criterionforum.org

What a revoltin' development: we have a thread for Jennifer's Body, but not for this? It's probably the best movie I've seen in a theater since The New World, with which it actually has a good deal of affinity. The movie is incredibly gorgeous (costumes, cinematography, music, everything), and the actors are uniformly great, even Paul Schneider (who I dislike intensely in David Gordon Green's films)--even the cat. I don't know what's holding you folks back from seeing it (the poetry? the love story? the hats?) but please put aside any reservations you have and see it in the theater where you can be visually overwhelmed by it.

Trailer

I've never been a Campion fan, so that may be why I liked Bright Star...I thought Angel at My Table was her best before this, so maybe she should stick with biopics! Abbie Cornish is luminous, btw.

To be fair, Jennifer's Body was a thread-split

I thought I'd posted about this a while back somewhere (not here obviously!) I found the film very impressive, Campion's strongest for a long time. The only negative for me was that it gets more conventional towards the end with the sick poet dying stuff (inevitable really), but it does pull out a powerful ending. Abby Cornish is superb but her subtle work in this film couldn't really stand up to the steamroller onslaught of Gainsbourg's masochistic diva schtick at Cannes (particularly with Huppert - no stranger to masochistic divahood herself - heading the jury). Not that I mind Gainsbourg.

zedz wrote:it gets more conventional towards the end with the sick poet dying stuff (inevitable really)

I thought that it was handled pretty well. His actual death happens off-screen (that's not a spoiler, is it?), and you never see him coughing up blood into a lily-white handkerchief, wheezing with a death rattle as he struggles to write the final lines of a poem, or other "consumptive artist" clichés.

I thought of Total Eclipse as a prime example of how NOT to make a film about poets and poetry, and Bright Star avoided everything that film did wrong.

The trailer made this seem like a totally musty BBC drawing room drama, but I guess I'm wrong. I'll give it a whirl, but guys, are the deaths mentioned above spoiler tag worthy?

It contains historical figures, so my guess would be no.

I was hoping that there might be a chance that Criterion could release the DVD/Blu-ray of this film since Apparition is a new independent distributor, but it looks like they've signed a deal with Sony for home video and other ancillary rights. Oh well, that looks good for a Blu-ray at least.

Matt wrote:

zedz wrote:it gets more conventional towards the end with the sick poet dying stuff (inevitable really)

I thought that it was handled pretty well. His actual death happens off-screen (that's not a spoiler, is it?), and you never see him coughing up blood into a lily-white handkerchief, wheezing with a death rattle as he struggles to write the final lines of a poem, or other "consumptive artist" clichés.

You're right: Campion deserves plenty of brownie points for avoiding the hanky shot. The conventionality I noted was more structural than in the details. Before the decline, the film is great at avoiding predictable rhythms and expected scenes, but the last part is very much a "third act" and narrows down to focus on one particular strand - but what else are you going to do? I think Campion ultimately negotiates the climax magnificently by keeping the death off-screen and letting Cornish carry the emotional burden in one big scene that puts most cinematic depictions of grief to shame.

And Antoine, the film does superficially resemble your standard costume drama, but it's much, much more acute in its observation of the complexities of social structures and its respect for 'women's work'. Like Breillat's An Old Mistress, it's a film where details of dress and textiles (and decorative arts in general) are deeply expressive, not just period wallpaper.

While I did admire this, I also felt that it was a little too conventional to be truly moving or stirring. I respect Campion's insistence on playing things straight, but there came a point where I wished her old iconoclast self would make an appearance to shake things up a bit. And, while I love Malick as much as anyone, I really think his style has become a little too influential these days - the lyrical, poetic shots of Hampstead Heath are beautiful, yes, but it's beginning to feel like a cliche. Paul Schneider, though, was indeed fantastic, and in a lot of ways, his character (and performance) was the most interesting of the three protagonists, despite him having the least amount of screen time.

You have to remember, though, that this is not a literary adaptation that Campion can fiddle with like she did Portrait of a Lady. There's an existing ending to the story--and it's a doozy that's of little surprise to anyone involved--so she's got to show the truth of it and can't stray too far off course.

To tell the story of a famous poet through the eyes of the woman who loves him (and leaving the poet himself off-screen for long periods), and to limit that story to the last three years of his life, seems fairly unconventional in an age of biopics that insist on a cradle-to-grave scope (c.f. La môme/La vie en rose) or great stretches of time (Ray, Walk the Line). And now that everyone's trying to make Nolan/Tarantino-esque puzzlebox-structured films, a pretty straightforward three-acter is kind of refreshing.

And while "Malickism" might be becoming a cliché, it actually works in service to the subject here. Romanticism was all about celebrating the majesty of nature, the sublimity of beauty, and the primacy of love, and Campion has certainly made a capital-r Romantic movie.

A recent interview with Campion on The Treatment.

Career-ranging Onion interview with Paul Schneider which touches on his role in the film.

Saw the movie this week, and was absolutely in love with the first half/two thirds, but was disappointed by everything following

Spoiler

Keats' taking ill.

That said, it is undoubtedly the best thing Campion has put onscreen since An Angel at My Table, filled with beautiful imagery and uniformly excellent performances (Cornish, Wishaw, Schneider, Kerry Fox, even the two child actors). So, despite the third act weaknesses (which, to be fair, stem from, as Matt says, an unavoidable reality), I was left pretty satisfied by the film upon reflection.

Jane Campion is interviewed by the Observer:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/oct ... ter-conrad" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I don't think I'd have seen this had I not managed to get a ticket for a free screening. And what a fool I'd have been for underestimating this film. It was fantastic in every capacity; from performance, costumes, script, pace and structure. Bright Star was moving, tender, romantic, sensitive and never once threatened to disappear into a sea of sentimental gush. Wonderful.

Just got back from it and can only second what everyone else has already said: I'm normally averse to period/costume dramas but this was a very good film, superb even at times. I agree with zedz that as much as I like Charlotte Gainsbourgh myself and even though she gave an emotionally brave performance, Huppert and co made a serious misjudgement in giving the Palm D'Or to Gainsbourgh over Cornish who, among a generally very good cast, was frankly sensational. Re the third act criticisms: what should Campion have done? Would it really have benefited from a non-linear narrative (which is what I'm assuming those of you who criticised the final third were thinking of so as to make the film less conventional)? I'm not denying that this part in theory poses some problems but I thought she handled it very well: the film doesn't dwell more than it needs to on Keats' illness and omits his death altogether. The closing scene is very stirring and emotional though not in the obvious ways that other and lesser filmmakers would have opted for (as an aside, I loved the choice of having Whishaw reciting a poem over the end credits). And I loved, loved two particular shots in the film, and they almost follow on each other: the first one comes after the sequence where Keats kisses Fanny for the first time; it's the long shot of Cornish lying on her bed and the wind blowing the curtains against her feet. The second shot is of Keats climbing up into the trees and resting in the treetop. The natural lighting in both these shots gives them a very sensual quality, really exquisite, and it conveys the reverie that Fanny and Keats are experiencing so beautifully. Personally, it also reminds me of the serene mood of the montage of the family asleep in Renoir's The River. If I had to nitpick anything, it'd be the score - somehow, cello and strings seem to be the default choice for many costume/period dramas - personally, I'd have preferred a full orchestral score but that's just me. I appreciated however that Campion allowed for meaningful silences and diegetic sound to have their full impact. For an unashamed romanticist like me, this film was like 2+ hours in heaven.

I saw this on Friday and pretty much agree. Following Somersault, Candy (which she was the best thing in) and this, Abbie Cornish is for me one of the best younger actresses around at the moment.

Also thought the (digitally?) desaturated photography was an interesting choice.

On a minor point, I did a double take when the name of the scene-stealing actress (who looks about ten) who plays Fanny's younger sister Toots came on screen - Edie Martin. Presumably no relation to the character actress who did a lot of little-old-lady parts in the 1950s, especially in some Ealing comedies. (I never met her, as she died in the year I was born, but I do have a family connection with her.)

I went through most of the film without realizing that was Kerry Fox from Shallow Grave as Fanny's mother.

I quite liked it. Gorgeous film, and that shot of Fanny lying on the bed as the winds lick the window is a stunner. And the moment where little Edie Martin whispers to Keats "I love you" kills.

Interesting that the film is extremely, if inadvertently in tune with the current teen melodrama revival craze, and current pop cultural touchstones like Twilight, etc. - I have a feeling kids will end up Netflixing this knowing nothing about Campion or Keats, simply drawn to Cornish and Whishaw, and Keats-as-Robert-Pattinson-stand-in, chaste and burning. It's a John Hughes movie in Victorian getup; teen rebel Fanny even makes her own clothes.

Anyone else think the one scene with Fanny in her room, everything very white, walls, vase, flowers, and billowing curtains had a very Tarkovsky feel to it?

Bright Star's R1 will be coming from Sony in January though the extras are hopefully meatier than the blurb suggets:

"Sony Pictures Home Entertainment have announced the Region 1 DVD release of Bright Star on 26th January 2010 priced at $27.96 SRP. From Jane Campion, Academy Award winner of The Piano, comes a sweeping love story that will carry you back through time to experience the passion and romance between acclaimed poet, John Keats and his beloved muse.

Features include:

* 1.85:1 Anamorphic Widescreen
* English DD5.1
* Deleted Scene
* An Inspiring Romance Featurette
* Becoming Keats and Fanny Featurette
* Setting the Scene Featurette"

Surely there will be a Blu-ray, no? This is Sony, after all, who have been releasing Blu-rays of arthouse films making a lot less money than this film.

They released Blus of Whatever Works, The Class and Easy Virtue, to name but three, none of which even comes close to Bright Star in the visual department. (Although Lorna's Silence was recently announced for standard DVD only.)

Those all have obvious appeals to middlebrow consumers at a Best Buy, but Bright Star may not. Still, I'd be surprised if there was no Blu