Notes on A Scandel - Review
Jan. 15th, 2007 05:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkat[Knitting update: Have made progress on the knitting. Figured out how to bind off my stitches and how to knit 20 rows without adding or subtracting or dropping stitches - which tend to be the biggest hurdles, particularly dropping. Hate dropping. After binding off my small patch - which is long enough and wide enough to serve as a nifty book mark, attempting the next assignment in the book - a patchwork scarf, 30 rows, bind, new yarn, 30 more rows, bind, new yarn. If I can handle that, we'll move to purl stitch. Goal to figure out how to do knit and purl by Jan 30. Have three goals by Jan 30: finish novel, figure out knitting, and get job.
Yes, I tend to set high goals for myself - this we know. So right now? One out of three won't be too bad.]
Saw the British flick, Notes on A Scandel - yesterday for about six bucks. Was the early show. The film is notable for three reasons: 1) It stars two women in the lead roles - both older than 30, the lead role - in her late 60's early 70's. 2)The characters are complex and not necessarily likable and both do horrendous things. 3)The men are in minor roles - the film focuses almost entirely on the female relationship. All three of these things are rare to find in movies right now. Oh and the actress with the semi-nude scene? Is Judi Dench.
Got to give the Brits credit they are churning out fascinating flicks this year, far more interesting than the current crop from Hollywood - so for that matter are a few other countries, such as Mexico, France, China, and Spain. But that's just my opinion. I tend to adore films that have a bit of meat on their bones and haunt me long after the final reel has completed.
Notes on A Scandel is based on a book by Zoe Heller. It's about a pottery teacher who has an affair with her 15 year old pupil - and how the people around her influence and deal with it.
Both the book and the film focus on another character, Barbara, an older history teacher who is the pottery teacher's confidante and uses her secret to her own advantage.
I have not read the book, so can only comment on the film - which is supposed to be more comic than it is in actuality. Both my friend and I left it, feeling somewhat depressed and did not find the film "funny" unlike "The History Boys" or even "The Queen". That said, the acting, writing, and direction are top-notch and do leave their impact. Do not believe reports that Dench and Blanchett ham it up - their acting is subdued and on target. (For ham performance - see The Departed's Mark Walhberg and Jack Nicholson for comparison.) Dench's portrayal of the vampirish Barabara is subtle, expressing pain with just a flutter or a wince.
Horror with a look. It is as understated a performance as Helen Mirren's in The Queen, yet, we feel her pain and her self-absorbtion.
The film stars, Judi Dench as Barbara, Cate Blanchett as Sheba, and Bill Nighy as Sheba's husband, Richard. Each characters flaws and attributes are displayed deftly on the screen, not in broad strokes so much as swift jots. Building upon each other.
It is, as well, an excellent depiction of a "tight" point of view. We see most of the film through the eyes of Barbara - what little we know of Sheba is told to us by Barbara, with only a few exceptions. The film veers from Barbara's point of view about two or three times, to give us Sheba's perspective on Barbara, as well as her perspective on her own actions. But outside of those two or three times, we are solely inside Barbara. We see the two women, solely, through each other. Like most "point of view" films - this one is propelled entirely by the actions and emotions of it's characters. Their desire for a better, different life - motivates both Sheba and Barbara to do outrageous things and is the reason they are drawn to one another and become in an odd way entangled. Who is the villain? Who the victim?
It's not that neat or simple. Even now, a day later, I find myself oddly sympathetic to both women, understanding yet at the same time not - why they did what they did.
That said - there are flaws. It is by no means a perfect film. I've read that the book is a bit more humorous in tone than the film, which comes across at times as a tad on the dreary side. Also perhaps too much focus it placed on Barbara, we get little of Sheba's family life, her vile mother, or even the headmaster, seeing everything through Barbara's eyes and via Barbara's voice over narration, which while sharp, cynical, and at times darkly humorous, can also be tedious.
Is it for everyone? Hard to say. Difficult topic. I remember in one of my discussions yesterday stating that I cannot wrap my brain around having a tryste with a 15 year old boy, a boy who's body at stage is more adrognynous and far smaller than mine - two things that turn me off sexually, but this is not true for everyone. And as Sheba points out in the film and my friend pointed out - how is this any different than an older man sleeping with his sixteen/seventeen year old student? The boy after all is less damaged - he won't get pregnant and the other boys will think it is cool, while the girl is seen as "ruined" or "a tramp" and can get pregnant. The man seducing the little girl should be more abhorrent - since after all he is physically stronger? Course you could argue it is equally abhorrent - look at "Lolita", which this in a way is a female version of. Then again if you look at tv series such as Buffy and Angel - where we saw a woman seduce a 17/18 year old boy slayer and a man seduce a 16/17 year old girl slayer - the depiction was vastly different. Is there a double standard? I don't know. Perhaps. Woman after all mature earlier than men do, perhaps this is the reason?
The film touches on it, but never quite examines it - just a quick touch and retreat. Never moralizing, indeed leaving the moralizing to the audience.
Other issues explored are solitude, dissatisfaction, and the gap between dream and reality.
As well as that ambigious thing called friendship. Worth ten bucks, but not if you are in the mood to escape or want to turn off your brain.
Yes, I tend to set high goals for myself - this we know. So right now? One out of three won't be too bad.]
Saw the British flick, Notes on A Scandel - yesterday for about six bucks. Was the early show. The film is notable for three reasons: 1) It stars two women in the lead roles - both older than 30, the lead role - in her late 60's early 70's. 2)The characters are complex and not necessarily likable and both do horrendous things. 3)The men are in minor roles - the film focuses almost entirely on the female relationship. All three of these things are rare to find in movies right now. Oh and the actress with the semi-nude scene? Is Judi Dench.
Got to give the Brits credit they are churning out fascinating flicks this year, far more interesting than the current crop from Hollywood - so for that matter are a few other countries, such as Mexico, France, China, and Spain. But that's just my opinion. I tend to adore films that have a bit of meat on their bones and haunt me long after the final reel has completed.
Notes on A Scandel is based on a book by Zoe Heller. It's about a pottery teacher who has an affair with her 15 year old pupil - and how the people around her influence and deal with it.
Both the book and the film focus on another character, Barbara, an older history teacher who is the pottery teacher's confidante and uses her secret to her own advantage.
I have not read the book, so can only comment on the film - which is supposed to be more comic than it is in actuality. Both my friend and I left it, feeling somewhat depressed and did not find the film "funny" unlike "The History Boys" or even "The Queen". That said, the acting, writing, and direction are top-notch and do leave their impact. Do not believe reports that Dench and Blanchett ham it up - their acting is subdued and on target. (For ham performance - see The Departed's Mark Walhberg and Jack Nicholson for comparison.) Dench's portrayal of the vampirish Barabara is subtle, expressing pain with just a flutter or a wince.
Horror with a look. It is as understated a performance as Helen Mirren's in The Queen, yet, we feel her pain and her self-absorbtion.
The film stars, Judi Dench as Barbara, Cate Blanchett as Sheba, and Bill Nighy as Sheba's husband, Richard. Each characters flaws and attributes are displayed deftly on the screen, not in broad strokes so much as swift jots. Building upon each other.
It is, as well, an excellent depiction of a "tight" point of view. We see most of the film through the eyes of Barbara - what little we know of Sheba is told to us by Barbara, with only a few exceptions. The film veers from Barbara's point of view about two or three times, to give us Sheba's perspective on Barbara, as well as her perspective on her own actions. But outside of those two or three times, we are solely inside Barbara. We see the two women, solely, through each other. Like most "point of view" films - this one is propelled entirely by the actions and emotions of it's characters. Their desire for a better, different life - motivates both Sheba and Barbara to do outrageous things and is the reason they are drawn to one another and become in an odd way entangled. Who is the villain? Who the victim?
It's not that neat or simple. Even now, a day later, I find myself oddly sympathetic to both women, understanding yet at the same time not - why they did what they did.
That said - there are flaws. It is by no means a perfect film. I've read that the book is a bit more humorous in tone than the film, which comes across at times as a tad on the dreary side. Also perhaps too much focus it placed on Barbara, we get little of Sheba's family life, her vile mother, or even the headmaster, seeing everything through Barbara's eyes and via Barbara's voice over narration, which while sharp, cynical, and at times darkly humorous, can also be tedious.
Is it for everyone? Hard to say. Difficult topic. I remember in one of my discussions yesterday stating that I cannot wrap my brain around having a tryste with a 15 year old boy, a boy who's body at stage is more adrognynous and far smaller than mine - two things that turn me off sexually, but this is not true for everyone. And as Sheba points out in the film and my friend pointed out - how is this any different than an older man sleeping with his sixteen/seventeen year old student? The boy after all is less damaged - he won't get pregnant and the other boys will think it is cool, while the girl is seen as "ruined" or "a tramp" and can get pregnant. The man seducing the little girl should be more abhorrent - since after all he is physically stronger? Course you could argue it is equally abhorrent - look at "Lolita", which this in a way is a female version of. Then again if you look at tv series such as Buffy and Angel - where we saw a woman seduce a 17/18 year old boy slayer and a man seduce a 16/17 year old girl slayer - the depiction was vastly different. Is there a double standard? I don't know. Perhaps. Woman after all mature earlier than men do, perhaps this is the reason?
The film touches on it, but never quite examines it - just a quick touch and retreat. Never moralizing, indeed leaving the moralizing to the audience.
Other issues explored are solitude, dissatisfaction, and the gap between dream and reality.
As well as that ambigious thing called friendship. Worth ten bucks, but not if you are in the mood to escape or want to turn off your brain.
