MovieChat Forums > Sunset Song (2015) Discussion > Agyness Deyn

Agyness Deyn

posted 9 years ago by khalefadoriath
16 replies | jump to latest

Seriously? Can this woman act? I don't dispute that she's very beautiful but her resume consists of a handful of shorts, including a Rihanna music documentary.

From the odd interview I remember from her modelling days she seemed like a decent person but that doesn't qualify her as an actress.

I'd still say fair enough, plenty of models have made the transition to acting, if she was steadily working at her craft but letting her loose on such a beloved character as Chris Guthrie this early in her career is disappointing.

I can't imagine it'll come close to the class of Heilbron in the original version.

[–] Bonesnap 8 years ago

By all accounts she's the best thing in the film.

[–] khalefadoriath 8 years ago

That's not an incentive to see it. Does that mean everything else is atrocious? I'll pass though I'll be interested to see what my favourite critic, Mark Kermode, has to say about it.

[–] khalefadoriath 8 years ago

I've now seen the trailer and can't agree that she's the best thing in the film. The cinematography is fine.

Deyn's accent is all over the place and I never for a moment believed that she was from Aberdeenshire or born and bred in an agricultural community. Her casting was an absolute betrayal of the source material.

Why Davies would spend 15 years developing the idea then cast someone more at home in pop videos I have no idea.
I'd love to see the 1970s TV version released on dvd.

[–] zeroid-1 8 years ago

well there you go

Mark Kermode's number 8 of films in 2015

of course it won't alter your opinions of the film, tho perhaps you were hoping to use his to shore up your own

tough

[–] khalefadoriath 8 years ago

Whichever but as I disliked her acting so much I decided not to waste my hard-earned money seeing something I knew would annoy me.

[–] speculator-1 8 years ago

Just saw a preview screening today, she was amazing!

Peter Mullan was excellent, but he is only a supporting player. Agyness is in almost every scene, she carries the whole film and she is just as impressive a performer as him. Amazing, since she is a relative newcomer and he is an experienced veteran.

The worst thing about the film is the story - it starts as a character drama, but the final act is just anti-war propaganda. It furthers the revisionist view of the war, complete with historical anachronisms.

A flawed film, yes, but the main player is not the problem.

---
Blood of Thrones - proceeds to Action Cancer:
http://www.orb-store.com/blood.htm

[–] arae-2 8 years ago

I agree she is amazing in this. But "revisionist view of the war"? I'd say it reflects the opinions of the author's 1930's view of that recent catastrophe.

[–] zeroid-1 8 years ago

Maybe you should read the book. The story is all and throughout there are many themes all interwoven, e.g. the "English" Chris vs the "Scottish" one, the hypocrisy of the clergy, the peasant's subjugation by the the gentry, the traditional way of life making way to mechanisation and modernity and many more, but underneath it all the land endures. It is an outstanding novel, though not the easiest read for many. Hard to cover in any film, but Davies does a good job.

Now onto my main point. The war looms large and has a devastating effect on even the tiny community of KInraddie. Did you know there are 50-odd "thankful" villages in England and Wales whereby all service personnel returned? There are no settlements in Scotland (or Ireland for that matter) that did not lose a member of the community in the "Great"war. So to talk about this film in terms of "just anti-war propaganda" is utterly ludicrous and remember LGG was someone who lived through those times. Actually, I would love to hear you big this war up. Give it a go, see how you get on.

[–] speculator-1 8 years ago

It was "Great" as in big, not as in good.

And the anti-war sentiment really started with Journey's End in 1928. This led into the appeasement attitude of the 1930s.

However, a story set during the war itself should not display such anachronistic sentiment. In 1914 everyone was keen to do their bit, and they literally believed it would all be over by Xmas.

---
Blood of Thrones - proceeds to Action Cancer:
http://www.orb-store.com/blood.htm

[–] zeroid-1 8 years ago

curious comment as I certainly don't need anyone to explain the "great" as it is used for this war. However at no point was I referring to the use of that word in whatever context you like. I was just suggesting the contributor puts forward some pro-war arguments if he or she had any. That was in response to "just anti-war propaganda" which was a ridiculous comment to make.

Also, are you seriously suggesting there was no anti-war sentiment til Journey's end???? That's ludicrous. If everyone was so keen to do their bit as you say, why were there ANY conscientious objectors? Officially around 16000 in fact. Rob was one of many.

Besides anti-war sentiment has been well documented for over a millennia.

[–] speculator-1 8 years ago

You should not have put Great in quotation marks if you did not mean to query the use of the word.

By November 1918 the British Army had four million members.
The vast majority of citizens supported the war.

In contrast, 16000 conchies (mostly Quakers and other radicals) are not statistically relevant.

To be realistic, the characters would have been jingoistic about the war, not adopting an anachronistic 1930s attitude of the kind that preferred "peace in our time".

---
Blood of Thrones - proceeds to Action Cancer:
http://www.orb-store.com/blood.htm

[–] zeroid-1 8 years ago

i was quoting the comment above

namely

It was "Great" as in big, not as in good.

like i need this concept explaining

so

i was well within my rights to put great in quotation marks.

kindly keep up.

if 16000 conchies as you put it are not statistically relevant, does that mean in your little world, they don't even exist?

do you even know what statistically relevant means?

it is even less probable that someone will win the lottery and yet just this week...........

[–] Lianachan 8 years ago

There are many Scottish actresses who would have been great in that role. I don't know why they decided to cast an English model instead.

Far an taine ‘n abhainn, ‘s ann as mò a fuaim.

[–] chicago85 8 years ago

I haven't read the book or seen the movie. I did see the original and a remake of "All Quiet on the Western Front." Its from the German viewpoint and was published in 1928 and a movie by 1930. It was banned and burned by the Nazis.

It told of the enthusiasm for WWI especially when drummed into the heads of the cannon fodder lead by incompetent politicians and the officer class. The survivors find they are still alive at the end of the war but cannot escape the effects of the slaughter. During the war on both sides, soldiers returned home on leave and found they no longer fit in and were disconnected with even their own families.

So I don't think this can all be labeled appeasement propaganda. A lot of soldiers bit their tongue and just nodded their head when listening to civilians spewing nonsense about the war.

As reluctant Japanese used to say "The nail that sticks up gets hammered down." They didn't all want to die for the Emperor in useless Banzi charges.

I don't know everything. Neither does anyone else

[–] ronricho-337-128165 8 years ago

Thanks, chicago85. That pretty much sums up WW1 for me.

[–] languidMandala 8 years ago

She acts but it's very obvious that she is acting which is a complete contrast to the rest of the cast who are the part. Everything moves unbelievable slowly in this movie so it's also hard to say if Deyn's lack of dynamism is her fault or the director's.