A fractured tale of a fractured woman told in a fractured style.
I actually enjoyed the story-telling with ellipses, and that may have been inherited from the original theatrical play. Others have found it disorienting. The movie is dolled up with a celebrity cast (it seems director Fred Schepisi has done this before especially with pop music stars, notably his "Six Degrees of Separation" with Will Smith.)
The film was born old (in 1985 reflecting back on WWII and aftermath), and I've now piled nearly an additional 20 years on top of that. Meryl Streep fans I hope have already watched this, I think Schepisi said something about how emotions move across her face like shadows across a landscape). Pretty amazing how her porcelain skin can invoke fugues and frustration; no fractures on the outside. Alas, isn't that often the way...
Streep's character suffers from a sort of vague mental illness (with a less vague prescription for sedation). Is she too sensitive/honest for the stiff upper lip of British society and the home office? Has she an addiction to being "out of control" - the character's self-assessment. Is there an element of proto-feminism in a man's world? Scenes stationed in Jordan, perhaps fractured out, may have factored in there as well.
The answer may be as fractured as the telling of the tale.
Ultimately for me, the film felt like the repercussions of her role behind enemy lines (and briefly behind closed doors with a fellow Brit on a mission of derring-do). Those moments under paratrooper skies and occupied streets may have shaken her to the core, psychically and romantically.
The problem with that reading in real or reel life is it leaves a lifetime of denouement.
I will say two sterling moments for me which now warrant the spoiler tag
1) Sir John Gielgud's character excuses himself after being lambasted by an out-of-control Streep at dinner party. Later we find he's fallen from grace/standing for speaking up to power likely aligned with Streep's thinking with far more to risk than a cold entree.
2) The reunion with Sam Neil adds more algia to the nostalgia, as is often the case in a romanticized tryst from long ago. His clear-eyed resignation a stark contrast to Streeps high on a feeling, a feeling once fleeting stretched out over the length of the film, if not forever.
The two Neil scenes nearly bookend the movie, there is a throwback to the delusion from the time of the first scene, which I guess was the point of the film.
A dream of plenty winds up with not much? Hence the 5 for me.... Streep devotes only for the must-see.
I actually enjoyed the story-telling with ellipses, and that may have been inherited from the original theatrical play. Others have found it disorienting. The movie is dolled up with a celebrity cast (it seems director Fred Schepisi has done this before especially with pop music stars, notably his "Six Degrees of Separation" with Will Smith.)
The film was born old (in 1985 reflecting back on WWII and aftermath), and I've now piled nearly an additional 20 years on top of that. Meryl Streep fans I hope have already watched this, I think Schepisi said something about how emotions move across her face like shadows across a landscape). Pretty amazing how her porcelain skin can invoke fugues and frustration; no fractures on the outside. Alas, isn't that often the way...
Streep's character suffers from a sort of vague mental illness (with a less vague prescription for sedation). Is she too sensitive/honest for the stiff upper lip of British society and the home office? Has she an addiction to being "out of control" - the character's self-assessment. Is there an element of proto-feminism in a man's world? Scenes stationed in Jordan, perhaps fractured out, may have factored in there as well.
The answer may be as fractured as the telling of the tale.
Ultimately for me, the film felt like the repercussions of her role behind enemy lines (and briefly behind closed doors with a fellow Brit on a mission of derring-do). Those moments under paratrooper skies and occupied streets may have shaken her to the core, psychically and romantically.
The problem with that reading in real or reel life is it leaves a lifetime of denouement.
I will say two sterling moments for me which now warrant the spoiler tag
1) Sir John Gielgud's character excuses himself after being lambasted by an out-of-control Streep at dinner party. Later we find he's fallen from grace/standing for speaking up to power likely aligned with Streep's thinking with far more to risk than a cold entree.
2) The reunion with Sam Neil adds more algia to the nostalgia, as is often the case in a romanticized tryst from long ago. His clear-eyed resignation a stark contrast to Streeps high on a feeling, a feeling once fleeting stretched out over the length of the film, if not forever.
The two Neil scenes nearly bookend the movie, there is a throwback to the delusion from the time of the first scene, which I guess was the point of the film.
A dream of plenty winds up with not much? Hence the 5 for me.... Streep devotes only for the must-see.