Overall thoughts?


What were your overall thoughts after watching it?

It seemed to me that there was a lot of talent that didn't quite manage to be more than the sum of its parts; yet after the initial disappointment I found quite a number of good things about it.

The lack of character development -- or even plot development -- was a little disappointing, especialy given the fine heritage of the novel, the rich cinematography, and the actors' valiant efforts constantly to inject emotion into a lacklustre script and their rather one-dimensional characters. Film is a different medium to words, and I found the beautiful poetry of the novel, occasionally used as a voiceover, lazy directing.

The film fails to make much of a point. The stark love-story-set-in-the-mud-and-rain was done much better in Andrea Arnold's fresh adaptation of Wuthering Heights. We can foretell early on that the father will be a brute, that the daughter will get raped at some point, and that it will probably end up like a Scottish Mayor of Casterbridge but without any decent storyline.

Yet it has a certain classiness to it, in spite of its faults. What is it that still convinces us that it is 'worthy' even after it has dragged on for two and a half hours?

In retrospect, something I found interesting was the character of the brutal father. In some ways he was the ‘best’ character even though he had the most awful flaw, which of course is his downfall. The point being: he is in control: of his life, his business, his income, his house, his social arrangements. A worthy characteristic that many people aspire to. His big flaw, instead of being the beacon that lit the way for other members of his family to do the same, was to treat others as objects. (For those that say it was a Brechtian view of how-it-was in Scotland, I'd say yes, but it wasn't Brechtian *enough*: it lacks that self-awareness which the book conveys so admirably.)

While this is obvious in a way, I find it remarkable in that it characterises what we all do, the good and the bad, in varying degrees. We all seek control of our lives, yet not always (as Immanuel Kant would suggest) in a way that would wish it to be universal among all people.

reply

Hated it.
Slow and boring with stupid inaccuracies and errors that stood out because it was so lethargic. Deyn may turn into a decent actress and there are signs she could but she had to carry this and she simply couldn't.
Frankly, after an hour and a half I just wanted it to end.

reply

Yes, I agree. I was looking forward to this, but it seemed surprisingly clunky and amateurish. Hard to believe it is a Terence Davies film. I really dragged and after an hour and a half, I'd had enough. The accents were excruciatingly bad and the dialogue seemed ponderous and stilted. I'm extremely surprised at the number of positive reviews. Maybe Davies has earned such indulgence based on his previous quality of work.

reply

Everyone tries hard but it really only results in something so dire and earnest it is almost self parody. Many of us will be familiar with the idea of a 'professional Scotsman'; well, this is the film equivalent.

This is no Ryan's Daughter, Tess of the d'Urbervilles or even Cider with Rosie. Being Scottish, and what's more, rural, and Edwardian era, you just KNOW that it starts out grim and will only end worse. And sure enough that is exactly where this film solemnly plods on to.

I was left wondering what the point was, unless one is making a cultural statement about how soul crushing being Scottish at the time must have been. Which I rather doubt btw, but it might explain why at least one reviewer claimed that this movie would be hated in Scotland. I'm not Scottish and even I thought it insulting to their national psyche.

reply