MovieChat Forums > Birdsong (2012) Discussion > Who has voted this 9 or 10? - Members of...

Who has voted this 9 or 10? - Members of the cast and production team???

posted 12 years ago by SJCass
22 replies | jump to latest

The voting on this is ridiculous. So many of the messages on this board echo my sentiments that this production is awful. The acting is awful, the screenplay is awful. Why are so many people saying it is awful and yet the majority of people are voting it 8 and up? The only answer can be that people involved in producing this are voting for it. Redmayne's performance made me feel sick, in the romantic scenes he acted like a leering, open-mouthed pervert. But presumably that was partly down to the dumb script. I just can't get my head round who is voting for this rubbish.

[–] sense_ofplace 12 years ago

Hiya,

I rated it an 8, because I thought it was just superb. I was in no way affiliated with the production :).

I think people tend to be a bit more forthcoming with criticism than praise on message-boards.. and maybe in life generally too?

[–] lmaalmen 12 years ago

Me! And I was not affiliated with it... Just thought it was beautiful. :)

[–] nubbytubbybiatchesgalore 12 years ago

production - 9
acting - 9
screenplay - 9
your post - 2

[–] cbrugette 12 years ago

Art Direction - 9

Costumes - 10

Acting - 8

Direction - 3

Screenplay - 1 1/2

[–] LachieMohr 12 years ago

Yes I think that's about right though maybe a bit generous on the acting score for the two leads. It seems that the producers ran out of patience on finding a director who would work without control of the script (URL provided by someone else here) http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/birdsong-an-epic-in-the-making-1640030.html. In the end they went cheap: Philip Martin, a BBC odd-job director, and took the screenplay as it was by the woman who botched The Iron Lady.

Am I the only one who had trouble following the dialogue - mumble diction and poor sound pick-up?

[–] nubbytubbybiatchesgalore 12 years ago

agree completely about the mumbled diction, though i think it was the lead actress alone (the one from in burges) which merits criticism. i thought the male lead was excellent, as were the supporting performances (jospeh mawle in particular)

[–] grayure 10 years ago

I also had trouble with the dialogue. I found the first episode involving but during the second, like some entrenched soldier during a stalemate, I almost lost the will to live. 'When will something happen?' I kept wailing to my partner - but he had already given up.

[–] alanpuzey 7 years ago

No - I too had the exact same trouble with the dictionand general sound quality. One of the best books I've read, shame about the film ...............

[–] cjluna-1 12 years ago

I just rated this an 8 as well. I knew nothing about this production (nor the story or book) and am just waiting for Sherlock to start on Masterpiece Mystery. I thought this was filler until then so decided to watch it. I LOVED it. It was superb. The acting was superb. SJCass - you do not know what you're talking about.

[–] Seymour-Pats 12 years ago

I gave it a 7.

Screenplay: 2 in Part I; 8 in Part II
Acting: 4 in Part I; 9 in Part II
Directing: 3 in Part I; 8 in Part II
Costumes: 7 in both
Score: 9 (I thought it was lovely and perfectly timed)

Basically, I thought Part I was a hot mess.

1. The flashbacks didn't convey any of the emotions of the two leads - they basically just stared blankly at the camera.
2. The flashbacks weren't sufficient to show how their feelings progressed, and how they tried to fight them, or show the problems with the husband. The affair really didn't seem like anything more than two bored young people stuck in a house.
3. The flashbacks were interspersed with war-time scenes without Stephen, which didn't make sense. If we were seeing his flashback, we should have been seeing him before the flashback.
4. Isabelle was miscast. The character is actually very complicated, so staring blankly at the camera didn't cut it. Also, the character is supposed to be nine years older than Stephen, which makes her decision to leave make more sense. I thought the actor had much better chemistry with the actress playing Jeanne, and since she was a little bit older than the actress playing Isabelle, I think she would have fit the character better.

I think the only things that saved Part I were the supporting performances.

I thought Part II was wonderful. I thought it was well-executed and poignant. I thought the scene of them marching into battle was magnificent. And in Part II, the lead actor really found his way, and the great supporting actors had more screentime. I also thought the actress playing Jeanne did a great job, which improved the non-war scenes.

[–] Camargue 12 years ago

SJCass: Dear SJC: (I don't want to repeat the last three letters of your name.)

Why are you so eager to admit that you did not understand the movie/film/production?

What proof do you have that others are wrong and that YOUR view is the only valid possible interpretation?

Just because you do not understand the acting style of Eddie Redmayne does not take away the FACT that he is considered one of the hottest young English actors (and will be seen for many years; thank goodness). The book is a bestseller. Joseph Mawle was a wonder. This film was spectacular on so many levels that it is a shame that you didn't "get it."

Beauty IS in the eye of the beholder and you don't seem to see any beauty here, so the answer is YOUR EYE, not any lack of beauty!

In future, when you don't appreciate something, why not look to yourself (and your lack of intellectual curiosity) instead of "blaming" others for what you consider to be: ridiculous, awful, dumb, and rubbish?

[–] cjluna-1 12 years ago

And, not only was the acting superb, I also enjoyed how this production took its time telling the story, how it went back and forth between the war and the affair, and how it was edited in such a way that you had to stop and think for a second at which point in time each scene was taking place. Based on some of the criticism, some people I guess are used to having a story presented in a simplistic manner rather than being challenged to think about what each character is going through in each scene based on what has already happened. I was on the edge of my seat as each piece of the puzzle of this story slowly came together. Also, the music was excellent.

[–] Seymour-Pats 12 years ago

My problem was not that I'm used to "simplistic" storytelling. My problem with this was that Part I was utter crap. I didn't have any problem following the story, I just thought it was poorly done.

1. When doing a flashback, the leading scene ought to include the guy having the flashback. Otherwise, it is really an omnipresent POV taking place in multiple time periods. And doing it the way they did causes unecessary confusion, not because viewers are stupid or lazy, but because the story simply isn't tracking.

2. While you might have enjoyed the many WTF moments in Part I, those types of moments pull people out of the story, and that is not a good thing. "What's going on" moments are great in a suspense or a mystery or any story with unanswered questions - "What's going on" moments are not good when it's a basic scene change that jars the viewer.

3. The two leads had all the chemistry of soggy pieces of cardboard.

4. There was nothing in the flashbacks to make the affair make any sense.

5. The lead actress had one facial expression which she wore through all of Part I. That expression was supposed to show happiness, sorrow, tension, passion, anger, and being lost in thought.

And I totally disagree that this movie "took it's time telling the story". The tory was actually quite rushed and therefore the flashback scenes fell flat and failed to convey the passion between the two leads or fully explore the overbearing nature of her husband.

Some people might have disliked this because they like faster-paced stuff, but there was nothing challenging about the material to suggest that people couldn't follow it because they're used to simpler stuff. And a similar argument could be made for those gushing about the production: that pseudo-intellectuals with no real taste of their own see an English period piece with good costumes and great music and assume it's wonderful. So don't throw stones.

To be clear, I think Part II was wonderful. It was like watching a different production. But Part I was lousy.

[–] cjluna-1 12 years ago

Seymour-Pats: my reply was to SJCass - not you. Try nesting the message boards and perhaps you will not get confused. And I wasn't throwing any stones, just expressing my opinion as we all do here.

[–] Seymour-Pats 12 years ago

Oh, my bad. Sorry about that. Thanks for being so nice about it. I thought you were responding to my complaint that I found Part I very jumbled.

[–] cjluna-1 12 years ago

no problem! :-)

[–] sheltonp6 12 years ago

I never heard of the film until I saw it listed at Redbox last week. I couldn't rent it; too few copies available. I purchased it from Amazon, just finished it, and came to give it a 10.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] candigale 9 years ago

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I didn't rate it or anything, but I just finished watching for the second time in about a year. I thought it was beautifully done, and had me weeping at the end with Jeanne and the other two. Don't want to give spoilers if someone hasn't watched it. I loved it! If I actually were to take the time, I'd rate it a 10.