Atonement

[Sleepless]

Saw this last night, and I really liked it. Missed the very beginning, due to bad weather, but got there in time to see the bit where Keira Knightly climbed out of the fountain soaking wet. Really liked the whole Britishness of it all (made me miss home). Actually lots of the War-era London bits reminded me of 'Distant Voices, Still Lives' for some reason. The soundtrack was awesome - the use of typewriter sounds as threatening music which starts to take over itself and lose control underscored Briony's desire to become a novelist, and of course the letter which caused the inciting incident. There seemed to be a lot of moments in the film where certain things seemed to be out of focus, or distorted so you couldn't tell what it was. At first I thought it was just cos I was sitting in the third row, but then I realised it must have been intentional - again making us think about perception and how it's not always clear what we see. I hope it was that. Awesome shot on the beach at Dunkirk. Throughout, actually, I kept thinking to myself that this was an awesome piece of cinema. It may not be the best film of the year, but it's definitely a fresh breath of air, and left me excited for whatever Joe Wright does next. James McAvoy was, as ever, awesome. He is a great actor, to have done this, 'Last King of Scotland', 'Becoming Jane' and my personal favorite 'Starter For Ten' within the last 2 years... fuck... For those not already watching him, you'd better start. Just hope that 'Wanted' does something good for his career, and not what I'm fearing... Keira was as gorgeous and as wonderful as ever. The first act of the film belonged to her, no question. She just wasn't in the rest of it enough for me. Benedict Cumberbatch and Daniel Mays were scene-stealers. And there was one shot where a character looks out of the window and sees an elderly lady push a baby pram down the road. Fuck. That just did something to me. As I said before, not the best film of the year. Far from it. But plenty of stuff to like in there. Really great cinema.

[picolas]

spoiler-free

- this is a fantastic movie. i saw it for the second time tonight and it was better than the first with the knowledge of how the story unfolds. but don't watch the trailer. or forget you did. i'm glad i did(n't).
- this movie contains what may be the shot of the year. you'll know which one i'm talking about. there are so many brilliantly executed moments.

spoils
- i love the theme at the core of the story/central character: how fantasy can hurt and help us. Briony is a wonderfully tragic character because she cannot step out of the fantasy. i think in the end Redgrave sees the ambiguity within the character towards fantasy, but Joe Wright/the composer doesn't quite. but it's there. and i can see how the less ambiguous score would be appealing when you focus on C and Robbie. that kid who played Briony gave the best child performance i've seen in a long time. it's a great character for an actor to play because of this fantasy attachment. this was a reeeeally well-cast movie. even Guy Who Looks Like Robbie was great.

[MacGuffin]

- this movie contains what may be the shot of the year. you'll know which one i'm talking about. there are so many brilliantly executed moments.

the follow article obviously contains spoils for the shot, but also a spoil for a shot in twbb

5-Minute `Atonment' Shot Joins Long List

The story of the long tracking shot would be best told in one take.

Our camera could begin with Orson Welles' "Touch of Evil," pass through Jean-Luc Godard's "Week End" and Martin Scorsese's "Goodfellas" and finally arrive at the latest installment in the canon: Joe Wright's "Atonement."

Through cinema history, audacious, lengthy tracking shots have captivated filmmakers and movie buffs who marvel at their grace and choreography. In a medium predicated on storytelling through the juxtaposition of images, the long tracking shot is the cinematic equivalent of a no-hitter in baseball: rare, untouched, and very difficult to pull off.

In the middle of "Atonement," a 5 1/2-minute shot unfolds as Robbie, a British WWII soldier (James McAvoy), comes upon France's Dunkirk beach, where the final point in the British retreat from the Germans is portrayed as a grim circus of defeat and chaos.

In the Ian McEwan novel from which the movie was adapted, the scene is described in just a few pages. McEwan writes: "It was a rout and this was its terminus." On film, though, it took a lot more doing.

The scene was composed with 1,000 extras, a number of horses and vehicles on the beach, and (digitally added) ships off the coast. It all cost a sizable chunk of the film's estimated $30 million production budget and had to be shot in one day.

That's how long the hundreds of extras were available for, and that small time frame is what initially drove Wright and his director of photography, Seamus McGarvey, to stage the single long shot, rather than squeeze in a dozen separate setups.

"It was conceived out of necessity," said Wright in a recent interview. "We had one day with the extras and then the small issue of the tide coming in and washing away the entire set."

While the tide was out and the light was right, Wright and his crew managed three and a half takes the fourth finally exhausting Steadicam operator Peter Robertson. (They used the third take.)

During production on other scenes, Robertson's course was mapped out, meandering through the shambled beach sometimes on foot, sometimes riding on a motorized cart.

"When we were making it, I didn't see it in the context of the classic tracking shot, or the history of great tracking shots," said Wright, whose "Pride & Prejudice" included a long shot, as did his British TV film "Charles II." "It felt much, much smaller than that."

But of course, the shot has been received precisely in that context.

Variety deputy editor Anne Thompson blogged: "This shot has its admirers and detractors. It's a stunning shot, but does it take the viewer out of the movie, or serve a dramatic purpose? ... I for one get a kick out of bravura shots like this, whether it's Martin Scorsese, Brian DePalma, Robert Altman, Orson Welles, Antonioni or Alfonso Cuaron."

Perhaps the highest possible praise for such cinematic devices would echo that of umpires in baseball they're doing their job well when no one even notices them.

New York Times film critic A.O. Scott, however, said the "Atonement" shot's only impression is: "`Wow, that's quite a tracking shot,' when it should be `My God, what a horrible experience that must have been.'"

Any discussion of tracking shots typically begins with Orson Welles' opening to 1958's "Touch of Evil," where Charlton Heston and Janet Leigh walk unknowingly alongside a car with explosives in its trunk.

Welles, by then a veteran director, had with director of photography Gregg Toland pioneered the use of deep focus on Welles' first film, 1941's "Citizen Kane." That meant more realism and fluidity for the camera, which could now present a foreground, middle ground and background. The apotheosis of this is reached in tracking shots that hold a film's realism for long periods.

"For the actors, they really enjoy them because you're in a situation where there's a fourth wall created," said Wright. "There's no area on the set they have to imagine; it's all in front of them."

Among the most famous is Godard's ten-minute shot in "Week End" in which a couple are stranded in a traffic jam, as well as Mikhail Kalatozov's acrobatic shot in 1964's "I Am Cuba." The conclusion to Michelangelo Antonioni's "The Passenger" (1975) is revered, as is Scorsese's legendary shot in "Goodfellas" where Ray Liotta and Lorraine Bracco enter the Copacabana.

Some films have attempted to push the limits of uncut film, beginning with Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope" (1948), which he had wanted to film in one take but settled for just ten. In 2002, Aleksandr Sokurov achieved Hitchcock's goal with "Russian Ark," a film that portrays three centuries of Russian history in one shot.

Many of these shots have become a matter of movie lore, and are often paid homage. Robert Altman composed an comic and highly self-reflexive eight-minute tracking shot to open "The Player" (1992) featuring characters discussing the "Touch of Evil" shot. In Doug Liman's "Swingers" (1996), his characters worshipfully chat about Scorsese's "Goodfellas" achievement.

Technology has helped a new generation of filmmakers accomplish increasingly daring tracking shots, particularly with the use of Steadicams. Alfonso Cuaron's "Childen of Men" (2006) featured several lengthy shots, including a daring Steadicam- and crane-aided shot during a shoot-out.

"One has to completely bow to the fact that when Orson Welles did the `Touch of Evil' shot, he didn't have a Steadicam," said Wright. "Steadicams have totally liberated the tracking shot."

Paul Thomas Anderson has made the tracking shot a trademark of his, particularly in "Boogie Nights" (1997) and "Magnolia" (1999). His new, acclaimed "There Will Be Blood" is shot in a different style, but does contain one shot where the camera tracks Daniel Day-Lewis's character carrying his injured child.

"It's only impressive because Daniel could actually carry that boy for that long," joked Anderson in an interview.

The director, a great fan and friend to the late Altman, said a guiding ethos of is to have fewer cuts: "The more things can be condensed or simple is ideal," he said.

Discussing the appeal of the tracking shot, Anderson said: "You're after one thing, which is nice, as opposed to 10 or 15 small things when you have to chop it up. You get that terrific feeling at the end of it, like `We did it. We got it.' Or you don't."

Digital editing, Anderson said, has given him a new perspective on the length of his takes.

"You really see the length of your shots. It's kind of hilarious. You sort of look at the graph and it chops along, chops along, then flatlines for a long time. You see a movie as a graph."

For Wright's next film, "The Soloist," which is now in preproduction, he acknowledges one scene is tempting to shoot in one long take, but was reluctant to do it "just for the sake of doing them."

Still, the long tracking shot remains a tantalizing tool and exhibit of cinematic virtuosity.

"Filmmaking by nature is about montage and in a way there's something quite rebellious about the long tracking shot," said Wright. "I just think they're a wonderful challenge and a wonderful game."

[picolas]

spoils for the shot

New York Times film critic A.O. Scott, however, said the "Atonement" shot's only impression is: "`Wow, that's quite a tracking shot,' when it should be `My God, what a horrible experience that must have been.'"

why can't it be both? don't tell me you didn't get both, AO.

[Ghostboy]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I just read the book over the past few days and now I'm really excited to see it and be let down by it.

[Gold Trumpet]

The film is still a few weeks from my city, but because of Matt's excitement, I bought the novel and plan to read it before seeing the film. I can only imagine my feelings will be like Ghostboy's. I found an interview with the author on The New Republic's homepage. Among numerous subjects, he discusses the adaptation of his novel.


The TNR Q&A
by Isaac Chotiner
'Atonement' author Ian McEwan on Bellow, the Internet, atheism, and why his books are still scary.

The film adaptation of English writer Ian McEwan's prize-winning novel Atonement opened last month to widespread critical acclaim. Winners of the Golden Globes will be announced this weekend, and Atonement sits on top of the field, with the most nominations of any film. Isaac Chotiner spoke with McEwan about letting go, growing up, and why atheists need to speak out.


Was it hard to watch Atonement be adapted to film by other people? Did you feel possessive?

I'm fairly used to the process. I think this is the fifth or sixth of my stories or novels that have been made into films. I'm sure I'd be possessive if I allowed myself to get involved in the writing of the script. There's a lot to be said for not doing that. I did it once with The Innocent and John Schlesinger, and it was a fairly difficult process because everyone--the director, the designers, actors, everyone--had their own ideas and came piling in. And you are suddenly knocked off your perch as the God in this machine. It is better to have someone take a free run at it. But I can't quite walk away, so I like to stay involved. I like film sets, and I enjoy the collaborative process. I'm not sure if I had the worst of both worlds or the best.


One of the great things about the book is the way you get inside the head of Briony Tallis, a 13-year-old girl. Were you worried that film is a medium in which it is harder to get inside a character's head?

Well, it is impossible for a movie to give you what a novel can give you, which is the flavor of rolling thoughts and consciousness. But you have to do the best with what you've got, which with movies is a high dependence on actors to somehow let us feel the illusion that we can follow a thought process. And I think the casting of Briony with Saoirse Ronan was really astute. She is a very watchful girl, a completely intuitive young actress.


Earlier in your career, you were known as "Ian Macabre."  Though there is less of what you call the darkness and violence that was marked your stories 25 years ago, your newer work still has a level of intensity and discomfort. I'm thinking particularly of the sex scene in your latest novel, On Chesil Beach.

Some of the dark-hearted stuff from those short stories still lives on, whether it is the beginning of Enduring Love or the scene toward the end of Saturday or even elements of Atonement. But it is bound to change. One passes the usual milestones in life: You have children, you find that whether you like it or not, you have a huge investment in the human project somehow succeeding. You become maybe a little more tolerant as you get older. Pessimism begins to feel something like a badge that you perhaps do not wear so easily. There is something delicious and reckless about the pessimism of being 21. And when you get older you feel maybe a little more delicate and hope that things will flourish. You don't want to take a stick to it.

I want to read you a quote from James Wood in The New Yorker about Philip Roth's latest book: "How much of any self is pure invention? Isn't such invention as real to us as reality? But then how much reality can we bear? Roth knows that this kind of inquiry, far from robbing his fiction of reality, provokes an intense desire in his readers to invest his invented characters with solid reality." A lot of Atonement is about the question of what is real in fiction, and I was curious for your thoughts about literary realism these days.

The kind of fiction I like and the kind of fiction I most often want to write does have its feet on the ground of realism, certainly psychological realism. I have no interest in magical realism and the supernatural--that is really an extension, I guess, of my atheism. I think that the world, as it is, is so difficult to capture that some kind of enactment of the plausibly shared reality that we inhabit is a very difficult task. But it is one that fascinates me. I have just re-read a couple of Saul Bellow novels, Mr. Sammler's Planet and The Dean's December. I really get a thrill from his engagement with the momentous task of what it is like to be in the 20th century in Chicago or even Bucharest, what the condition is, what it's like, how it is now. This is something that modernism shied away from--the pace of things, the solid achievement of weight in your hand. So I remain rather committed to that. But also to what is psychologically real--the small print of consciousness, the corners and vagaries of thinking that when you read them in another writer, and they are done well, you just know they are right. Not only because you had this thought to yourself, but because that way of thinking seems so ineradicably human.


You mentioned Bellow. Who are the writers you are particularly drawn to now, people you have stuck with?

Really, your amazing triptych, one now dead, of Bellow, Roth, and Updike. They have been voices all the way through my writing life, from the time I started writing. I read Portnoy's Complaint, Rabbit Run, and Mr. Sammler, and there was nothing like that happening in Britain or for that matter in Europe, so far as I could tell. It has something to do with a largeness of ambition, a generosity of imagination, and a wicked sense of humor, particularly in Portnoy. It comes back to that kind of realism, with that wish to engage with conditions as they are now, to capture the city or the moment in time. We had nothing so sparkling. So, yes, I have kept faith with those guys.

What are your online habits? Do you surf the web?

Well, I like Edge very much, Arts and Letters is a great resource for me, and then the whole slew of American magazines. I like that tradition-The New Republic, etc. I get them now quite regularly.

Do you read any online reviews?

I don't read the blogs much. I don't like the tone-the rather in-your-face road-rage quality of a lot of exchange on the Internet. I don't like the threads that come out of any given piece of journalism. It seems that when people know they can't be held accountable, when they don't have eye contact, it seems to bring out a rather nasty, truculent, aggressive edge that I think slightly doesn't belong in the world of book reviewing.

I just read a quote of yours, "Atheists have as much conscience, possibly more, than people with deep religious convictions," and I have noticed that recently you have been talking a little more about atheism. You also contributed an essay to a new book called The Portable Atheist. What are your thoughts on the "New Atheist" movement, which has gotten so much publicity and sold so many books in the last year or so. Do you think it differs from strains of atheism in the past?

I am a little baffled as to why it is called the "New Atheism." There is a very long tradition of free thinking, and the arguments made against religion tend to be the same but made over and over again. But I think what has happened is that there have been a number of good, articulate books--Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennett, Sam Harris, and so on. What they have discovered to their own great surprise is that in the United States, and right across the South too, there are an enormous number of people who also think this way. I don't think they have suddenly been persuaded by this rash of books--the feelings were there anyway--but they didn't have a voice, they didn't have a focus. When Hitchens took his book across the Bible Belt and debated with Baptist ministers in churches, there were huge audiences, most of whom, it seems, from when they spoke to him afterwards, were somewhat irritated that the place in the United States that they lived in was called the Bible Belt. I think there was something there that people had not taken into account. Quite heartening really, given that America is meant to be a secular republic with a strong tradition of upholding all freedom of thought.

Do you see religion as ineradicable, or do you think there is a chance to change people's minds on religion?

I think it is ineradicable, and I think it is a terrible idea to suppress it, too. We have tried that and it joins the list of political oppression. It seems to be fairly deeply stitched into human nature. It seems to be part of all cultures, so I don't expect it to vanish. And yet at the same time, if it is built into human nature, why are there so many people who don't believe in it? I think it is important that people with no religious beliefs speak up and speak for what they value. It is a bit of a problem, the title "Atheist"--no one really wants to be defined by what they do not believe in. We haven't yet settled on a name, but you wouldn't expect a Baptist minister to go around calling himself a Darwinist. But it is crucial that people who do not have a sky god and don't have a set of supernatural beliefs assert their belief in moral values and in love and in the transcendence that they might experience in landscape or art or music or sculpture or whatever. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, it makes them give more valence to life itself. The little spark that we do have becomes all the more valuable when you can't be trading off any moments for eternity.

[pete]

I didn't read the book but the movie didn't really affect me much.  I liked the summery romance stuff in the beginning, but couldn't feel much of the pain or guilt or just the looming darkness in general in the subsequent scenes.  I appreciated those shots and moments, but felt like everything was too glamorous to be taken seriously.  Too many trailer-worthy shots, it had no momentum, and the characters had too many melodramatic moments too close to each other for the individual moments to mean anything.  Every scene stood by itself but there was very little to carry the film forward.  I really wanted to like them but I came away feeling nothing in the end.

[Tommy Both]

Atonement just won BEST PICTURE DRAMA 

[matt35mm]

What are your problems with the movie, Tommy?

SPOILERS

I've seen this three times now, and it gets better each time.  The first time that I saw it, it was difficult to experience without referencing the book in my mind.  I was sort of studying the movie and not getting very into it.

By the third time, I was completely absorbed by it.  Elements of the filmmaking became much more impressive to me.  The camera tells the story beautifully, poetically, and remains consistent with Briony's point of view as an author.  Bits that seem strange or perhaps over-the-top in the first viewing work much more wonderfully within the structure and flow of the film--key parts being the long Steadicam shot and the "rewind" part that happens as Robbie falls asleep in the cellar-type place.  These were distracting to me the first time, not because they weren't nice, but because they took me out of the story a bit.  The shock value was only there for the first viewing, and subsequent viewings allowed me to access the poetic nature of these moments.  I marveled at them in a similar way to how I marveled at Ian McEwan's writing, which is also consistent with Briony's writing.  There are many moments in which McEwan's book, Briony's book, and the film each enhance each other.  It's a wonderful experience.

The score is incredibly strong.  I bought the soundtrack, and just in listening to it without watching the film, I see how it tells the story--it is again an element of Briony's point of view.  It presents Briony as she is writing the book, most obviously through the use of the typewriter sound, but also in motifs that repeat at key moments, and the shape of certain themes... you can hear the story being told as you listen to the soundtrack--it's the omnipresent voice of the writer, Briony.

The acting is marvelous, as well.  It's so good that I don't know how to begin talking about it.  The people from the book are so wholly there on the screen, and I lose all sense of the acting, even though the kind of acting is not entirely naturalistic.  I can't think of much more to say about this right now, except to praise the actors and director in their choices.

There are a few weak moments in the film, but I cannot think of how to make them better.  In other words, I now think that this is the strongest film that could have been made from the book, and it is a strong film indeed.  One weak moment is unfortunately a very key moment where we see that the wrong letter had been given to Briony.  I was fascinated by the construction of the scene (we see Briony run off with the letter then dolly sideways back to Robbie as he sharply turns his head and mumbles "Briony?"; then a repeat of a previous shot extended to show that the wrong letter was picked up; then back to Robbie realizing and shouting "Briony!"), but maybe not convinced that it could happen.  The book was far more convincing in this regard, telling that, of course, Robbie sabotaged himself.  This is an important detail that is missing from the film, but I have no idea how it could be shown without being ridiculous.  Not buying into this moment could be fatal for the story in the eyes of the viewer, though most audiences do not seem to be bothered by it.

Anyway, that's all I've got to say because I've got to go.  I'll just quickly say that it is a wonderful film that is worthy of the novel that I adore while being incredibly fascinating on its own terms.

[Gold Trumpet]

I bought the novel and began to read it, but couldn't finish it before the movie hit my city. I have so much on my plate I was forced to see the movie sooner than I wanted to, but here is my review. Spoilers everywhere:

Let's get the obvious out of the way - The film is beautiful and lyrical. Joe Wright has technically developed from Pride and Prejudice in that he has made his camera a commentar in the film's world than just a recorder. He does well to pin point the camera as the gager of young Briony's imaginative thoughts. Parts of the romance are even inviting and charming.

The bigger interest, for me, lays in the structural situation. Joe Wright seemingly adapts the novel true to its original form. The story is a self reflective, post modernist comment on a classical love story. As the film tells the story of Cecilia and Robbie and their unhopeful romance, evidence starts to come through that their tale is fictional. The whole story comes out though when Briony is interviewed at an older stage and admits the story being told has been done so in her mind and is part of a final novel she is writing.

the admittance of the title to describe the film being shown relates back to meta fiction, but it is also a structural comment on our association with love stories to make tragedies have new meaning. Her character can't make her sister and her lover come back to life and live out their lives, but she can make them have the ending they deserved in her new novel. She describes this as good for them, but it is really help herself deal with the guilt of how she split them up.

The idea is a fascinating one, but the film doesn't take it far enough for serious study. Our objective of the real Briony exists in the fable she tells. We get a new perspective on her in the interview, but that is all. The more interesting portrait would have been to detail her life more and how she coped with the guilt over the years, but we get a film that is suppose to be geniune all the way through and then throws over the veil at the end to reveal its secret, but it's not enough. Swimming Pool also did this with a mystery story, but lacked true interest because it didn't relate how it was meaningful to the main protaganist for her to make up this story. It expected us to be wowed by a plot device that isn't even that novel.

Atonement is better than Swimming Pool because we do relate the reasons and meaning back to Briony's desire to make her past wrongs right, but the film lacks a sufficient investigation of the fable and the reality because it puts so much emphasis on the fictionalized love story of Cecilia and Robbie. Many people will judge this film by how convincing their love story is when it was meant to exist on a lower level of importance because the greatest tragedy really resides in Briony. We just don't get enough of her feelings.

[hedwig]

He does well to pin point the...(read more)

facebook alert

[polkablues]

He does well to pin point the...(read more)

facebook alert

We just have to settle for being GT's sloppy seconds nowadays.

[Gold Trumpet]

He does well to pin point the...(read more)

facebook alert

We just have to settle for being GT's sloppy seconds nowadays.

Hate to say it, but Facebook is addicting. I only have the site to review films and books. I just have to limit what I import here because I doubt many want to see my recent review of 2001: A Space Odyssey....

[picolas]

now you have to post it.

[MacGuffin]

I was disappointed.  I read the book beforehand and pretty much enjoyed it until the last third, then all of those tiny nagging problems I had with the beginning were magnified.  Some of these problems were even more pronounced in the movie; I didn't feel connected to any of the characters, who were pretty much one-dimensional and lacked depth (especially poor Cecilia), I found the pacing too rapid and didn't buy the love story, and worst of all, Briony wasn't given enough of an authorial presence in the movie.  That's one thing the book had going for it.  Joe Wright is obviously a really capable director who made a movie that looks beautiful, but it doesn't extend much further than that for me.  Maybe he was just dealing with some poor source material because something went wrong along the way.  I was most sad that Robbie's character seemed diluted and was missing the complexity that McEwan gave him, especially during the WWII sequence (the only part of the novel I felt a hint of affinity toward).

I'm glad I wasn't the only one because I was questioning myself on if I was missing something.


**SPOILERS**

It's gonna sound like I hated this movie, but I don't. It's just a lot of things didn't sit right with me. I too didn't feel the chemisty between Cecilia and Robbie. I couldn't take the editing of the film and the way it would present the scenes twice from the different POVs. It would have played out better linearly. It felt like it was trying to stay faithful to the book (which I have not read), but this way of storytelling didn't adapt well to the big screen. The typewriter score felt like it drew too much attention to itself. The jump from the arrest to the war was too clean, and felt spending some time with Robbie in prison would have served the longing between him and Cecilia better. The long, much talked about tracking shot, while was a great looking shot, seemed to bring the film to a halt to take time for a long, much talked about tracking shot and really did nothing to move the story forward. If cut, nothing would have been lost, except a long, much talked about tracking shot. It picked up with we got to adult Briony, and was hoping for some redemption from both the film and her character. I thought the scene where she was speaking French with the soldier was beautiful, as was her coming clean scene with her and Cecilia and Robbie. But the ending completely offended me. As an audience member, I felt totally manipulated. She gives them their happiness, yes, but at the expence of her audience, and it felt like her character never really did learn her lesson and how far the extent of what she did reached. Like I said, it looks like I'm tearing this film apart, and I don't have hatred for it. I just felt like the grounds for a better film where there.