sadly, i haven’t read the evelyn waugh novel, but i gathered from the reviews of the eponymous 2008 movie that the gay theme is vastly heightened with respect to the novel, where it is only hinted at. yet, it is easily the most engaging aspect of the film, thanks to ben whishaw’s great performance. emma thompson is not to scoff at, either. i wish i could say that brideshead, or castle howard, is the true protagonist of this film (it is after all meant to be), but i’m afraid i have to give that prize to the film’s terrible representation of catholicism as stunting and stultifying and deadly. catholicism tends to get a bad rap in films (it is not popular to be catholic these days), but this is the film that has made me most successfully angry at my religion by far. anyway, i recommend it, in spite of the fact that matthew goode is fairly annoying in his blandness (you have a constant sense that he — his character i mean — should be up to something, but no, he isn’t, he is up to nothing at all) and that venice is shot in the entirely wrong light.
i didn’t enjoy, instead, an education, which seemed to me to amount to nothing. what the heck is this film about? loss of innocence? give me a break. i agree with the oscar nomination for the preternaturally talented carrey mulligan, but the other two? i don’t get it.
i saw lorna’s silence some time ago, but it’s a heck of a good movie. the dardennes can do no wrong in my book, and their sparsity of gestures, the poignancy of the brief, often tense exchanges, and the time they spend just following the characters around while they negotiate their impossibly difficult lives are positively sensual to me. still, this may be the most didactic of their films, and the end is remarkably bizarre.
now tell me what you think of these three movies. don’t be shy.