A Good Year: Not so bad a movie
Nov. 12th, 2006 02:12 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
annathepiperNew Russell flick, I think, warrants a new Russell icon. Partly to celebrate the movie, and partly also to just be amused at the whole idea of a Russell Crowe film that has him pretty low-key and easygoing throughout most of it. Which is a switch for Russell, both on-screen and off. ;)
I went around reading reviews of this flick on Friday, and saw a lot of reviews that were panning it and one or two that liked it. The one I agree with more or less is the Times review, which pretty much calls it a waste of Russell's talents while also describing it as "delicious" and "lavish" scenery-wise. Which it is, on both counts. It's much lighter and fluffier fare than Russell has tackled in the past.
On the other hand, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sure, it's a fluff plot, but then again, so was the book.
They changed around quite a few things in the movie version of this story--probably because the character Max Skinner in the book is at least ten years younger than Russell is these days, so I expect that they had to age the character up to make Russell's portrayal more believable. Which therefore also meant that they had to tweak quite a few things about Max's situation as well. In the book Max gets fired right out of the gate; in the movie, he's a successful, cutthroat businessman. That right there changes much of the nature of Max's character arc. While he still has to decide to settle down in Provence, the movie sets up a slightly better conflict because in this version of the story, he actually has a life to return to in London if he wants it. And he spends most of the movie pretty sure he's going back, too.
I was amused to note other differences as well. The romance with Fanny is actively played up more--it barely gets any attention at all in the book. Christie, the American girl who shows up out of nowhere, gets a bit stronger of a question mark over her presence in the plot as Max has to work a bit to figure out if she's actually Henry's daughter. This was, as I recall, much less of an issue in the book.
In the movie, too, Max actually sells the property. This is one of the places where the movie fell down for me, though, because it was unclear to me whether Max actually committed to going through with the sale, or whether he wound up having to buy it back. We saw what seemed to be the pair of new owners showing up, not to mention a bunch of unfamiliar characters hanging out down in the vineyards during that last scene where Max is on the cellphone to Charlie relaying the news that yeah, he's staying after all. When Max has to confess to Duflot that he's sold the place, I was sure he was actually going to confess that he'd sold it to Christie, maybe for a pittance or something, but no.
And the other big difference was that in the book there was an active swindle going on with the secret special good vines yielding the wine that doesn't suck on the property. I distinctly remember Max (and maybe Charlie and Christie? I read the book about a year ago at this point, so I'm unclear on the specifics) having to confront the people illicitly selling the decent wine. In the movie version you still have the secret special vines being tended, but that's a plot item that seems just put out there, and it never has anything really resolved with it.
So plot-wise, I think the script could have used another editing pass. The changes to the story seemed solid enough in concept, but not quite together in the final execution.
There were several good things I liked, though. A lot of the reviews I've seen talked about Russell not being suited for this lighter role, and I don't agree with that. He seemed quite at ease and relaxed and not awkward at all. Glancing back at my previous comments on the book, I think he caught something of the character's inherent snark too, and he was particularly funny in the bits involving the annoying little midget car. I think I liked him best, though, when he was in the middle of a high-paced charging around the villa--only to be caught off guard by one of his memories of the place, almost mesmerizing him.
I liked just about all of the supporting characters as well. Archie Panjabi as Max's assistant Gemma, a character who wasn't in the book at all, was excellent. So were Albert Finney as Henry and Freddie Highmore as young Max. I liked all three of the Duflots, and Christie, and Charlie, and especially Fanny.
I liked the music quite a bit and will be considering buying the soundtrack.
And oh my, I loved the cinematography. A very lush light all over the place--the lighting alone was almost like wine, liquid and golden all over the villa and the property around it. I liked the juxtaposition of technology--the old record player in some shots contrasting against Max's omnipresent cellphone and even an iPod in others.
And really, that's what this film winds up being about--the hectic modern world versus a gentler, older place. It's very, very easy to see why Russell's Max ultimately succumbs to the lure of Provence, even aside from the more specific lure of the lovely Marion Cotillard. Light and fluffy though this film may be, it's nice to be able to come away with that. Especially in the rainy, gloomy November of the Pacific Northwest.
And it's nicer still to see a mellower Russell.
I went around reading reviews of this flick on Friday, and saw a lot of reviews that were panning it and one or two that liked it. The one I agree with more or less is the Times review, which pretty much calls it a waste of Russell's talents while also describing it as "delicious" and "lavish" scenery-wise. Which it is, on both counts. It's much lighter and fluffier fare than Russell has tackled in the past.
On the other hand, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sure, it's a fluff plot, but then again, so was the book.
They changed around quite a few things in the movie version of this story--probably because the character Max Skinner in the book is at least ten years younger than Russell is these days, so I expect that they had to age the character up to make Russell's portrayal more believable. Which therefore also meant that they had to tweak quite a few things about Max's situation as well. In the book Max gets fired right out of the gate; in the movie, he's a successful, cutthroat businessman. That right there changes much of the nature of Max's character arc. While he still has to decide to settle down in Provence, the movie sets up a slightly better conflict because in this version of the story, he actually has a life to return to in London if he wants it. And he spends most of the movie pretty sure he's going back, too.
I was amused to note other differences as well. The romance with Fanny is actively played up more--it barely gets any attention at all in the book. Christie, the American girl who shows up out of nowhere, gets a bit stronger of a question mark over her presence in the plot as Max has to work a bit to figure out if she's actually Henry's daughter. This was, as I recall, much less of an issue in the book.
In the movie, too, Max actually sells the property. This is one of the places where the movie fell down for me, though, because it was unclear to me whether Max actually committed to going through with the sale, or whether he wound up having to buy it back. We saw what seemed to be the pair of new owners showing up, not to mention a bunch of unfamiliar characters hanging out down in the vineyards during that last scene where Max is on the cellphone to Charlie relaying the news that yeah, he's staying after all. When Max has to confess to Duflot that he's sold the place, I was sure he was actually going to confess that he'd sold it to Christie, maybe for a pittance or something, but no.
And the other big difference was that in the book there was an active swindle going on with the secret special good vines yielding the wine that doesn't suck on the property. I distinctly remember Max (and maybe Charlie and Christie? I read the book about a year ago at this point, so I'm unclear on the specifics) having to confront the people illicitly selling the decent wine. In the movie version you still have the secret special vines being tended, but that's a plot item that seems just put out there, and it never has anything really resolved with it.
So plot-wise, I think the script could have used another editing pass. The changes to the story seemed solid enough in concept, but not quite together in the final execution.
There were several good things I liked, though. A lot of the reviews I've seen talked about Russell not being suited for this lighter role, and I don't agree with that. He seemed quite at ease and relaxed and not awkward at all. Glancing back at my previous comments on the book, I think he caught something of the character's inherent snark too, and he was particularly funny in the bits involving the annoying little midget car. I think I liked him best, though, when he was in the middle of a high-paced charging around the villa--only to be caught off guard by one of his memories of the place, almost mesmerizing him.
I liked just about all of the supporting characters as well. Archie Panjabi as Max's assistant Gemma, a character who wasn't in the book at all, was excellent. So were Albert Finney as Henry and Freddie Highmore as young Max. I liked all three of the Duflots, and Christie, and Charlie, and especially Fanny.
I liked the music quite a bit and will be considering buying the soundtrack.
And oh my, I loved the cinematography. A very lush light all over the place--the lighting alone was almost like wine, liquid and golden all over the villa and the property around it. I liked the juxtaposition of technology--the old record player in some shots contrasting against Max's omnipresent cellphone and even an iPod in others.
And really, that's what this film winds up being about--the hectic modern world versus a gentler, older place. It's very, very easy to see why Russell's Max ultimately succumbs to the lure of Provence, even aside from the more specific lure of the lovely Marion Cotillard. Light and fluffy though this film may be, it's nice to be able to come away with that. Especially in the rainy, gloomy November of the Pacific Northwest.
And it's nicer still to see a mellower Russell.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-12 10:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-13 01:54 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-03-23 04:38 pm (UTC)I'd say that -- having read the book all the way back in October 2005 when I was in London on my Trafalgar trip -- you hit the nail on the head in pretty much the same way I did. But I liked Russell in this movie; it was a lovely change from what we normally see him in, and while it was fluffy (and you're right, so was the book), sometimes I need a bit of fluff in my life. And if I'm going to have it, what better excuse than to see a Russell Crowe movie! I don't think it was a terrible waste of his talents; everyone should get a chance at a change, it just depends on how much. For some it all turns out a disaster. I don't think I'll ever say 'OMG! I wish he had never done this movie.' Trust me -- there have been a few I did say that about! LOL
Yeah, the subplot of the book about the mystery vintage was very much underplayed in the movie. I wish they had made a stronger point of it. You are right though. Max and a few others did face the bad guys, and then I think some fake cops got introduced; it's been a while now since I read it. I think the bad guys got away with it, and by that point in the book, I didn't care -- I wanted to see if Max would stay and if Fanny would be a part of his life. I'm also not quite clear on the selling (or buying) of the chateau at the end, but maybe another viewing will kind of make that clearer (or not LOL).
Anyway, loved the movie. Loved a romantic Russell too *sigh* And now back to gritty Russell in 3:10 to Yuma and American Gangster LOL