lost Prince), based on historical fact. The second (Glorious 39) was moderately interesting and almost plausible, since there were members of the British upper class who wanted to appease Hitler -- fact -- , but the actions of the fictional family were not at all believable. It was, however, very lovely to look at.
After I saw this movie, I looked up this fellow, and thought, "who is he? Is he really so famous, and gifted?", and wondered how I had missed out on him completely. Then I watched "Gideon's Daughter". The only reason to watch this is to enjoy Bill Nighy and the wonderful Miranda Richardson, who, like Dame Maggie, is always good. The story was just trash - like something a sixth-grader made up as he went along, and told at lunchtime. Is this just me? This guy seems ever so pretentious. This is no Roman Polanski. I watched this on DVD, and I couldn't even sit through his bit at the end in the special features. I have a real 'Emporer's New Clothes" feeling about this guy. Time will tell - I see that there are people who are hot and cold on him, on the boards.

And as to who this Greville was, and if he really existed -- I had to wonder --what was the something nasty that Granny saw in the woodhouse?


Yodi