Yep, it's a lit blog. But sometimes I find myself in a movie theater and I say to myself, WTF? Why am I in a movie theater? Shouldn't I be doing something literary? And then I say to myself, "bite me" and I enjoy the movie anyway. So here's some quick reviews of two films out in theaters at the moment. One has a personal connection, the other is based on a celebrated book.
The Great Debaters - Directed by Denzel Washington
I headed to this film because it portrays the world of competitive forensics (speech and debate, not dead bodies), and though it is a world apart from my own forensic experiences, the basic principles of the competition remained remarkably similar. I competed in a slightly different form of debate to what is portrayed in this film (mine was Parliamentary Debate, aka Impromptu Debate; the film shows some sort of modified Lincoln-Douglas type debate).
The cautionary note about this film is that while it is "based on true events", it is not a biographical piece. Some of the leading characters--whose names are changed from the real world--did not even meet in real life. The final debate, in which competitors from a small black college in Texas take down the Harvard debate team, was in real life a debate with the much more forensic-active University of Southern California. It is unlikely that the detailed events of the storyline did take place in exactly the manner portrayed, but from my googling it does sound as if the basic spirit of the era was left very much intact, and the extraordinary accomplishments of the tiny college, which remained undefeated for ten years (unbelievable, but true) and was among the first to engage in integrated debates with predominently white colleges, were if anything more impressive than what was portrayed.
There is a review somewhere on the internet criticizing the portrayal of whites in the film as "universally evil"; I didn't see that at all. These were rough times in America, and perhaps still are. Frankly, the Harvard debaters were almost too "noble" to be believed. In the end, it's the story of the Wiley College debaters, not the teams they went up against, and is told from their perspective. It's also the story of their coach, Tolson, a labor activist and later well-known poet, portrayed well by Washington.
As for the realism of the debate itself--most competitive debates aren't nearly as soaring and inspirational as what is portrayed in the film. In addition, as players are randomly assigned "affirmative" or "negative" to a particular debate, they are often left defending unsympathetic positions. That's where the best debaters shine. The Wiley debaters, throughout the film, conveniently argued the most persuasive, sympathetic side (that colleges should be integrated, for example, or another debate in favor of the policies of the New Deal). They certainly didn't build their winning record with such softball positions in real life, and this should be remembered when considering the magnitude of their accomplishments. Overall I'll give it 4 out of 5 for excellent performances and a compelling story, knocking it for a bit of unnecessary inaccuracy that left it open to criticism.
Atonement - Based on the Ian McEwen novel
Ok, decent book. A bit hard on the eyes in terms of POV switching and copious descriptive prose, but a decent book. The movie...well, it's a good example of why not every book should be made into a film.
The novel relies on a rather complex point of view structure that works simply because a competent and generous author helps us from position to position in the partially imaginary world of Briony Tallis. McEwan ensures we have enough foreshadowing, in particular, not to get utterly lost.
In the film, we lose most of the foreshadowing (Briony's success as an author later on is sprung almost as a surprise in the film; it's revealed early on in the book). We lose the chapter transitions that help us switch POVs. Instead we get sudden scene changes that make little sense to someone who has not read the book. The device of playing the same scene twice from different perspectives, key in the book, isn't easily understood by the uninitiated in the film, and doesn't happen consistently enough in the film for the viewer to trust what is happening and how. As the POV switches got more complex toward the end, my moviegoing companion was completely lost.
The whole idea of using fiction to create a happy ending for those whom we have wronged and lost is beautiful and compelling; there is a moment of lucidity near the end of the film when we see this with an older Briony. As the film unfolds, though, we fail to see Briony's moment of truth, the transformation from a nearly evil child to a repentant adult. This key transition is explained as nothing more than "growing up". In the hands of two very reserved actresses, this leaves Briony's character perpetually cold and the tragedies of the film feel pointless. Matched with music that several in the theater commented was "depressing," and the inevitably superficial portrayal of secondary characters that add a lot to the book, and I left thinking that this story belongs on the page, under the care of Ian McEwan's pen, and off the screen.
Performances: James McAvoy is wonderful as usual. Keira Nightly overacts severely, also as usual. 3 out of 5.
The Great Debaters - Directed by Denzel Washington
I headed to this film because it portrays the world of competitive forensics (speech and debate, not dead bodies), and though it is a world apart from my own forensic experiences, the basic principles of the competition remained remarkably similar. I competed in a slightly different form of debate to what is portrayed in this film (mine was Parliamentary Debate, aka Impromptu Debate; the film shows some sort of modified Lincoln-Douglas type debate).
The cautionary note about this film is that while it is "based on true events", it is not a biographical piece. Some of the leading characters--whose names are changed from the real world--did not even meet in real life. The final debate, in which competitors from a small black college in Texas take down the Harvard debate team, was in real life a debate with the much more forensic-active University of Southern California. It is unlikely that the detailed events of the storyline did take place in exactly the manner portrayed, but from my googling it does sound as if the basic spirit of the era was left very much intact, and the extraordinary accomplishments of the tiny college, which remained undefeated for ten years (unbelievable, but true) and was among the first to engage in integrated debates with predominently white colleges, were if anything more impressive than what was portrayed.
There is a review somewhere on the internet criticizing the portrayal of whites in the film as "universally evil"; I didn't see that at all. These were rough times in America, and perhaps still are. Frankly, the Harvard debaters were almost too "noble" to be believed. In the end, it's the story of the Wiley College debaters, not the teams they went up against, and is told from their perspective. It's also the story of their coach, Tolson, a labor activist and later well-known poet, portrayed well by Washington.
As for the realism of the debate itself--most competitive debates aren't nearly as soaring and inspirational as what is portrayed in the film. In addition, as players are randomly assigned "affirmative" or "negative" to a particular debate, they are often left defending unsympathetic positions. That's where the best debaters shine. The Wiley debaters, throughout the film, conveniently argued the most persuasive, sympathetic side (that colleges should be integrated, for example, or another debate in favor of the policies of the New Deal). They certainly didn't build their winning record with such softball positions in real life, and this should be remembered when considering the magnitude of their accomplishments. Overall I'll give it 4 out of 5 for excellent performances and a compelling story, knocking it for a bit of unnecessary inaccuracy that left it open to criticism.
Atonement - Based on the Ian McEwen novel
Ok, decent book. A bit hard on the eyes in terms of POV switching and copious descriptive prose, but a decent book. The movie...well, it's a good example of why not every book should be made into a film.
The novel relies on a rather complex point of view structure that works simply because a competent and generous author helps us from position to position in the partially imaginary world of Briony Tallis. McEwan ensures we have enough foreshadowing, in particular, not to get utterly lost.
In the film, we lose most of the foreshadowing (Briony's success as an author later on is sprung almost as a surprise in the film; it's revealed early on in the book). We lose the chapter transitions that help us switch POVs. Instead we get sudden scene changes that make little sense to someone who has not read the book. The device of playing the same scene twice from different perspectives, key in the book, isn't easily understood by the uninitiated in the film, and doesn't happen consistently enough in the film for the viewer to trust what is happening and how. As the POV switches got more complex toward the end, my moviegoing companion was completely lost.
The whole idea of using fiction to create a happy ending for those whom we have wronged and lost is beautiful and compelling; there is a moment of lucidity near the end of the film when we see this with an older Briony. As the film unfolds, though, we fail to see Briony's moment of truth, the transformation from a nearly evil child to a repentant adult. This key transition is explained as nothing more than "growing up". In the hands of two very reserved actresses, this leaves Briony's character perpetually cold and the tragedies of the film feel pointless. Matched with music that several in the theater commented was "depressing," and the inevitably superficial portrayal of secondary characters that add a lot to the book, and I left thinking that this story belongs on the page, under the care of Ian McEwan's pen, and off the screen.
Performances: James McAvoy is wonderful as usual. Keira Nightly overacts severely, also as usual. 3 out of 5.
Leave a comment