I understand what you are saying, and I am glad you enjoyed the film as it was not having read the book or knowing the story beforehand. For the majority of the readers on this forum, we were ardent fans of the book way before the film came out and as is often the case when books are adapted to the screen, the story from the book is just incomparably better to the muted limp overly "safe" story told in the movie. I am sorry to hear that you do not care to explore the theme of homosexual relationships in films (and probably not in books either from your description), but that is totally up to you to get satisfaction out of whatever personally interests you, and to not be interested in things that other people like. The book explores countless themes, and the atypical depiction of homosexuality is one of the most prevalent over-reaching themes in the book (not just on a literal level between the physical relationship of Xas and Sobran - that lasts the entire span of Sobran's life - but also on a spiritual level that goes way beyond just the physical.) It really is quite unique and beautifully done, but clearly not for everyone.
To be honest though, what offended me the most about the adaptation was the complete lack of any type of risk taken. The book offers an unlimited supply of thought-provoking, subversive, and controversial ideas about religion, mortality, aging, family, and most of all love. It would have been impossible to tackle them all I realize, but to not even attempt a fraction of them was embarassing. I do not deny that the film had good performances and great technical achievements (cinematography, costumes, and sets were all exquisite.) But what was lacking was any command over the material. Niki Caro was just not willing to commit, and it was apparent from every reel of the film. So what was left was an amiably made film that doesn't really contain a single memorable moment, and most offensive of all, it does nothing to make a viewer want to read the original story (which is really nothing at all like the film.) I'm not saying that all films need to be shocking or transgressive to be memorable or good, but when you are adapting a book that is known to have off the wall ideas - only to avoid controversy by ignoring everything about the book that made it stand out - you really are left with a film with no real reason to be made in the first place. It reminds me off the bat of the adaptation of the Bret Easton Ellis novel "Less Than Zero" from the 80's that turned the story into an anti-drug message movie which couldn't have been farther from what that book was really about.
Since this was such a fringe under the radar story to begin with, it surprises me that the filmmakers didn't try better to satisfy the primary audience that would have been interested in the first place: the readers of the book. Obviously they may have wanted to shoot for broader appeal, but they did not achieve it in the slightest (as you can tell by the low rating and the absence of any real form distribution in any other country besides Australia/New Zealand.)
I don't want this to seem like I am attacking your valid opinion of liking the movie, I just wanted to offer a counter argument that I feel the film was devoid of any ideas that would have helped it to stand out. I admit that my reaction was handicapped going into it, since I had read the book many times (and count it as one of my favorites) but even trying to remove that while watching the film I still couldn't see anything that would be of high enough quality to satisfy me at all on either an emotional or intellectual level. But to each their own!
reply
share
Remnant_Of_The_Abyss
13 years ago
I totally understand what you've written and respect your views. If I had been a big fan of the book I'd probably be in the same camp as you and the others, and I think you've explained your position very eloquently. Hence why I prefaced my post with "I have not read the book". I sense that you appreciate my viewpoint as well, coming in with no expectations and just appreciating the movie for what it was. We just have different opinions on the matter.
You bring up some good points. I think the movie was a solid (8) according to my rating standards, but I agree it lacked certain elements which I think make a true masterpiece. Your suggestion that it take more risk is a good one. I think the "mortality, aging, family, and most of all love" subjects could have been explored more.
However I disagree that the film had a "complete lack of any type of risk taken". Coming from a heterosexual male, this movie had plenty of "risk". It's actually the first movie I've seen with a homosexual undercurrent where I could identify somewhat with the characters and not be totally repulsed by them. So in my opinion, that is a huge victory for the Director and I'm sure Caro was very much aware of this balancing act, and therefore made a conscious decision to capture the mainstream, more so than satisfy the hopes of the "primary audience" as you suggested.
reply
share
smithmr
13 years ago
Thanks for the reply. I have been on the other side of this situation so many times where I had seen a film without knowing anything about the book (or other source material) it was based on and my reactions to it were extremely different (and oftentimes much more favorable) than the reactions to fans of the original material. So I can totally understand your viewpoint, and it only makes me more intrigued that someone was even made aware of this obscure film without knowing about the book it was based on before hand. With so many films being made and released every year it is sometimes most exciting when discovering films that hardly anyone has ever heard about.
I do have to continue though in my friendly disagreement in regards to your statement that the film took plenty of risks. Once again, this is mainly because of our differences in what interests us, and I suppose to a degree our different tastes and/or comfort levels. Even if I had seen this film without reading the book, my reaction towards the way the relationship between Xas and Sobran was portrayed was that of totally confused sloppy plotting without any trace of believable chemistry(in either a platonic or romantic level.) To me it seemed like that plotline was put through some kind of overly-conservative strainer and their relationship was jumbled together (censored) in such an inorganic way. I can understand that in your view it just hit the right button without going too far into a territory that would have repulsed and/or offended you. Each person has their own threshold for what themes/images/etc. they are able to witness without crossing their comfort level - and this is just something that cannot be universally agreed upon, obviously.
For me, I don't actively seek to be shocked/disturbed/aroused/whatever, but I hope to at least be moved or to want to give a film further thought. I honestly feel this film failed that challenge, since its true intentions were compromised, and the path that was regrettably chosen paled in comparison to what could've been. This is not a slight against you, or others, that do not like more transgressive material - but I cannot accept the way filmmakers chose to interpret this material - it feels to me like it was being white-washed or muted down in a reactive and backwards-thinking way. I have no idea why Niki Caro would have chosen this boundary-pushing book to adapt on film, only to take out almost all the elements that made the story so ambitious, mysterious, and unique. A simple parable about making wine was not at all what this story should have been, but that is really all that comes across since all the other ideas in the film were not presented in a coherent way. I really don't think this film was able to create a balance that captured the mainstream's interest - in my eyes this was a mediocre bore that looked nice and had decent acting performances, but was constructed in an unclear and suffocating way. I don't feel like this movie was alive with emotions, or instilled with deep philosophical ideas (like the book) - and the character developments were laughable (why was Celeste younger than her daughter?) But this is just my opinion, and as you can tell I am deeply passionate about it (and overly wordy - sorry ;^P) but I am also excited that someone out there found the film somehow without knowing what it could've been, and found the time to respond on IMDb that they did actually enjoy the film for what it was.
reply
share
Remnant_Of_The_Abyss
13 years ago
Nice post. I'm not going to comment because I see exactly where you are coming from, and everything you've stated is very reasonable.
reply
share
inqueling
12 years ago
Wow, I had some interest in seeing this before it was released; with the DVD release my interest was piqued again. Guess my original inclination was correct and I'll pass on this one--again.
I totally agree with you that personal visions are fine as long as they TRY to be as bold as their source material. I, for one, would've loved to see Paul Greenglass' post-9/11 Watchmen. Books will never be films and by the same token, books will never be destroyed by a bad adaptation.
NC may very well consider herself a secular humanist or an atheist, but she is as rigid and dogmatic as any fundamentalist and has too little imagination to be wasting time and effort (and other people's money) with independent films.
**A jaunt over to NC's upcoming project bears this out. A Disney-funded feel-good sports drama in the vein of Miracle, Remember the Titans, We are Marshall, (should I keep going?) The Sandlot, Chariots of Fire, The Mighty Ducks, Little Giants, The Blind Side...okay this is tiring. Don't get me wrong, some of those are very good--for varied reasons--but Disney has gotten ESPECIALLY good at this formula over the years--they seem to pump one out whenever they feel America could use an infusion of "good old-fashioned hope". It's very easy for such movies to become mawkish and sentimental. Can she rein it in if it coincides with her belief system? We'll see.
reply
share
gothduo
11 years ago
Thank you for putting this so perfectly. As another fan of the book I actually ended up enjoying the movie more than I thought I would, but that's still not saying much. Niki Caro took a book with these huge, gorgeous, daring takes on theology and all the messiness and beauty of life, and made...a really pretty and kind of disjointed movie about winemaking. What got left in is nice to look at, but it's such a pale imitation of the book that it makes me rather sad about what it could have been - and it also makes me wonder what on earth Caro was thinking to take on a project like that, only to cut out such large swathes of what makes The Vintner's Luck unique in the first place.
reply
share