Gris's Journal

At the movies

So, a couple of days ago I realized that the last movie I saw in the theater was in early July, and so deemed it high time remedy that on my next day off (which was today. Yay!) In fact, given the available choices, the fortuitous timing, and being unsure of when I might *next* get to the theater, I took in two, one after the other.

For those who haven't seen them, and trust me enough not to spoil it for you in giving my brief impressions of the two films, skip right down to the little "Continue reading..." link down there ::points::.

For those that don't trust me, or don't care to know what I thought of them (in which case, why are you reading this entry this far? Hmph.), suffice to say that I went to see Hero, starring Jet Li, and Vanity Fair, starring Reese Witherspoon. There. Now, go away!

Hi there! Glad you decided to join me. I love you, too. Have some popcorn. Go ahead, it's virtual, no carbs!

The matinees this morning were timed *perfectly.* There was about a five-minute breather between Hero and Vanity Fair, so by leaving just after the main credits, I made it to the matinee showing of VF in time to miss all the stupid ads, but see all the previews. ^_^

Taken together... wow. I think I managed to see the two most color-drenched, beautifully-costumed movies of the entire season, if not the year, back to back. If one or the other of these doesn't come away with an Oscar for costuming, art direction, or cinematography (or, heck, all of them), I wash my hands of the Academy in matters of taste.

Of course, neither of these movies will be for everyone. Hero is a Chinese wuxia (historical/fantasy martial arts) epic of the Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon variety (but shorter, by about a half-hour). It's sweeping, it's subtitled (the dialogue is in Mandarin), and there's a lot of wirework ("flying," walking on water, generally thumbing one's nose at physics) and long sword fights and long hair and traditional Chinese music and serious old men in very silly hats. Vanity Fair is adapted from a William Makepeace Thackeray novel of the same title. It's a period drama-- periwigs, corseted gowns, Regimentals, balls, dinner parties, people with names like Lord Folderol and Miss Farthingale, lots of snubbing and British accents. If neither of these sorts of movies appeal to you, you may want to give these flicks a miss.

Hero, of the two, was the better movie, IMHO. This is not to slight Reese's VF, but if you could only see one of the two, this is definitely the one I would recommend. The cast, besides titular nameless Hero, Jet Li, includes Tony Leung Chiu Wai, Maggie Cheung, Ziyi Zhang (in a fairly minor role, actually), Daoming Chen, and Donnie Yen-- truly, a wonderful cast. It was directed by Yimou Zhang-- remember Raise the Red Lantern? That was his, too, which should give you an idea of what you're in for. The entire movie is stunningly, achingly gorgeous. The basic plot-- and I give nothing away, here, worry not-- concerns a nameless warrior of no particular renown who has singlehandedly defeated the three deadly assassins most feared by the King of Qin (Qin being one of seven kingdoms in what will later become the empire of China). He has been summoned to the king's court to tell his story, which unfolds (for the viewer) as a series of flashbacks to each fight as he starts to describe it.

Don't make the mistake of walking in expecting a kung-fu action movie-- yes, it has action in it, lots of swordfights (most of which are largely bloodless, if that's a concern of yours), but this isn't thrill-a-minute sort of action. The martial arts sequences are highly choreographed (as is common in wuxia movies), and downright balletic in their beauty... you're familiar with "poetry in motion"? Well, this is "Chinese calligraphy in motion." Some of them *are* very fast and thrilling, but others are deliberately slowed down, with lots of wirework. Those bits are more like... waking dreams of how a swordfight between two masters *might* go. (Yoda *wishes* he could have fought like this.) *Far* from boring, but not exactly adrenaline-pumping. Add to this beautiful actors wearing vividly colorful, flowing costumes arranged against an often stark landscape and you have a banquet for the eyes. This movie is very, very, *very* pretty to look at, and the beauty factor alone would make it worth seeing at least once (on a big screen, if you can manage it).

But, wonder of wonders, it's also got a plot-- a plot of unexpected wrinkles and layers (again, with his track record, this is not a director to underestimate), and characters that feel real and human despite their legendary setting. Yes, this is wuxia... which means almost everyone has some almost impossibly noble motivation. It's chivalry-fantasy, that's the genre. But these aren't cardboard characters... I cared what happened to all these people. I cried for most of them, even the villains (such as they are-- all the characters in this movie have their sympathetic moments, when I think about it). And y'know... despite the big sets, the artsy design and cinematography, the "noble legend" idea behind the basic plot... this isn't a pretentious movie, really. It's not one of those "ah! the deep, inscrutable symbolism of the flower that drops from her hair! how Jungian!" sorts of movies... yes, there's symbolism there, if you really want it, but following the plot doesn't depend on it. (In fact, in the few places that you *do* get hit with some hefty symbolism, the king often doesn't get it either, and the Hero has to explain it to him-- thus explaining it to us, too. Very politely. Because you don't say "well, DUH!" to someone who can have your head lopped off with a twitch of his pinkie.) It's not even... well, probably *because* it's not your stereotypical martial arts movie, it's just really, *really* good, and would quite likely appeal even to those who aren't really into all that swordplay stuff. Thumbs up. This one's definitely a keeper.

So. Vanity Fair. (I went on so long about Hero, I feel like I barely have anything left for this one... but I think I can manage. ;) ) I'll start with a little reminder about the difference between a movie *based* on a novel, and the novel itself. The movie is not the book. It can never *be* the book. And if you try to compare it to the book-- especially a dense, period social drama like one of Thackeray's-- the movie will (almost) always fail badly in comparison. (So? I liked Emma the movie better than the book. Don't look at me like that, KT.) This happens for a number of reasons. The most obvious is that a book can take its time. Very few people are going to read about 300 pages' worth of book in two hours. (I could tell you a story here about one really assignment-packed week at college that left me about that amount of time to read Thomas Hardy's Tess of the D'Urbervilles, but I won't. I'll just let you guess how much of it I retained.) A book can make its own schedule. It gets time to work up the characters so you can *really* get to know them, time to develop the plot and explore as many subplots as it likes, time for loads and loads of set-up and back-story and character motivation and what-have-you.

A movie... doesn't. A movie gets two hours, more or less. for those 300 or so pages. (Well, in VF's case, more like 800 pages.) That's it. If it can't tell you the story in that time... well, it's not a movie, it's an A&E miniseries, and that's a different genre again. And a movie needs to maintain a certain flow, a modicum of pacing; while a book can luxuriate in digressions and introspective lulls in the action, a movie can only get away with so much dodging away from the plot. After all, it doesn't have the *time* to hare off on lots of digressions. Inevitably, that means something's going to get cut... a subplot, a scene, a minor character or ten, etc.

Now, let's add on a few more of the limitations of the audiovisual medium... for example, a book can describe, a book can tell... a movie *has* to show. Yes, you can always have voice-over narration, long, expository conversations, establishing shots to help set a scene in a few seconds... but there's a limit to how much of that you can get away with in a movie. And a movie can't leave much to the imagination, because it is, primarily, a visual medium. What it is, in essence, is the book as imagined by a fairly small group of people (the director, the actors, maybe the set designers and costumers, too) and then presented, fully realized, to its audience. Sure, the movie will have its own things open to interpretation, but... it's *already* filtering the book through someone else's interpretation. To my mind, because of this, it's never a good idea to reread the book just before going to see the movie, because you'll undoubtedly spoil the experience for yourself.

Okay. Done with the mini-lecture. And yes, obviously, there was a reason I beat you over the head with this. Reese Witherspoon and Mira Nair's Vanity Fair is not necessarily *your* Vanity Fair. It's not even entirely Thackeray's Vanity Fair, but you knew that, based on my little essay just now. It was a good movie, though. Not great, not brilliant, but certainly good. The setting was top-notch-- the houses, the costumes, the balls, everything. As in Hero, the director's use of bright, opulent color against often drab backgrounds was particularly striking. (It might help to mention that Mira Nair, who also directed Monsoon Wedding and Salaam Bombay, is Indian born and educated, and takes full advantage of early 19th c. Britain's fascination with its colony of India in conceiving the scenery for this movie.) The music is also lovely (and no, Reese does not do her own singing, according to the song credits). I will freely admit that I came into this already liking a *lot* of the actors. Reese Witherspoon is one of my favorites, as is the hunky James Purefoy. Romola Garai, whom I recognized but couldn't place until I looked her up (Cassandra in I Capture the Castle), as Amelia. Jonathan Rhys-Meyers (whom I predict KT will drool over) as George Osborne. Bob Hoskins, who should do more period films because he's so GOOD at it, as Sir Crawley. Meg Wynn Owen, who was Mrs. Lewis in Gosford Park, does a marvellous Lady Crawley. And, surprise, surprise, Gabriel Byrne playing the Marquess of Steyne.

Okay, enough gushing. Yes, it's a very strong cast, and overall I felt that was the movie's greatest strength: good, solid characterization, with occasional flashes of brilliance. It's a big cast, as so often happens in period dramas, but you don't get everyone thrown at you at once, and there's enough continuity with them that you don't have too much of "oh yeah, who's that again?" The characters had drive, they had depth, and some of them had some *damn* sharp wit. Quite a bit of humor to leaven this drama, but some of it is rather owie. (So far, so good, as far as the book's concerned, right?.)

Alrighty now, here's the big point of deviation with the novel that I admit to liking: the novel is *not* about happy people, or even really decent people. C'mon, it's a satire on British society, and most specifically, the consequences of foolish pride and ambition-- social climbing, keeping up with the Joneses, getting ahead, snubbing the "out" crowd, etc. The first casualty of this, for me, was likeable characters. Even Becky-- heck, *especially* Becky-- pushes it too far a few too many times. (I suppose I should say "even Amelia," but I didn't like her much either.) I just... got disgusted, which is, I suppose, what Thackeray was aiming for. The dialogue was fun; I enjoy a good snipe as much as the next one. But I didn't really have anything (except the assignment and a sort of sick fascination) to keep me reading. I couldn't care less what happened to them all, as far as I was concerned, they *all* deserved what they got. ("A Novel without a Hero," indeed!) I don't really need to read about how people can be cruel to each other-- I learned that in elementary school first-hand, thanks. This is not to say that the movie *is* about happy people-- it's not. But, well... purists will probably take exception to this, but I felt the movie characters had a much more realistic range of feeling. Still no saints here, but... I don't know how to put it, exactly. The movie just feels more... positive than the book. Yes, I hear your incredulousness. ("Positive? Vanity Fair?? But... did they miss the whole POINT of the book??") No, I don't think they missed the point. It's just a different perspective. Yes, the movie still shows you how even the best of people can be petty and vain. But the movie *also* shows that even the worst schemers can have their moments of compassion or genuine regret. And... yeah, Hollywood probably had an influence on it, as far as that goes. The book is still a much stronger work than the movie, but in the handling of this one theme, I preferred the movie's take.

I'd say, on the whole, the movie is just... milder than the book. Bear in mind, it's PG-13, so some of the racier scenes are toned down (sometimes by quite a lot). But it's not just that... people in the movie just aren't as nasty, situations don't get quite as dire. That kind of thing. As I said, that was an aspect of the book I didn't particularly miss, but others might, so, fair warning. (As point of comparison, Dangerous Liasons is far more wicked, but it's also rated R.) And, as is to be expected, the plot is *quite* compressed. It's been awhile since I've read the book, so I couldn't tell you specifically what might have been left out or glossed over, but they certainly do hustle the plot along. Overall, I liked it, and I was able to get into it as I couldn't get into the book-- the characters engaged me more. But if you *really* liked the book, chances are you're not going to be entirely pleased with this movie, and you may want to wait for video.

Posted by gris at September 12, 2004 11:34 PM