I've had an interesting day yesterday. I've attended a literature and film class where among other things, the topic of the day was Alfonso Cuaron's adaptation of Great expectations. I first saw this movie when it first came out in '98 and remember being absolutely blown away by it. It was the first movie along with Pulp fiction and The godfather that taught me that there's more to movies than just John Rambo, Dirty Harry and John McClain. In short, it showed me that film is an art form.
Mind you, at that time I didn't have a clue who Charles Dickens was and I enjoyed it strictly as a movie, without the burden of comparing it to the original novel. As faith would have it, I recently finished the novel for the first time and was really looking forward to revisiting Cuaron's movie and seeing how it holds up. Personally, I think it holds up beautifully. I was also interested in what other people thought about it. Then I realized that I'm about the only person on the planet who loves this movie.
I'm going to say a few things about why I believe Great expectations to be an extremely underrated movie why it deserves a lot more attention. I cannot stress the word movie enough. Whether it's a good adaptation of the novel is another story and I'll try to get into that a bit as well. In order to properly say what I have to say, I'm going to have to spoil a crucial plotpoint the movie and the novel.
This is a modernized story of a boy named Finn (changed from Pip) who at the beginning of the film runs across an escaped convict hiding in the marshes (Robert De Niro) and ends up bringing him food and helps him evade the police. Finn is raised by his sister Maggie (Kim Dickens) and her fisherman husband, Joe (Chris Cooper). One day, Finn is summoned to a large near by estate occupied by a (to put it mildly) eccentric old woman (Anne Bancroft) and her niece Estella. Finn spends every saturday with the two of them and becomes more and more enchanted by Estella who was taught by her aunt to be cruel to men. Finn grows up to be a painter (and becomes Ethan Hawke) and when he discovers that Estella is gone to school abroad is left heartbroken. However, his life changes when he is told that an anonymous benefactor is sponsoring Finn's first art show in New York. Finn is dragged into a world of art and money and thinks he has everything he could ever dream of. Until he again meets Estella (now played by Gwyneth Paltrow)...
Just from a visual standpoint this is a stunning movie. Director Cuaron, cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki and composer Patrick Doyle have created a feast for the eyes and ears. Everything from the marshes of Florida, the estate to the art world of New York oozes with life. It is simply impossible to take our eyes of it. We get a very strong sense of place and atmosphere throughout which helps to get a better sense of Finn's journey through different stages of his life. Individual scenes are paintings within themselves and could be put on a wall. Wonderful stuff
Since the film came out, there has been some controversy over the casting of Ethan Hawke in the lead role. Some people just couldn't see him as an artist and romantic lead. Now, I will admit that the weakest part of the movie for me are Finn and Estella's teenage years. Paltrow pulls it off wonderfully but somehow, Hawke (who was almost 30 at the time) looks silly as a lovestruck teen. However, when Finn gets to New York, Hawke completely won me over. The art world of New York is a natural habitat for Finn. He's more at home there than he ever was in Florida. He becomes more sure of himself, there is a very clear transformation in his character and for me, Hawke plays it beautifully. However, the real star of the movie is Gwyneth Paltrow as Estella. Paltrow perfectly switches emotions from being kind and warm to Finn to being ice cold."What's it like not to feel anything?", asks Finn. The supporting cast of De Niro, Bancroft, Cooper, Hank Azaria all do a fine job.
I have to be fair and say that I do understand why people dislike this movie so much, especially fans of the novel. This is a VERY loose adaptation. The main idea of the novel is Pip's (the main character's name) dealing with the society that surrounds him. His relationship with Estella is just one of many subplots. Alfonso Cuaron rather chose to focus on the Finn-Estella relationship and thus leaves out many of the novels characters and other plot points. Could he have made a more literal adaptation, regardless of time and setting? Probably, but he didn't choose to make THAT movie but he chose to do THIS one.
Another major controversy about the movie is its dealing with the discovery of sexuality. In an infamous scene 10 year-old Finn and Estella share a French kiss. Needless to say this wasn't in the novel or any other movie or TV adaptation. However, I feel that this is one of the key elements of the movie. If the main idea of the story "journey into manhood", then sex has to be a part of it. Because let's be honest, discovering sexuality is a part of every child's growing up. And Cuaron is perfectly aware of that, even at the risk of alienating his audience.
There is a general consensus that the weakest part of this movie is the relationship between Finn and the escaped convict. Near the end, the convict re-appears in Finn's life and tells him that he is the mysterious benefactor who made everything possible for Finn, due to Finn's kindness as a child. When this discovery is made in the novel, a very tender relationship between Pip/Finn and the convict is created which for some people is missing from Cuaron's movie. My take on it: There is a clear difference in the main reveal between the novel and Cuaron's movie which allows the relationship between the two men to play out differently. In the novel, the convict tells the truth right away, so it is natural for Pip/Finn to have an emotional response. In the movie, the convict tells the truth to Finn right before he dies, so before that, Finn is (again, very naturally) scared and wants to get rid of him and there is no time for an emotional connection. BUT , after the convict is killed by members of the Mafia on the subway train(Yes, I admit, silly) and confesses everything to Finn, Finn stays with him on the train, riding all night and very clearly contemplating the realization. Just because the emotion isn't spoken, doesn't mean it's not there.
I understand that for most people the definitive adaptation of Great expectations is by David Lean from 1946 and if you're looking for a more closer adaptation, that's your movie. But somehow, this one connected more to me personally and like I've already mentioned, some individual scene are some of the most gorgeous I've ever seen and will haunt me forever.
But that's just me...
Side note: My thanks to professor Robert Sullivan, Gaj Tomaš, Anđela Mihaljević and everyone else who gave me ideas yesterday and inspired me to study this movie again and write this silly text.
Mind you, at that time I didn't have a clue who Charles Dickens was and I enjoyed it strictly as a movie, without the burden of comparing it to the original novel. As faith would have it, I recently finished the novel for the first time and was really looking forward to revisiting Cuaron's movie and seeing how it holds up. Personally, I think it holds up beautifully. I was also interested in what other people thought about it. Then I realized that I'm about the only person on the planet who loves this movie.
I'm going to say a few things about why I believe Great expectations to be an extremely underrated movie why it deserves a lot more attention. I cannot stress the word movie enough. Whether it's a good adaptation of the novel is another story and I'll try to get into that a bit as well. In order to properly say what I have to say, I'm going to have to spoil a crucial plotpoint the movie and the novel.
This is a modernized story of a boy named Finn (changed from Pip) who at the beginning of the film runs across an escaped convict hiding in the marshes (Robert De Niro) and ends up bringing him food and helps him evade the police. Finn is raised by his sister Maggie (Kim Dickens) and her fisherman husband, Joe (Chris Cooper). One day, Finn is summoned to a large near by estate occupied by a (to put it mildly) eccentric old woman (Anne Bancroft) and her niece Estella. Finn spends every saturday with the two of them and becomes more and more enchanted by Estella who was taught by her aunt to be cruel to men. Finn grows up to be a painter (and becomes Ethan Hawke) and when he discovers that Estella is gone to school abroad is left heartbroken. However, his life changes when he is told that an anonymous benefactor is sponsoring Finn's first art show in New York. Finn is dragged into a world of art and money and thinks he has everything he could ever dream of. Until he again meets Estella (now played by Gwyneth Paltrow)...
Just from a visual standpoint this is a stunning movie. Director Cuaron, cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki and composer Patrick Doyle have created a feast for the eyes and ears. Everything from the marshes of Florida, the estate to the art world of New York oozes with life. It is simply impossible to take our eyes of it. We get a very strong sense of place and atmosphere throughout which helps to get a better sense of Finn's journey through different stages of his life. Individual scenes are paintings within themselves and could be put on a wall. Wonderful stuff
Since the film came out, there has been some controversy over the casting of Ethan Hawke in the lead role. Some people just couldn't see him as an artist and romantic lead. Now, I will admit that the weakest part of the movie for me are Finn and Estella's teenage years. Paltrow pulls it off wonderfully but somehow, Hawke (who was almost 30 at the time) looks silly as a lovestruck teen. However, when Finn gets to New York, Hawke completely won me over. The art world of New York is a natural habitat for Finn. He's more at home there than he ever was in Florida. He becomes more sure of himself, there is a very clear transformation in his character and for me, Hawke plays it beautifully. However, the real star of the movie is Gwyneth Paltrow as Estella. Paltrow perfectly switches emotions from being kind and warm to Finn to being ice cold."What's it like not to feel anything?", asks Finn. The supporting cast of De Niro, Bancroft, Cooper, Hank Azaria all do a fine job.
I have to be fair and say that I do understand why people dislike this movie so much, especially fans of the novel. This is a VERY loose adaptation. The main idea of the novel is Pip's (the main character's name) dealing with the society that surrounds him. His relationship with Estella is just one of many subplots. Alfonso Cuaron rather chose to focus on the Finn-Estella relationship and thus leaves out many of the novels characters and other plot points. Could he have made a more literal adaptation, regardless of time and setting? Probably, but he didn't choose to make THAT movie but he chose to do THIS one.
Another major controversy about the movie is its dealing with the discovery of sexuality. In an infamous scene 10 year-old Finn and Estella share a French kiss. Needless to say this wasn't in the novel or any other movie or TV adaptation. However, I feel that this is one of the key elements of the movie. If the main idea of the story "journey into manhood", then sex has to be a part of it. Because let's be honest, discovering sexuality is a part of every child's growing up. And Cuaron is perfectly aware of that, even at the risk of alienating his audience.
There is a general consensus that the weakest part of this movie is the relationship between Finn and the escaped convict. Near the end, the convict re-appears in Finn's life and tells him that he is the mysterious benefactor who made everything possible for Finn, due to Finn's kindness as a child. When this discovery is made in the novel, a very tender relationship between Pip/Finn and the convict is created which for some people is missing from Cuaron's movie. My take on it: There is a clear difference in the main reveal between the novel and Cuaron's movie which allows the relationship between the two men to play out differently. In the novel, the convict tells the truth right away, so it is natural for Pip/Finn to have an emotional response. In the movie, the convict tells the truth to Finn right before he dies, so before that, Finn is (again, very naturally) scared and wants to get rid of him and there is no time for an emotional connection. BUT , after the convict is killed by members of the Mafia on the subway train(Yes, I admit, silly) and confesses everything to Finn, Finn stays with him on the train, riding all night and very clearly contemplating the realization. Just because the emotion isn't spoken, doesn't mean it's not there.
I understand that for most people the definitive adaptation of Great expectations is by David Lean from 1946 and if you're looking for a more closer adaptation, that's your movie. But somehow, this one connected more to me personally and like I've already mentioned, some individual scene are some of the most gorgeous I've ever seen and will haunt me forever.
But that's just me...
Side note: My thanks to professor Robert Sullivan, Gaj Tomaš, Anđela Mihaljević and everyone else who gave me ideas yesterday and inspired me to study this movie again and write this silly text.
The music played while this text was being written
Sure, yeah, blame me :D
OdgovoriIzbrišiSure, if an idea stems from the book, the fans of the book expect an adaption faithful to the book. But the media is different, the instruments are different, hell, writing a novel and a movie script is different! Books and movies are two separate worlds and I believe they should be treated as such.
OdgovoriIzbrišiExcellent job. Not that I expected anything less :D
Greetings to prof. Sullivan, Anđela and Gaj :)
Absolutely right! I think that people were unfair to this one because everyone was judging it as an adaptation rather than a movie. That's why it has such a bad rep
OdgovoriIzbrišiGreat review - using most significant aspects to prove your point and IMHO, no one can argue about their validity.
OdgovoriIzbrišiMaybe the audience expects more of Hawke all the time, I agree with you, but I also believe there were better choice, but that's just my taste.
I don't judge it as an adaptation (aside from the course), and so should everyone to appreciate it. Actually, I doubt many have read Dickens's novel. :)
Well done.
Keen critique. Film adaptations generally do no have to follow the book blindly, the matter is in the mind and the eye of the director. At the time of the release, I believe the world has not been ready (yet) for Hawke or Paltrow. For sure, I haven't been (yet). Thanks for reminding me to watch it again.
OdgovoriIzbrišiI don't think that the sole reason for disliking the movie is connected to it being a "loose" adaptation. Sometimes you have to observe a work of art within its time period. We are talking about 1998. You have Gwyneth Paltrow in her prime, and Hawke as the next best prodigy (pre-Training Day and pre-Before Sunset Ethan Hawke). Something like Robert Pattinson and Sandra Bullock of today. So, this is not just an adaptation. This is "the Hollywood adaptation" of that year. To use a crude simile, this is like "He's Just Not That Into You" of our time. It means that it isn't just "loose", it is also "wrong". And when I say wrong I mean - the events in the film are sometimes cut out and applied in order to suit the stars, the budget, the effectiveness of the shot, without consideration for the novel. This is a time when producers rarely thought that an adaptation needs to capture the genuine feeling of its original material. All of this makes the film look "light" and "modern", belonging to the same society that Dickens tried to mock and "out" in his novel. But that is not even the biggest flaw of this film. The main thing is that the transition of Pip (Finn) isn't as defined as it should be or you have felt it was. Hawke is basically the same confused character throughout the film, with just a slight alteration of his facial hair. There is a character ark, but he does not contribute to it because he is merely the ending point to young Jeremy James Kissner's brilliant initial spark. There is no middle ground. A change in his portrayal of this character occurs, but only at the very end when all cards are laid on the table - as you have correctly stated in your review. This kind of lacking character development would even look bad in Jaws IV but here it really stands out. I know this looks like harsh medicine, but here it is. The film does have some brilliant scenes, but all in all - Thumb down from me. This is just my take on it.
OdgovoriIzbrišiAnd a great take it is, partner. We just have different views on it. :-) I just felt that a lot of people didn't look at it as a film within itself. It would be fine that they didn't like it for the same reasons that you mentioned
OdgovoriIzbriši