B5 drabble and Sylvia review
Jul. 29th, 2004 06:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakWhile everyone is off to Las Vegas for the writercon, I wrote another B5 vignette; Delenn this time, though Londo insisted on being included.
"Mercy"
I’m with the aged parents for the next ten days, which means less time online. It also means I had the chance to see another movie I missed in the cinema: Sylvia.
Talking about films with a genius in the lead, I already mentioned how problematic it is to get something of why a particular writer was talented/extraordinary/a genius across to the audience. When the subject in question is a poet, it’s even more difficult. If it’s a poet whose work you can’t quote for copyright reasons… and if it’s two poets…
Actually, the scriptwriter solved the poetry problem with a tricky device, at least where his main character was concerned; two or three lines aren’t covered by copyright, and the rush of fragmentary quotes near the end of the film mirrors the creative fever Sylvia Plath was in during the last months of her life pretty well. Unfortunately, he couldn’t offer a similar gimmick for Ted Hughes. Which means we get to hear recite Hughes Shakespeare and Yeats but not his own work, which in turn means the audience which isn’t already familiar with it has to take on Sylvia’s conviction it’s splendid on faith.
Mind you, I’m not sure that if there had been no copyright problem, lengthy quotes left and right would have helped this particular film. (The only movies I can think of where a poet quoting his own work contributed to the narration and drama, instead of coming across as stagey, were “Tom and Viv” – where T.S. Eliot and first wife Vivien reading from “The Waste Land” illustrates the vicious nature of a marriage in breakdown perfectly – and “Shakespeare in Love”, where it was part of the fun.) Sylvia is an interesting, quite watchable failure. (IMO, of course.) Gwynneth Paltrow, though with a far more even face than Sylvia Plath ever had, is excellent and conveys the early vivacity and the later brooding glower quite intensely. Blythe Danner has a good cameo as Aurelia Plath, and the subtle way their two scenes together conveyed the all the problematic undercurrents in the mother-daughter relationship was one of the highlights. Daniel Craig, though, was totally enigmatic as Ted Hughes, which I attribute more to script and direction than to his acting. (I’ve seen him in other roles.) And that brings me to the real problem of this film.
Sylvia remains in Sylvia’s pov relentlessly. All other characters remain shadowy. (And the friends, enemies etc. were reduced to a minimal ensemble anyway.) Which might serve to convey the fall into increasing depression, but doesn’t work at all when you’re trying to sell a love story simultanously, which this film did. Love stories only work when we get to know both characters as an audience, and this film shies away from getting to know Hughes with a vengeance. (This might be because he wasn’t nearly as long dead as Plath when the script was written, but that’s no excuse. If you’re already committed to do a biopic of people with offspring still living and hating the idea, then you you might as well form an opinion of both participants.) Why doesn’t he like living in the US? What does he make of Sylvia’s jealousy? (He goes on long walks. We see him leave and come back, as Sylvia does.) Why does he stay with her? And, since the film favours, time-wise, angry Sylvia and depressed Sylvia over vivacious and energetic Sylvia, when he tells Alvarez, in the last third of the movie, “I love her so much”, you have to ask: “Why?” and “you do?”. We’re just meant to accept it as a given.
The cinematography offers some imaginative way of conveying Plath’s imagery without hammering the point home by letting her remark on it – watching a lampshade, an elm, the sea. (But unfortunately no bees. Why?) As I said, it’s an interesting failure. But still a failure.
"Mercy"
I’m with the aged parents for the next ten days, which means less time online. It also means I had the chance to see another movie I missed in the cinema: Sylvia.
Talking about films with a genius in the lead, I already mentioned how problematic it is to get something of why a particular writer was talented/extraordinary/a genius across to the audience. When the subject in question is a poet, it’s even more difficult. If it’s a poet whose work you can’t quote for copyright reasons… and if it’s two poets…
Actually, the scriptwriter solved the poetry problem with a tricky device, at least where his main character was concerned; two or three lines aren’t covered by copyright, and the rush of fragmentary quotes near the end of the film mirrors the creative fever Sylvia Plath was in during the last months of her life pretty well. Unfortunately, he couldn’t offer a similar gimmick for Ted Hughes. Which means we get to hear recite Hughes Shakespeare and Yeats but not his own work, which in turn means the audience which isn’t already familiar with it has to take on Sylvia’s conviction it’s splendid on faith.
Mind you, I’m not sure that if there had been no copyright problem, lengthy quotes left and right would have helped this particular film. (The only movies I can think of where a poet quoting his own work contributed to the narration and drama, instead of coming across as stagey, were “Tom and Viv” – where T.S. Eliot and first wife Vivien reading from “The Waste Land” illustrates the vicious nature of a marriage in breakdown perfectly – and “Shakespeare in Love”, where it was part of the fun.) Sylvia is an interesting, quite watchable failure. (IMO, of course.) Gwynneth Paltrow, though with a far more even face than Sylvia Plath ever had, is excellent and conveys the early vivacity and the later brooding glower quite intensely. Blythe Danner has a good cameo as Aurelia Plath, and the subtle way their two scenes together conveyed the all the problematic undercurrents in the mother-daughter relationship was one of the highlights. Daniel Craig, though, was totally enigmatic as Ted Hughes, which I attribute more to script and direction than to his acting. (I’ve seen him in other roles.) And that brings me to the real problem of this film.
Sylvia remains in Sylvia’s pov relentlessly. All other characters remain shadowy. (And the friends, enemies etc. were reduced to a minimal ensemble anyway.) Which might serve to convey the fall into increasing depression, but doesn’t work at all when you’re trying to sell a love story simultanously, which this film did. Love stories only work when we get to know both characters as an audience, and this film shies away from getting to know Hughes with a vengeance. (This might be because he wasn’t nearly as long dead as Plath when the script was written, but that’s no excuse. If you’re already committed to do a biopic of people with offspring still living and hating the idea, then you you might as well form an opinion of both participants.) Why doesn’t he like living in the US? What does he make of Sylvia’s jealousy? (He goes on long walks. We see him leave and come back, as Sylvia does.) Why does he stay with her? And, since the film favours, time-wise, angry Sylvia and depressed Sylvia over vivacious and energetic Sylvia, when he tells Alvarez, in the last third of the movie, “I love her so much”, you have to ask: “Why?” and “you do?”. We’re just meant to accept it as a given.
The cinematography offers some imaginative way of conveying Plath’s imagery without hammering the point home by letting her remark on it – watching a lampshade, an elm, the sea. (But unfortunately no bees. Why?) As I said, it’s an interesting failure. But still a failure.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-07-29 10:13 am (UTC)Thanks for the very timely Sylvia review. I was wondering about getting it on DVD but I think you've decided me to wait until it's on the telly.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-30 12:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-29 01:11 pm (UTC)