BEFORE: From the French Chef to the French Lieutenant's Woman - and it seems like this one also has a split narrative, so that's a neat coincidence.
THE PLOT: A film is being made of a story, set in 19th century England, about Charles, a biologist who's engaged to be married, but who falls in love with outcast Sarah. During the shooting of the film, two actors go through a relationship that runs parallel to that of their characters.
AFTER: It's an interesting concept for a film, but the idea got very muddled somehow - at first it just seemed like there were two concurrent stories being told, with the same two lead actors. Perhaps the modern-day actor-characters are descendants of the people in the Victorian-era story? Or just lookalikes?
Eventually we learn that the actors are starring in a film, and their character names are the same as the people seen in the 19th-century story. Does that mean that reality is just the play-within-the-play? Is it less real? Are both realities real, or just one, and if so, which one?
The problem is, we never see an explanatory shot of the actors acting (only rehearsing, in plain clothes), or someone doing the costuming or make-up on the 19th century characters - so the Victorian romance seems real within the context of its own reality. But perhaps Meryl Streep's character in the 19th century is insane, and the modern actors represent her insane thoughts? I'm probably over-thinking this.
Both situations are complicated - in the 19th century, Charles Smithson falls for the mysterious Sarah, though he's engaged to another woman. And in the 20th century, both actors carry on an affair/show-mance even though they're both married. Society's got rules for this sort of thing, especially in the earlier story, and they're being broken again and again.
Of course, there are parallels between the two stories, but tonight they're somewhat more obscure. I felt like I was reaching to draw a satisfactory conclusion, and then I wondered why, as a viewer, I was doing all the work. Without being given something definitive, it seems like someone was just shooting for "arty". And that's a shame.
NITPICK POINT: The last scene in the 20th century reality takes place in a bedroom, in the lead actor's home, that is clearly a re-decorated version of Sarah's room from the 19th century. But the actor's house wasn't used as a location for shooting the period piece, was it? Confusing, confusing. Or were the filmmakers (the real ones) just lazy or cheap?
Also starring Jeremy Irons (last seen in "Dungeons & Dragons"), with cameos from Leo McKern (last seen in "Damien: Omen II") and David Warner (last seen in "The Omen"...nice).
RATING: 3 out of 10 tennis rackets/ping-pong paddles
No comments:
Post a Comment