James McAVoy and Keira Knightley excel in Joe Wright's Atonement.Based on the best selling book by Ian McEwan, which I confess I’ve not read, this ambitious adaptation arrived yesterday in theatres after a fanfare of glowing reviews when it debuted at the Venice Film Festival last week.
Headline grabbing reviews that proclaimed this as an instant classic and pondered whether Joe Wright is
Britain’s best director must have been music to the producers ears, and to Working Title, the British film production company who have practically single-handedly kept the British film industry afloat over the last 15 years.
So is this just another example of flag waving from the British critics or is the hype justified?
Well the short answer is yes and no. The long answer is that Atonement begins by introducing us to the budding playwright Briony, just 13 years of but charmingly enthusiastic about the completion of her first effort on one particularly hot summer’s day. In the midst of trying to get various members of her family to audition, she spies an odd scene from her bedroom window between her sister Cecily and the family’s gardener, Robbie, in which Cecily strips down to her underwear and then jumps into a fountain. A display of such indecency (this was the 1930s) troubles Briony greatly and the only explanation from her child-like point of view is that it must be Robbie’s fault.
We’ve only seen this unfold from Briony’s point of view as well, however Wright immediately jumps back a few moments in time to play out the scene for us again, this time from Cecily’s perspective. What seemed to be an odd encounter is revealed to be quite innocent, however we the viewer already know that there’s a significance to that first perspective that will ultimately shape the direction of the story.
For Cecily, played by Keira Knightley, who Wright directed to an Oscar nomination in Pride and Prejudice, and Robbie (James McAvoy) that encounter proves to be the catalyst that leads to them realising their mutual feelings for each other. Knightley and McAvoy totally convince as lovers and are both excellent in this opening act of the film; at first unable to express themselves around one another and then, embracing passionately within the space of a few minutes on film. Yet this lightening fast progression feels natural thanks to the note perfect performances of the two leads. The opening act, all of which takes place on that same day, is wonderfully engaging, at times very humorous in the way it is written and directed. You want to spend more time with these characters, and the palpable chemistry they share on screen. It’s nearly as good as cinema gets. However, and you knew this was coming, things start to go downhill as soon as that day ends and the story moves forward 4 years.
Briony accuses Robbie of a crime he did not commit and it results in him being whisked off to jail, and then Northern France to fight in WWII leaving Knightley in England on her lonesome. Now their chemistry was good, but I’m not sure even they are good enough to pull off a screen chemistry with the English Channel separating them.
Clearly since this is an adaptation of a successful novel, Christopher Hampton was not at liberty to deviate so dramatically from the source, however I felt it a huge mistake to separate Knightley and McAvoy. The middle act holds a fraction of the interest generated by the first and it’s a different film altogether without the two leads in the same country. Heck, I’m not suggesting for a moment that McEwan got it wrong and that his novel would be a lot better if only he would take my suggestions on board. However I do know that it’s often hard to come by such great chemistry between two leads and when you do you have to milk than cash cow for all it’s worth. It’s generally not a good idea to put 600 miles between them, and, worse than that, include what seemed an interminably long stretch without either of them on the screen.
The film recovers somewhat in the third act – there’s a nice appearance by Vanessa Redgrave as the elder Briony, and McAvoy delivers a knock-out scene towards the end. However I came out of this disappointed that a film with an A+ first act couldn’t sustain it for the whole 2 hours. Minus marks too for a score that’s run of the mill and often too much, and for an ending that is all too predictable.
It’s definitely worth seeing and I’m sure many people will have a completely different take on the last 2 thirds, but I wanted to see a film that I was promised in the first half hour. I know you should judge a film on what it was a out, and not on what you wanted it to be about, however on this occasion I’m going to break that little golden rule and judge it on what I felt it should have been. And by that criterion it’s a slightly disappointing B
I have to say, I was surprised by this one. Very surprised. Okay, I didn’t expect it to be awful, but I didn’t expect it to blow me away either. But it did.
