Atonement vs. Children of Men
The title of this post is sort of tongue-in-cheek, as Atonement and Children of Men have little in common except for being populated with British actors and being adaptations of books I haven’t read. But there’s another superficial thing they share, and I’ll get to that later in my post.
While Atonement is likely to get an Oscar nomination for Best Picture, I thought it was generally a failure. It started promising enough, and I found the English countryside scenes that make up the first half of the movie compelling, even though I knew what was going to happen from the trailer. (Although I didn’t know the details, and those turned out to be more interesting than the trailer implied.)
But after that, the film switches gears and becomes an oh-the-horror-of-war picture, anchored by a 5 1/2 minute long tracking shot of the British Army’s evacuation of Dunkirk that has been heralded by critics and the press as a classic shot of cinema. For a good chunk of the second half, I found myself becoming restless as the movie strayed from its earlier tone and became unmoored.
I’m generally a fan of long tracking shots, but the one in Atonement – while an impressive technical feat even with digital enhancements – lends no emotional impact to the film. To pull out all stops on a segment whose importance is secondary to the main themes of the film is a little strange, and to me off-putting; I would have rather watched a long shot through the gardens of the English manor during significant moments earlier in the film.
This is where my superficial comparison to Children of Men comes in: Alfonso Cuarón’s masterpiece was also hyped by the media for its long takes, but that movie uses those shots wisely in service to the larger themes, and major character and plot developments occur during them. It elevated substance and style at the same time.
But back to Atonement: when the film reintroduces Briony, who has some serious atoning to do, I was once again swept into the story. And the film’s ending, which was rather clever and I imagine straight from Ian McEwan’s novel, makes a rather noble attempt to justify the plodding middle part of the movie. But without getting into the details, it does the exact opposite: it lessens even more the importance of the separated star-crossed lovers who dominate the war scenes, as it becomes clearer to the viewer that the entire movie is about Briony and her titular amends.
My guess is that McEwan’s novel suffers less from this problem, probably by virtue of his prose and the avoidance of the cinema’s demands for time compression. And I doubt his Dunkirk set piece suffers from out-of-place pyrotechnics. (But who knows, maybe he wrote the scene in iambic pentameter.) Unfortunately, the screen adaptation isn’t pushing the book to the top of my to-read pile.
The movie felt like it was pushing all the right Oscar-buttons, from its sweeping typewriter soundtrack to its lush cinematography, but having seen it I wonder about its chances for the big prize. But then what will take the traditionally poorly doled-out prize? Juno? No Country for Old Men? Those are guaranteed noms, but don’t seem like traditional winners. For the first time in a while, I feel like the prize is up in the air.
«< Interesting thoughts on the ending of No Country for Old Men David Simon rants about New York City »>
Comments (15)
the globe ran an AP article about "atonement" and the history of long tracking shots that you may enjoy (below).
joe wright claims logistical necessity:
http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2007/12/29/atonement_brings_the...
Yeah, I read that before I saw the movie, and Ty Burr's comment must've been subconsciously simmering in my brain.
Juno is such a nice little movie (a much nicer and better little movie than was Little Miss Sunshine). Ellen Page deserves her props. NCFOM deserves a lot more.
I've talked to cinematographers who were floored by Children of Men. There is likely no doubt that Atonement is a well-crafted period piece, but in the end it's still a period piece that has plenty of precedents. The challenges Cuaron answered will prove to have meant far more to filmmaking when history judges this era.
I would probably dispute that Atonement is well-crafted, at least in its second half.
Barry Lyndon is just a period piece as well, but Kubrick made it into something exceptional. I don't think it was the genre that deflated Atonement.
juno is not a period piece.
Knowing CoM had long shots distracted me somewhat when watching because I kept looking out for them, but in all cases the power of the storytelling kept me from noticing I was in the middle of a long shot until near the end, when the sense of relief from finally cutting was made more palpable, which is, for me, the sign of a good long shot. Cinematographers are like offensive linemen and backup dancers in this regard.
"The movie felt like it was pushing all the write Oscar-buttons,"
pun intended or fast typing?
Neither. It was actual ignorance of the spelling of that word.
The book Atonement, which you should read, is similarly jarring in the break between upper class English scandal and a gritty WWII retreat back towards England. However, the book sets up the WWII plot line better. The movie didn't devote enough time to letting the non-reading audience know that he is slowly going mad (due to his life threatening injury.) If they had done a better job of that, the long shot would make much more sense. Alas, I think the book could have easily been a 4 hour movie. Since they couldn't do that my favorite parts of the book were rushed.
I hate to say it, but the book is always better. Which is why always try to read the book first. It generally makes the movie going much better.
True, and I often do, but in this case I was given the impression that the movie was very good. (Ebert ranked it #4 in his list, and it has a high rotten tomatoes score.) But since the book has been recommended to me before, I should've read it first.
But I don't agree that the book is always better. The usual counter-examples: The Godfather, A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey (although the book and film were sort of co-created), and I would guess Goodfellas and Requiem for a Dream.
One more example: reading Fight Club the book before seeing the movie was very much the wrong thing to do. The book is mediocre and the movie, while highly flawed, would've been much better since it's built somewhat on shock value. So it's hard to say which is the right order -- it depends.
i would add the shining to the list, but i have never read it, so i'm going on gut feeling.
ditto for psycho.
this post recently made its way through the blogosphere. http://dailyfilmdose.blogspot.com/2007/05/long-take.html. although i've never seen the movie, i saw the awesome stairway shot in "the protector" a few years back and always promised myself i'd see the movie. then again, why should i if i've already seen the best part.
can someone explain to me why the opening credits of "so i married an axe murderer" never appears on these lists??
I read the book and saw the movie this weekend. I've noticed that anyone that read the book found the movie excellent and anyone that hasn't has found the movie boring.
The book portrays Briony as a little brat, who is highly intelligent for her age and seems to want to be an adult. Also, the WWII scenes show the life Robbie was forced to endure, seeing dying children and fellow soldiers, instead of being a doctor and leading a normal life. Briony singehandedly takes this all away and had it not been for the lie, Robbie and Cee might have survived the war.
At the end of the book, Briony gets sick and is happy about it. She mentions throwing a party for it. She waits until Marshall and Lola are dead so that they can't sue her for slander. She atones for herself and her motives are selfish, as always.
I found the typing along with the music a nice touch. I picked it up early on that it was meant to symbolize Briony writing the book, that it was a story. However, if you didn't read the book, you would not know until the end when you discovered she wrote one.
Like most adaptations, the book exceeds the movie although I thought the adaptation was great. I liked how they showed scenes from different sides as they did in the book. I strongly suggest reading the book, then watching it again. I'm sure it will make quite the difference.
This movie, which I swore I would never say it's name again, is a piece of shit. It had no structure and is entirely overrated. That 5 minute "shot" was completely unnecessary to the plot and doesn't even look real. It's a classic case of a director losing sight of what a movie should be about... The story! Wright's movies are so nauseating to watch. The casting was awful and the cinematography was hardly worth nominating for an Oscar. I might understand the purpose of the shot if he was making, oh I don't know, how about a Fucking war movie. But it isn't. Maybe he should have taken that ten million dollars and gone back to film school and learned how to teach his actors how to connect with their characters and, more importantly, the audience. If you want to watch a good movie go watch any one of the other Best Picture nominations because this is a fluke. You people make me sick.