Truth and Reconciliation
Atonement / Daniel Carlson
It will always and forever be unfair to judge a film based on a novel by its literary predecessor. The two are inherently different media, and translating internal monologue and emotional nuance into a story told with visuals makes it nigh impossible to remain truthful to the novel’s every plot turn while creating something kinetic and eye-catching. You might as well try to turn a pop song into a sitcom, it’s that big a change. That’s one of the things that makes director Joe Wright’s Atonement, adapted by Christopher Hampton (The Quiet American) from Ian McEwan’s book, such a success: Wright has trimmed the letter but kept the spirit, creating one of the more structurally and emotionally faithful adaptations of all time. But I should be very careful here: It’s not successful because it is a replica of the book, but because it takes the book’s story and (most of its) ideas and becomes as canon as canon can be in regards to literary adaptations. If you ask if the film is as deeply engrossing as the book, I can only respond: Can a film ever be? Atonement the movie is not Atonement the book, and must necessarily be blunter in the sake of concise storytelling and the demands of turning what McEwan painted in the hearts and minds of each individual reader into a mural meant to be viewed by all at once. I was blown away by the book, but nevertheless, I found the film to be a stirring, epic story of romance and fate set against the backdrop of the first half of World War II. It’s a big, bold film, thoroughly captivating from the first lavish minute to the haunting final frames. Wright has taken McEwan’s emotionally dense novel and suffused it with a sense of sweep all too rarely seen in modern film to create something grand, and noble, and heartbreaking. It’s a different beast than the book altogether, good all on its own, but for its own distinctive ways.
I won’t even attempt to touch on all the characters or their relationships, but here we go. Beginning in England in 1935, the first act unfolds over the course of an afternoon and evening at a country estate owned by the Tallis family: Matriarch Emily (Harriet Walter), firstborn Leon (Patrick Kennedy), elder daughter Cecilia (Keira Knightley) and younger daughter Briony (Saoirse Ronan). There’s also Robbie Turner (James McAvoy), the handyman who lives in the guesthouse with his mother, one of the house staff, and Leon’s friend, Paul Marshall (Benedict Cumberbatch). Hampton’s script deftly introduces the bundle of main characters and additional supporting players in a matter of minutes, and Wright bounces from scene to scene in an effort to both keep the pace from flagging and to induce a sense of uneasiness in the proceedings; you’re never quite able to plant your feet before Wright is shifting the action to another location or skipping back in time a few minutes to follow the same event from a different character’s perspective. The key to the whole film is the way that errors of perspective and youth can drive people to do terrible things, and Wright captures the multitude of ideas and half-formed impressions so easily and quickly it’s as if he’s performing a miracle.
The first instance is when young Briony looks out her bedroom window to the fountain in the large front yard and sees Robbie and Cecilia in what appears to be an argument. Robbie shouts and holds his arm out, and Cecilia looks furiously back at him before doing something that puzzles and terrifies Briony because she has no idea what it could mean: Cecilia strips down to her slip and dives into the fountain, reappearing moments later, all but naked in her wet clothes. Briony, like many children, spends most of her day adrift in a weird world of her own creation, and she funnels her observations into stories and plays banged out on her old typewriter, but she’s too young to begin to understand what’s happening at the fountain, and so overloads a bit. Briony turns away in shock and confusion as Cecilia dresses, and Wright doesn’t pause before cutting away to Cecilia running through a field, flowers in hand and completely dry. There are several such time-shifting cuts in the film, particularly in the first half, and the first one has to necessarily jar the continuity enough to establish both that the story has now jumped back in time a few minutes and also changed focus to a new character, in this case Cecilia. Wright accomplishes all this in an instant. It’s a subtle but fantastic example of truly cinematic storytelling, using a few crucial visuals and the subtextual language of editing to condense what would be a lot of ungainly exposition. The replayed version of the scene shows Cecilia and Robbie walking to the fountain so she can fill a vase with water for flowers, and Robbie’s attempts to help her wind up shattering the vase, at which point Cecilia dives in to retrieve the missing piece. Knightley and McAvoy are never less than amazing together, generating a pure chemistry that immediately conveys a history of suppressed longing and misunderstandings. Robbie’s vain attempts to apologize go nowhere, and it’s apparent from the way he bites his tongue that he’s got so much more to say.
There are at least two more similar instances of false impressions revolving around Briony’s observation of her family and a few guests visiting with them; suffice it to say that the evening winds up being an emotionally devastating one full of accusations and unintended lies. It would be irresponsible to say more. Afterward, Wright again resets the action by jumping forward a few years to the fields of war-torn France. Robbie is now a soldier making his way with a pair of other men to the shore in the massive Dunkirk evacuation of summer 1940, and his nights are filled with dreams of the moments he and Cecilia had together that afternoon long ago and again before he shipped out. Robbie’s slog through the countryside is a brutal one, a slow death of his last shred of boyhood as he keeps his two comrades moving past wrecked homes and a stretch of dead children, arranged in a field like sticks. The film cuts between his attempt to get to the beach and then back home with his memories of seeing Cecilia again the day he shipped out after a long absence. Robbie and Cecilia are awkward with each other, so in love and desperate to run away to someplace happier that they can only speak at first in formal greetings and jumbled half-sentences. But when Cecilia gently places her hand on Robbie’s, he begins to tremble; he can’t even keep stirring his tea. There’s a palpable, almost electric sadness in the air when they touch, and you can sense the franticness with which they’re holding together the fragile life they’re trying to build for themselves. “I love you. I’ll wait for you. Come back to me,” is what Cecilia has told him before, and how she signs her letters to him on the front. In nothing more than a few scenes together, McAvoy and Knightley come up with something expansive and damning, the kind of melodramatic romance that pulls you out of your seat and into the film with them. It’s impossible not to ache for them, or to worry about their futures.
Their romance is given an appropriately large-scale framework, too. I can’t remember the last time I was this flat-out stunned by the quality of the production and costume design, but Sarah Greenwood and Jacqueline Durran have respectively produced some jaw-dropping sets and outfits that capture the smallest details of Wright’s fully realized world. They both teamed with Wright on Pride and Prejudice, and whatever working language they seem to share has done wonders when it comes to making the universe of Atonement a thoroughly believable one. Similarly, Dario Marianelli’s lush, melodramatic score pulses right along, weaving the beat of a typewriter with haunting strings to give the score a mechanic but also operatic feel. Seamus McGarvey’s cinematography is remarkable under the guidance of Wright; every shot is artfully composed but rarely feels artificial, and the one moment of intentionally self-aware camerawork doesn’t detract from the film but actually adds to it. The scene is one on the French beach where Robbie discovers a few hundred thousand of his fellow soldiers, waiting to be picked up and shipped out but unable to do anything until the boats arrive. As Robbie wanders the beach, taking in the destruction and wreckage and general chaos of all these men about to erupt from boredom and terror, the camera gently sweeps in and out of the crowd, picking up details and faces here and there, showcasing the whole thing in an unbroken tracking shot that lasts a solid five minutes, all set to Marianelli’s aching score. This is one of the many sequences that McAvoy carries with nothing more than the look in his eyes and the hang of his shoulders. He and Knightley share some wonderful moments, but it’s McAvoy as the devoted Robbie who provides the main story with its goal and drive. The scene on the beach somehow becomes Wright’s strongest metaphor for Robbie in particular and for the natures of love in general: The soldiers have been beaten back but are resolved to try again, just as Robbie has been defeated at first but still refuses to rest until he’s home again. In a film about the tricks of perspective, this one moment is the most focused, the most unequivocal in its desire and consequence. This isn’t where the story leaves Robbie and Cecila, but it’s the way they’ll always be remembered.
Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a low-level employee at a Hollywood industry magazine. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.
Great Debaters, The | | Walk Hard
Comments
Kiera Knightley seems to be the British Winona Ryder. She has the critics hypnotized but ten years from now everyone will ask, 'What the hell were we thinking?!?'
Posted by: Andrew at December 10, 2007 12:34 PM
Beautiful film. But Keira just doesn't do it for me at all. Which is a shame really. She is a better actress than most.
Posted by: denial at December 10, 2007 12:41 PM
A beautiful review. I loved the book and hoped the movie might do it justice.
Posted by: M at December 10, 2007 12:42 PM
I wasn't aware of a recent critical backlash against Winona Ryder.
But I will see this film, and would have even in the face of a lukewarm Pajiba response, simply because of its sheer loveliness. Hell, I've watched Marie Antoinette multiple times -- I have a very high tolerance for meaningless beauty in films. But I am glad to hear it captures the essence of the novel.
Posted by: Smithy at December 10, 2007 12:44 PM
Also, I like Keira Knightley, if only because of how angry she gets when people say she's anorexic -- it's incredibly annoying and embarrassing to be accused of being sick when you're just skinny.
Posted by: Smithy at December 10, 2007 12:47 PM
This, of course, is the one film I most want to see this year and it's not playing anywhere near me. Here's hoping it opens up close when it goes into wide release on Friday - I was crossing my fingers for a good review here, and now I'm even more excited than I was before.
Posted by: jennyplain at December 10, 2007 12:54 PM
umm...not to be rude smithy, but keira knightley isn't just skinny. when a person's clavicle looks like it might puncture their skin, it means they should eat something.
unless your being sarcastic and i'm being stupid...
Posted by: maggiek at December 10, 2007 1:02 PM
So far given this film a miss because I didn't want it to taint my love for the book. Also put off by the prospect of McAvoy (well-cast in Shameless but range proved limited in The Last King of Scotland) and Knightley (I think she was fine in Bend It Like Beckham but since then her incessant lips-parted-to-enhance-cheekbones pouting has irked me. The sheer concentration it must take to never rest your back teeth together! Honestly she seems unable to depart from it and it really impedes her performances, which is a shame)
But this review is very encouraging, think I'll
go with an open mind after all.
Posted by: tiggyT at December 10, 2007 1:12 PM
PS - re the Knightley pouting, please don't misinterpret that as criticism of her physique, I have no interest in the surgery/ skinniness debate: all I meant was that as an actor she has a certain rigid self-awareness which always sticks that stupid pout on her face and hampers her inhabiting roles completely. Which is unfortunate.
Posted by: tiggyT at December 10, 2007 1:20 PM
i hate keira knightly. so annoying in pirates, and everything else.
Posted by: jackie at December 10, 2007 1:27 PM
i hate keira knightly. so annoying in pirates, and everything else. no talent ass clown.
Posted by: jackie at December 10, 2007 1:28 PM
I saw this trailer and was moved. What must it be like to yearn for someone over time and distance.
Posted by: Pookie at December 10, 2007 1:29 PM
Comment Diversion suggestion: best book to film adaptation. My vote goes to the English Patient.
Posted by: Rahel at December 10, 2007 1:30 PM
Blown away by the book? Really? I read it once and was completely annoyed more than anything, even though it's the type of thing I usually like. I thought Briony's character was one of the most self-centered and unnecessary to ever be written, and that the book itself was a big let down. However, my disappointment has been filtered and probably enhanced by the distance of a few years. I would pick it up again just to remember what I disliked about it, but god, that just sounds like such a terrible prospect. Unfortunately I also have no desire to see the movie. Keira Knightley usually makes me just want to stab things.
Posted by: Jenna at December 10, 2007 1:30 PM
This movie was fantastic. I heard that it was good, but I had no idea that I'd be that impressed by it. It was a great romantic film, but it went in a different direction several times, and the ending was both sad and satisfying at the same time. I just loved it.
I thought Keira Knightley did a great job in it. Her arrogant bitchiness worked here somehow. And she doesn't look unhealthy here, just naturally skinny. I never noticed she had such a flattering bottom half, though. Her legs are amazing...
Posted by: kayla at December 10, 2007 1:46 PM
I am torn between my desire to see this movie and my intense dislike of Keira Knightley. I hated her in that dreadful adaptation of Pride & Prejudice. She has two expressions (1-pouty, 2-constipated) and no acting ability that I've yet seen.
Posted by: watoosa at December 10, 2007 2:41 PM
I thought this film shot too high. I agree with those who felt the film was too sterile and didn't seem even half as epic as it wanted. It's a very self-conscience film.
Knightley's bitchiness works here, to a degree. It's the first time she's really been able to utilize her permanent bitchface, but that's not saying much. I kept wondering what the film would've been like if they'd gotten someone of Emily Blunt's caliber.
Now, the blonde teenaged Briony? She gave such a nuanced performance, and her confrontation scene with McAvoy was the best in the film (acting-wise).
The tracking shot is overrated.
Posted by: Jon at December 10, 2007 2:46 PM
She's tough to understand, right? Keira Knightley? She's so mumbly, that girl. I noticed it first in Pride & Prejudice; and in this film, there's just something mushy about her diction.
Having said all of that, the green silk dress was absolutely amazing.
Posted by: Mike B. at December 10, 2007 2:56 PM
I loathe the "anorexic but I'm not in denial I'm naturally skinny.." CUNT that stars in this, I might, mmmm...download it.
Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 10, 2007 3:17 PM
Jenna, I'm just posting to let you know you are not alone. I read the book relatively untouched by the critical acclaim and though I thought McEwan's writing was wonderful, I was so put off by Briony's character that I nearly skipped most of the first half of the book. I loved the second half, but I was disappointed overall.
Posted by: Louise at December 10, 2007 3:35 PM
I might be in the minority here but I happened to really like this film. I loathe 'war' scenes but the part when Robbie was on the beach really touched me. Though I think the soundtrack is partly to blame for that. All the actors that played Briony were brilliant, as were Keira Knightly and James McAvoy who made me root for them despite their limited screen time together.
Posted by: JC at December 10, 2007 3:37 PM
Fantastic review, Dan
Posted by: Kevin Longrie at December 10, 2007 4:13 PM
Ummmm. I just don't know. Having just watched the third PoTC, I feel sorry for her. She looks sick...
Aw shit. What the hell! Why sugarcoat it, man?
GIVE THAT GIRL A CHEESEBURGER! STAT!
There - I feel better. Honestly, this sounds like it'd be a great film but for Knightly & her weird, lippy over acting. James McAvoy is one of my newest & favorite "regular guy" actors (from The Last King of Scotland), however.
Posted by: GinKirk at December 10, 2007 4:19 PM
It takes a cunt to know a cunt.
Posted by: Pookie at December 10, 2007 4:30 PM
rahel, i agree. i absolutely loved the english patient film adaptation. i felt like the film complemented the book and somehow made it feel 'whole' or fully-realized. i'm hoping for a similar experience with this film!
Posted by: dana at December 10, 2007 4:32 PM
OK Pookie I come to this sight for the enlightened comments as much as the reviews. Please don't ruin it with your sophomoric namecalling at b-slim. If you can't come up with a comment relevant to the review than just read and don't comment at all. Remember, immaturity shines through on the internet too.
Posted by: Phat girl at December 10, 2007 4:52 PM
"Please don't ruin it with your sophomoric namecalling at b-slim."
Are you Momento?
Posted by: Mike B. at December 10, 2007 5:02 PM
No good deed goes unpunished...am I right Pookman?
*sigh*
Don't ruin your Pajiba experience on my account Phat G, I've got this.
I soooo got this.
Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 10, 2007 5:11 PM
I agree that Keira Knightly is the new Winona Ryder. They even have similar facial features. That said, Winona starred in a lot of cool movies, and I think stealing from that store killed her career--or, at least it killed her "it girl" status...
Posted by: Yup at December 10, 2007 5:26 PM
You know, I didn't realize it until just now, but Knightly is the female Keanu Reeves, who has a total of three facial expressions: surprised, angry, and devoid of thought or consciousness.
Posted by: Smokin at December 10, 2007 5:34 PM
POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT
so for those who have seen it does the film end the way the novel does (as far as what happens to the lovers) or do they go a different route?
Posted by: dylan at December 10, 2007 6:09 PM
I really wasn't all that keen on seeing this, despite the stellar reviews, but was dragged along by a friend. It was one of the best films I've seen all year. I'm not a fan of Keira Knightley, but I thought she was great as Cecilia. And as for James McAvoy - it's hard to believe this is the same guy who was in Shameless!
Posted by: sarah at December 10, 2007 6:34 PM
"I am torn between my desire to see this movie and my intense dislike of Keira Knightley. I hated her in that dreadful adaptation of Pride & Prejudice. She has two expressions (1-pouty, 2-constipated) and no acting ability that I've yet seen - Posted by: watoosa at December 10, 2007 2:41 PM"
You summed up my feelings perfectly. This movie looked so beautiful, I haven't read the book, but secretly I'm a very big sucker for historical romances. Still, I hated the new version of Pride and Prejudice so much and it was in so small part due to Kiera Knightly who killed Elisabeth's character ... I may still give it a try.
Posted by: Maria at December 10, 2007 10:43 PM
Dylan-
SPOILER ALERT!!
Do you mean, does Briony write that the lovers reunited but imply that they did die (Robbie-sickness, Cecilia-Blitz)? Yes. She does confess this, too, but rather than doing the intimate confession to the reader, she confesses on television. Making the ending pointless, the entire theme of Atonement pointless, and making this a somewhat shallow adaptation of the novel.
END SPOILERS!!
Posted by: Jon at December 10, 2007 11:53 PM
I unashamedly love Keira Knightley. That said, I didn't think she was that great in Pride and Prejudice, and I think she should stay away from "serious" roles. She was great in Bend it Like Beckham and Love Actually.
I think at her usual weight she really is just naturally that skinny. But the way she's been looking recently is definitely anorexia.
Posted by: Alex at December 11, 2007 1:04 AM
I rather liked Keira in "The Jacket", but it might just be the Adrien love brushing up on her. And James McAvoy looks so cute in a uniform, remember his 5 min appearance in "Band of Brothers"? I find his choice in movies weird, how does one go from "Bollywood Queen", "Wimbledon" and the TV adaptation of "Children of Dune" to Oscar nominated movies? Someone just realized he's really talented or he just got a better agent?
Posted by: irina at December 11, 2007 1:07 AM
I went to see this quite a while back in the UK, but the cinema's sound system was so bad I had to leave early, which is a shame.
Wonder if James McAvoy will play the James McAvoy character in the film version of State Of Play?
Posted by: Craig at December 11, 2007 3:28 AM
I'm reluctant to jump on the anti-Keira bandwagon...but I must confess I'm not so much a fan of hers myself. The genius of this is that character isn't particularly likeable. Her only redeemable quality, the only time we truly see her humanity is her love for Robbie.
The scene with James McAvoy typing his letter to her in a wifebeater...gasp!
Also, I have to say that I hated the book. Well, that's not entirely fair - I hated Briony's character so much and found their whole family so boring that I ended up throwing the book across the room. Love the film tho!
Posted by: amanda at December 11, 2007 5:18 AM
I never enjoyed Kiera until Pride and Pejudice-- and honestly, I think we have Joe Wright to thank for that. So I am thrilled to see her in this, but only because she is amazing under his directing.
Posted by: Jenn Lewis at December 11, 2007 9:34 AM
I am not ashamed to say it- I think Keira is a goddess. That said, she does need a cheeseburger.
I've loved her since Bend it Like Beckham, but her best performance was in a tiny indie film "Pure". The movie itself was mediocre, but I thought she was exceptional.
Posted by: Lux at December 11, 2007 10:30 AM
I have watched almost all of James Mcavoy's film and I wouldn't miss this one. Long standing crush aside, I've heard great things about this movie and am very excited that atleast they stuck to the essence of the book. The book was lovely and movies generally don't translate literary work very well. I'm glad this one made the cut. Xmas break watch list: Juno, Atonement and I am Legend (since bf wants to go see Will Smith)
Here's hoping I can convince him to watch Atonement with me.
Posted by: tallulahc at December 11, 2007 10:36 AM
To the poster who mentioned it above, the older Briony was played by Romola Garai & she generally is fantastic in everything she does- id highly recommend seeing her in the BBC'S Daniel Deronda.
I thought Atonement was a wonderfully sad movie with brilliant performances from almost everyone in it.
& for my 2 penneth, Keira is NOT anorexic.. I know a whole family of girls who are at least that skinny & they eat perfectly normally... judging by my collarbone Im not that far off myself.
People should remember she's not exactly a 6'footer, Im sure face to face you'd be surprised.
Posted by: short4astortrooper at December 11, 2007 1:27 PM
short4astortrooper- Gwen! She's was Gwen in Daniel Deronda. Dang, she was sexy in that. I knew I knew her from something.
I'm not sure which disturbed me more about the DUne movie: Susan Sarandon or the sexual chemistry between McAvoy and the chick that played his sister.
Posted by: Jon at December 11, 2007 2:39 PM
Smithy, there's skinny, and then there's looking like a starving Ethopian.
Whether Knightley is anorexic or not, she does seem to have a bad body image. I remember that in an interview, she said she was double the size of most actresses. Uh....no. If anyone was half the size of her, they'd disappear. They'd die.
I don't know about this movie. I might just flip a coin. Heads, I'll go (and drag someone with me), tails, I won't go.
Posted by: Chantelle at December 11, 2007 10:20 PM
Watoosa- amen! Knightely is beautiful, for sure, but her slavish devotion to the distractingly self-aware, lips parted, cheeks sucked in anguish look prevents me from engaging in any of her films. All of her looks, all of her movements, remind me that she is ACTING, generally preventing me from having a cohesive, comprehensive film experience; and unless every director with whom she has ever worked has asked her for some cheeky (awful pun not intended) metadrama, I'm blaming it all on her.
And don't get me STARTED on her turn in Pride & Prejudice. My blood pressure is rising just thinking about it.
Posted by: becca at December 12, 2007 6:15 PM
I'm desperate to see this! Oh, crappy, pedestrian, two-theaters-for-this-christmas movie theater, PLEASE OH PLEASE show this movie!
Posted by: Kristin at December 13, 2007 4:19 PM
Ugh, was so not a fan of this movie. I thought they should have spent more time with Briony, she was the most interesting character. Otherwise, this movie is just A Very Long Engagement, only not as good.
I guess if you're willing to believe that Robbie and Cecilia's love is that strong it would be a good movie. I wasn't buying it and so the second half just fell completely flat, "stunning" tracking shot (how quickly they forget Children of Men) or not.
Really, it's like the tracking shot is the new vogue for directors, just like when everyone started using the shaky handheld cameras. At least Cuaron didn't feel the need to draw attention to his cinematic tricks.
But I guess I'm alone in my opinion. Me and The New York Times.
Posted by: Christin at December 13, 2007 5:29 PM
hello!
pretty girls can eat salads and and braised beef and avocado cream appetizers and quiche and steaks too.
Hehhe...
you Americans and your cheeseburgers...
why does everyone have to eat greasy, uninteresting things to not be considered anorexic?
face it,
keira knightly is pretty!
This review really praises Atonement, hope it is as good because I'm about to download it!
cioa!
Posted by: ani at December 20, 2007 4:26 PM
Is this a site for movie reviews or celebrity bashing? Take it to perezhilton or thesuperficial, folks. I think of Pajiba as a breath of fresh, intelligent air and I'd very much like to keep it that way.
Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. And I agree with the poster who said that even though the ending was quite sad, it didn't leave you feeling bitter or cheated. It was a very fulfilling, satisfying ending tinged with tragedy. I loved it.
Posted by: monkey_b at December 22, 2007 2:24 AM
Sometimes you should just let little girls drown.
Posted by: mook at December 22, 2007 7:49 PM
i went into this movie not really expecting anything but was really surprised by it. it was an old story told in a very modern way, and had a fantastic balance of touching and heartbreaking scenes without being unecessary.
Posted by: nikki pop at January 2, 2008 6:32 PM
I finally got to see this last night. Absolutely gorgeous. I loved Knightley and McAvoy. It was exactly what I imagined it would be in my mind as I read the book. The only thing that marred it was the fact that I knew the ending.
Fantastic overall.
Posted by: Nicole at January 15, 2008 11:41 AM
i can't believe that the woman who played briony as a young woman was the main character from one of my guiltiest pleasures of all time: dirty dancing 2. that being said, this film was absolutely stunning; every shot, set, and costume was gorgeous. knightley and mcavoy were fantastic together.
Posted by: nona at January 22, 2008 3:03 PM
Well, I agree 3000% with that review. What's hilarious about the "self-aware" Dunkirk tracking shot is that it was designed under duress; apparently Wright discovered he had only a few hours to shoot the scene and nailed it in under 5 takes. It's like the party shot in Pride and Prejudice but bigger and better. I can't wait to hear the director commentary over it. I saw Joe Wright speak at the Toronto Film Festival and he's absolutely hilarious; I'm in love.
I saw the movie in the evening, and this morning I watched a movie based on a play, and I've come to the revelation that books are more adaptable to screen than plays are.
Posted by: Ling at February 4, 2008 12:04 AM
The rabid anti-verisimilitude wrapped around this movie made it impossible for me to like it. The title is "Atonement", and despite the hot sex and the weepy looks, it's not about the lovers, the central character is Briony, it's HER atonement. I never once was convinced that Briony realized the magnitude of the wrong she did and her hospital service was her penance. The ending would stick in one's craw if one came looking for any resolution that is logical. Briony "gave" the characters their happiness? She didn't say this once, but twice, the second time emphasizing the word "gave". She fabricated the happy ending, and this is her "atonement", a complete denial of the ruins she caused, because "what purpose could be served by honesty? Or REALITY?" Wait, what? What is the purpose of reality? And this precious gem: "What sense of hope could a reader derive from an ending like that?" Uhh ... sorry? Coming soon: OJ's version of Atonement.
I have the same problem with the book "Life of Pi", because it firmly plants its crazy logic in your face: reality is whatever version best suits the author and his crazy fucked up view. See, because killing and eating people is the same as watching a pet tiger eat a zebra. The movie is a good-looking vessel, gorgeous cast, costume, set, cinematography. But the central character is so unsympathetic and the premise so flawed it nullifies every good thing the movie has going for it. In the end there's no way around the truth: there's no cottage by the sea for Robbie. The movie shows you what's not there, and you can't believe that it happened.
Posted by: Third Shift at April 22, 2008 1:09 AM