data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ad3ad/ad3ad3b35a40dd31a8c37df68755f265da8a3d9d" alt=""
As a film alone, "Atonement" is cruel and ravishing, its rarest beauty coming in the forms of James McAvoy and Keira Knightly who bring so much blatant heartbreak to their roles that it's difficult to look away. I am supremely disappointed that neither earned nods from our beloved Academy; though, I can't say that I'm surprised. How can we go a year without nominating Kate Blanchett for yet another schmultzy period drama in which she plays some iconic figure from history? Knightly's exclusion from the Best Actress category is preposterous; however, nowhere near as preposterous as McAvoy's exclusion from the Best Actor category. Saoirse Rhonan's nomination is also somewhat preposterous, as its the only performance nomination at all for "Atonement."
It doesn't matter, however, because this is quite a remarkable film. It's lush and romantic, dark with intermittent patches of deceptive light. It begins in aristocratic England, circa WWII. Thirteen year old Briony is our protagonist--or shall we say antagonist?--whose naive misunderstanding spins her life, and the lives of big sister Celia and servant's son Robbie, into a pit of despair. The misunderstanding is epic, and it cannot be put into words with due justice. I'll only say that there's a fountain, a library, and a certain four letter word. But that's all that I'll say, because that is, in fact, all that it takes.
Because I'd read the book, I often found myself combing each scene, making sure that not one important element was lost. But this was completely pointless, because much unlike my initial predictions for the film, "Atonement" is a dazzling adaptation of what many may have found to be a previously-unadaptable novel. Its stars may have been screwed by a pity-party Academy, but as a finished product, it is a sheer work of art.
No comments:
Post a Comment