![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Apr. 19th, 2008 01:42 pmSo I saw Atonement last night, and I have to say, I found it to be much like The Notebook: High in praise and obsessive fangirls, and low in narrative and quality.
First, let me just say that there were things I liked about it. The girl who played young Briony was spectacular, and every bit deserving of her Oscar nod. I was absolutely transfixed watching her. The score was also brilliant. Whoever thought to use the typewriter as an instrument is a genius.
Aside from that, I found the story contrived and dull. I had no emotional investment in any of the characters. It was like I was commanded to care about them but wasn't shown why. Robbie and Cecelia having sex in the study was extremely random when all we knew of their relationship leading up to it was that there was a certain amount of sexual tension between them by a fountain and they didn't speak to each other at school. Then suddenly it's sex, and "I love you, I'll wait for you, I'll cut off my family for you!" Um, sorry, did I doze off for a moment? (I wouldn't be surprised, as any scene not featuring Saoirse Ronan was exceedingly boring.) Because I feel like I missed something.
That might also have had something to do with the narrative form, which was awful! This style of "Three Years Earlier/Five Months Earlier (than now, or than three years earlier?)/Two Minutes Later/Three Days Earlier/Four Days After That" "This Happened/Just Kidding, No It Didn't/Yes It Did/But Not Really" is stupid in the extreme. And I don't think this, as some people have suggested, because I don't like stories that make me use my brain. Rather it's because I like to have to use my brain to reflect on the story's themes rather than on trying to figure out what the bloody hell is going on. If a story is complicated, it should be thematically complicated not narratively complicated. The theme isn't going to have much impact on your readers/viewers if they can't follow the story.
All in all, it took me five hours to watch a two-hour film because I kept getting bored and pausing and doing other stuff. I only kept going back because I expected it would get better, but it never did.
What I don't understand is, how come it's always stupid movies like this that get all the awards? I'm not suggesting the generic blockbuster should be winning, but why is it movies like this, and Crash, and The Departed -- in other words, movies with good cinematography and boring/confusing/nonexistent plots -- that are nominated for/win the Best Picture awards? Good cinematography doesn't make the movie interesting, and a unique narrative style isn't necessarily a good narrative style. Just saying.
First, let me just say that there were things I liked about it. The girl who played young Briony was spectacular, and every bit deserving of her Oscar nod. I was absolutely transfixed watching her. The score was also brilliant. Whoever thought to use the typewriter as an instrument is a genius.
Aside from that, I found the story contrived and dull. I had no emotional investment in any of the characters. It was like I was commanded to care about them but wasn't shown why. Robbie and Cecelia having sex in the study was extremely random when all we knew of their relationship leading up to it was that there was a certain amount of sexual tension between them by a fountain and they didn't speak to each other at school. Then suddenly it's sex, and "I love you, I'll wait for you, I'll cut off my family for you!" Um, sorry, did I doze off for a moment? (I wouldn't be surprised, as any scene not featuring Saoirse Ronan was exceedingly boring.) Because I feel like I missed something.
That might also have had something to do with the narrative form, which was awful! This style of "Three Years Earlier/Five Months Earlier (than now, or than three years earlier?)/Two Minutes Later/Three Days Earlier/Four Days After That" "This Happened/Just Kidding, No It Didn't/Yes It Did/But Not Really" is stupid in the extreme. And I don't think this, as some people have suggested, because I don't like stories that make me use my brain. Rather it's because I like to have to use my brain to reflect on the story's themes rather than on trying to figure out what the bloody hell is going on. If a story is complicated, it should be thematically complicated not narratively complicated. The theme isn't going to have much impact on your readers/viewers if they can't follow the story.
All in all, it took me five hours to watch a two-hour film because I kept getting bored and pausing and doing other stuff. I only kept going back because I expected it would get better, but it never did.
What I don't understand is, how come it's always stupid movies like this that get all the awards? I'm not suggesting the generic blockbuster should be winning, but why is it movies like this, and Crash, and The Departed -- in other words, movies with good cinematography and boring/confusing/nonexistent plots -- that are nominated for/win the Best Picture awards? Good cinematography doesn't make the movie interesting, and a unique narrative style isn't necessarily a good narrative style. Just saying.