By James Bowman on 12.17.07 @ 12:02AM
Those who were annoyed by the novel will probably be infuriated by the movie.
Those who have read Ian McEwan's novel Atonement,
published in 2001, will know that there is a kind of trick or catch
in the ending which some people find annoying and some, well,
don't. The same is true of the movie version by Christopher Hampton
(writer) and Joe Wright (director). Those who were annoyed by the
novel will probably be infuriated by the movie. I am one such
person. Though I thought the book interesting and well-written, the
ending spoiled it for me. Obviously, I can't exactly explain why
without giving away too much, but I think I can reveal this much.
Mr. Wright, like Mr. McEwan before him, asks us to take fantasy as
a consolation or apology for the unbearable poignancy of the story
he has to tell. To me that is the reverse of a consolation.
Instead, it makes a mockery of the artist's own creation by
treating it only as an excuse for a demonstration of his compassion
and other fine feelings.
Opening in a British country house in 1935, it concerns a false
accusation brought by Briony Tallis (Saoirse Ronan), a 13-year-old
girl with an overactive imagination, against a young man named
Robbie Turner (James McAvoy), who ends up spending several years in
jail as a result. There is an element of class in the relationship
between the two. Briony's family are rich; Robbie is the son of
their housekeeper. His education has been paid for by Briony's
father, and he has always been treated practically as one of the
family. For them to believe Briony's accusation is also to believe
that he has been guilty of monstrous ingratitude to them. On his
side of things, he can't help but see the accusation as having been
perpetrated by the family's pampered darling, her native powers of
fancy expanded to dangerous proportions by the
faux-genteel romance literature she is so fond of and the
kind of moralism once associated with the upper classes.
On the bare word of such an unreliable witness as that, they are
all -- or all except for Briony's older sister, Cecilia (Keira
Knightley) -- ready to throw their low-born hanger-on to the
wolves. You allow yourself to think that your class origins don't
matter to them, but then you find that they do. And how! Briony's
accusation comes simultaneously with Cecilia's and Robbie's
discovery that they are in love with each other, and it results in
Cecilia's permanent estrangement from the rest of her family.
Needless to say, it is Robbie's and Cecilia's point of view that
both the novel and the film adopts as its own. By the time she
reaches the age of 18 Briony -- now played by Romola Garai --
realizes the horrible mistake she has made and the dreadful price
Robbie has paid for it. She seeks to make amends, but it is too
late.
The title, Atonement, is therefore ironic. Real
atonement for her sin was impossible, so Mr. McEwan offered us the
novel itself, re-imagined as what Briony herself would have written
after she grew up (as he tells us she did) to become a novelist,
and this novel is itself intended as her atonement. What she
couldn't do in her (fictional) life, she could in her (equally
fictional) fiction. The movie goes even farther than this by
bringing the aged Briony, played by Vanessa Redgrave, onto a TV
talk show to make explicit her view of the redemptive power of art
and so to spell out the McEwan "message" so that the cinema
audience, presumably slower on the uptake than readers of literary
fiction, will make no mistake about it.
Of course, if it's the redemptive power of art that is your
idea, a movie offers far more opportunities for the display of
highly wrought artistry than a novel, and Messrs. Hampton and
Wright seem to have seized most of them. Extreme close-ups and
night scenes with weird light effects help to create disorienting,
dream-like effects, as do repeated episodes which tell of the same
events from different points of view. What really happened? We are
meant to be as much in the dark as the characters. On the fateful
day which will determine everything that follows, the camera seems
drunk on the lushness of its images, drawing out wherever possible
the sensuousness of opera (La Boheme), smoke, sun, water,
sex (suggested) and even typewriting in an extreme close-up of the
physical impression of letters -- in particular the letters of one
word whose galvanizing effect on Briony is what leads to her false
certainty -- being formed as the keys strike the paper.
All this artiness struck me as being Oscar-bait, as did the
film's transition to an epic scale in its second half. For after
Robbie's arrest, it cuts to the British evacuation from Dunkirk
five years later where, after having been released from jail on the
outbreak of war, he turns up again. This scene naturally produces
many spectacular visual effects. Yet even there, the moral clarity
usually thought to attend those events is blurred. Everything is
reduced to an immediate sensory level. For me the
unsatisfactoriness of this treatment was summed up by the scene in
which a group of soldiers on the beach are seen singing one of the
most beautiful of English-language hymns, Whittier's "Dear Lord and
Father of Mankind," and the sound is muffled and mixed in with the
ambient sounds of explosions and machinery. OK, OK! I get it! Faith
and hope are obscured by disaster. But, like those soldiers, I
thought that the hymn alone would have better expressed the reality
of the scene.
At times it seems that Mr. Wright, like Briony in her novelist's
old age, thinks that by constantly calling our attention to the
gorgeousness and excitement of his images, he can make us forget,
or at least more easily bear, the heartbreak in the narrative they
ostensibly serve. But this is art getting above itself. He, like
Mr. McEwan, should have more respect for their characters than
that. To make the story of Robbie and Cecilia into the story of
Briony's attempt to turn her guilt and sorrow into art is to wrong
them again, not to make up for the first wrong.
topics:
Education, Oil