Actually, I didn't think the film was that bad, but it was certainly very disappointing, and, after the prologue (which was brilliant) a bit flat. I would have liked more of her life immediately after the junta seized control. Perhaps it would have made a better film?
'There is no gene for the human spirit' (Gattaca 1997)
You desire a story about a little girl without a father?
A teenager growing up?
Her marriage and having two sons?
Those would in your eyes; would be a better more interesting tale than
Aung San Suu Kyi sacrificing her personal love for the love for Burmese democracy and her non-violet fight to achieve it?
A woman getting married and having children is not so interesting as giving up her family and love; for the love of democracy for her people at great cost to her own personal life. THAT'S THE STORY !
I agree the film is not alas great but it is good and a story needing to be told.
Aung San Suu Kyi is the female Gandhi.
Well played by both leads.
Michelle Yeoh ... Aung San Suu Kyi
David Thewlis ... Michael Aris and brother too.
Love film love cinema keep the suits at bay.
But Biopics are supposed to tell us something we don't know. And her story isn't finished yet!
Furthermore, the emotional depth wasn't enough. She felt too much like a superwoman figure, and therefore inaccessible to us mere mortals. By the time Besson realised that he needed some emotional turmoil (hence the scene where she suggests divorce) it is already far too late...
'There is no gene for the human spirit' (Gattaca 1997)
"She felt too much like a superwoman figure, and therefore inaccessible to us mere mortals."
If one is to inspire non-violence in the face of violence, one must remain calm.
In addition, she is Buddhist, so doesn't make an ego show of,
"Pay attention biographers: Right now I'm feeling this!"
She isn't the story, outside the context of her public life. The point is made that her housemaid respected her privacy, so neither discussed with the other their families, because considered private.
What you want is a Western "hero" who does it for personal attention, for Western "reasons".
The emotional depth wasn't enough? You mean she didn't cry enough for your purposes?
Have you ever been knocked to the floor with grief, as is shown at the end concerning her husband's death?
Most bizarre, perhaps, are the US reviewers who comlain that it's a "love story". Well, gee, duh: of course it's a love story:
It's about love for and of family, and love for and of country. It shows that even during years of separation, her husband not only fulfilled his professorial responsibilities, while raising their two sons, but also campaigned, around the world, in support of her and her efforts.
But you want the film to be about her, personally, and to show her emotionally out-of-control? There is nothing of her biography as an individual missing from the film, the early years -- education in Delhi, India; education in Oxford, England (sufficient is shown of her childhood, when her father was assassinated; and of her time as a mother and housewife) -- not actually being germain to the reason she is known.
It was a wasted opportunity. They had the money, an actress who really looked like Aung San Suu Kyi and a huge crew to achieve something worth her fight. But it fell flat, uninspired and quite simplistic.
Most of the story focuses on the love story and the separation between Aung San Suu Kyi and her dying husband when they could have shown the inside story, the peaceful rebellion, the growing authority figure, etc... Neither just a documentary nor a simple love story but a good mixture between the great history and the story of two people. I guess Luc Besson should stick to his action movies; I'm sure he felt concerned by the subject but was overwhelmed by it.
______________________________________
The higher you fly, the faster you fall.
I think the love story was pretty important, but my biggest problem was the ending. We know right at the start that the husband is going to die, but after he's gone the film seemed to wrap up far too quickly.
shareAnd if it had included all you wanted, you'd complain it was too long.
The core of the history IS the "love story"! That's the context that reveals her (and her husband's) character, and makes for her biography. Her biography isn't about her alone, and can't be.
maybe there will be a longer directors cut...
shareThe film was quite bad. The characters were single dimensional. The most interesting parts were never quite fleshed out (the interplay between the kids and her). It doesn't quite emotionally explain why she elected to abandon her family. It doesn't quite show how pissed off her kids are. The show ended on a whimper. Credit to the guy who played the long suffering husband (was he the werewolf in Harry Potter?)
Luc Besson is clearly no Attenborough
It's a fine film, showing an heroic person as human and down to earth.
And she did not abandon her family; she was separated from her family by outside forces over which she had no control.
And how do you know her kids were "pissed" -- and if that's true, isn't that their biography/ies?
I couldn't agree w/ you more.
These people who comment are viewing the film from a "Western" point of view.
They just don't see the subtle emotions portrayed by the actress.
And they read way too many screenwriting books (manuals).
"It doesn't quite show how pissed off her kids are"
I don't know how to respond to that... um, excuse me, is that the core of the story? That her kids are pissed at her?
The comment about Besson should stick to action movies...that's why we keep getting garbage action movies that have the same story but w/ different actors every year, for god's sake.
Besson should make more of these kind of movies.
I saw him at one of the screening for his other film in LA (2007 or 2008?), I went up to him and said "Can I please shake you hand, Grand Bleu was the best movie" and I could tell he was very moved, he said "arigato" he misunderstood I was Japanese : ) cause I'm Asian. I could tell his heart was in telling stories that moves people. He is also a business man and he makes/produces action movies for profit.
These people who comment are viewing the film from a "Western" point of view.There are so many things wrong with statement I don't know where to begin. It shows prejudice for a start and I think you'd be better looking to yourself and your 'issues' with "Western".
I give my respect to those who have earned it; to everyone else, I'm civil.share
I agree completely. Honestly the script was not up to scratch. I guess that's what you get when someone writes a hagiography instead of a film script.
I really think they should have started the love story of Aung San Suu Kyi and Michael Aris at the beginning. It could have then included their pact to be prepared to sacrifice if Burma needed it. It would have also given the audience some emotional involvement in the characters so that they felt the separation when she was separated from her family.
The film contained two intertwined stories and didn't make enough of either of them to give them depth, even though each story was interesting. I thought the acting was very good, so it's a pity that the film didn't 'work'.
I give my respect to those who have earned it; to everyone else, I'm civil.share