Reviews

I knew nothing about this film and it has been decades since I read the works of Proust. I was idly curious (if not curiously idle), and grew fascinated with the lassitude and gravitas of the film. Like the films of Ingmar Berman, "Celeste" invites the viewer to immerse in the dreamy sea--metaphorically. The silence--for there is little talking in the movie, and much relentless ticking of clocks--is hypnotic and, if one is prepared to yield to it, nearly irresistible. Of course, this being a film about Proust (and his female counterpart, Celeste) Time is the real star of the show, and is both protagonist and antagonist, its passing alluded to in every scene. Because of the hush and languid pace of the film, the viewer has long moments in which to enter imaginatively into the scene and hear the echoes of the few words spoken and to observe and interpret the two characters' delicate, erotic dance.

I was surprised by how thoroughly this film enchanted me.

Lots of bellyaching reviews here, because watchers did not find what they expected (move on, then, if there is nothing to see here) or because the show is "unrealistic" (thus the "fi" in "sci-fi". . . how realistic is "beam me up" or Patrick Stewart as a Frenchman? Or, for instance, the whole of "Firefly" or even "Star Wars"?) Sorry, friends. I can't help detecting misogyny and a disdain for drama as opposed to high-tech special effects. The series is good. It keeps some viewers--such as my family, my friends, and myself--riveted, perhaps because we read no reviews in advance and had NO expectations. Yes, it is more about the characters than about technological marvels and bipeds in weird facial make-up that is supposed to convince viewers that they are "aliens." If that's not what you'd like to see, then you would not like to watch this show. If you like plot and plotting, if complex characters and excellent acting are to your taste, if you are open to empathizing and conjecturing rather than "ooh-ing and aahing" over special effects that pair well with strong drugs, then this might be your cup of tea, just as Earl Grey is Picard's favored brew. Don't believe everything you read. Give it a try. The writing and the acting are the draws. Too dull for your Friday evening? Fine. Groundlings used to be more sophisticated. And if you think that I am referring here to the earth-bound, you are precisely the audience that should look elsewhere for entertainment.

Perhaps the appetite for spectacle and explicit sex and violence has dulled our collective taste somewhat. The poor reviews posted here suggest that. True--this is a subtle film and not much "happens." The plot is engaging and offers surprises that I did not see coming. (I was watching and speculating.)

Even feeling as negative as I do currently about Kevin Spacey, I have to admire his acting in this film. Laura Linney is (as always) magnificent at conveying layers of emotion. The entire cast is convincing in roles that offer very little scope or character development.

I am sad that this was a commercial failure and that Parks never directed again. In a day or two, I will be enjoying my annual viewing of "It's A Wonderful Life," also not fully appreciated at the time it was released. I believe that this movie is well worth watching and, had it come out at a different time, might have been praised more highly.

Good movies can be all glitz and glamor or all action and adventure, something new and exciting every few minutes. Great movies are those that leave you thinking and wondering as the story unfolds and remembering once they have been unfolded and seemingly tucked away again in memory.

This movie invites--or entices--the viewer to participate in the unfolding. Fromt the first glimpse of a burning house and a running, blazing figure, she or he keeps guessing about the mystery. "I've heard stories," nearly all the characters say, not revealing the stories. Robert Duvall--always authentic and effortlessly enthralling--replaces with silences and microexpressions the words that he never utters until the end, the release. At several points we may be sure that we have figured out what the backstory must be--"Ah! He was in love with her, but inexplicably dumped her" or "I see! He murdered the man who tried to burn him alive" or some other plausible conjecture. But we must wait for revelation.

As the minister Charlie Jackson points out in his introduction/eulogy, we like to think that good and bad, right and wrong, are a long way apart, only to find that they are all tangled up together. Every character is evidence of this truth. . .we don't quite trust the nearly bankrupt funeral director, suspecting him of deceit and theft, unsure whether his plausible explanation is "the truth." He is not so different from the hermit Felix Bush, or from the viewer watching them both.

This is a film in which we feel as if we are in the position of Buddy, nearly shot, as a child, for trespassing on Bush's land and eventually, as his name suggests, a true friend to the old man. Buddy might say of Bush, as Antony did of Brutus, that his "life was gentle, the elements so mixed in him that Nature might stand up and say to all the world, 'This was a man!' "

This is not a film of redemption so much as a chronicle of release. Bush's confession and his request to be forgiven let him join his beloved at last, no longer just "going through the motions." From a life=in=death he is free to live again in death.

Like the action, the humor is subtle. One of my favorite moments is in the final scene, when the Reverend who might be considered Bush's only true friend glances at another headstone in the small burial plot, only to see his own name on it. From an early scene, we know that the headstone marks the burial place of one of Bush's dogs, of whom he says there are no better friends. The look on the Reverend's face is slight, passing, unremarked upon. . .like so much of the film, it elicits a mixture of emotions. . . .not exciting, but deeply real and recognzable, familiar.

This is a beautiful movie. Watch it if you can give it your full attention and enter actively into its world. If not, put it aside for another evening when you have time and the will to absorb and to reflect.

First, I must echo other reviewers-- this is an experience that leaves you longing for more. The plot, complex as it can be, is nevertheless easy to follow and totally engaging. The acting is superb--never did I feel that I was watching "a performance." The characters were far too convincing and complex. The settings capture both the splendor and the squalor of the period.

Do you need to brush up on Russian history first? If you are not familiar with the reign of Ivan III, I suggest watching the series first and learning the facts afterward. Yes, there is much of the epic and the mythic here, but there are also truths transcending accuracy. Critique the historical elements once you have yielded to the world in which the series creates.

Even the subtitles were not bothersome, and unlike many translations, this one was idiomatic and (I think) correct.

Well worth a binge. My sole quibble is that Zoe/Sophia is just too entirely good and "the villain" (unnamed here) just too relentlessly bad. The flaws and virtues of every other character are conveyed, giving the series depth and verisimilitude.

I am no fan or scholar of Russian history, so I was initially reluctant to invest time in the series. Not only did my viewing teach me a lot, however--It made me hungry to learn more.

Deepa Mehta's third "element" film continues the theme of suffering and redemption explored in *Fire* and in *Earth.* In *Water,* she borrows some of what works in Hindi movies--stunningly beautiful lead actors, supporting cast who draw on stereotypes, song, and even dance. Yet she integrates these familiar strains and transforms them from the hackneyed and the transcendent.

Depicting the plight of widows caused huge controversy, and Mehta had to struggle to make this film. The controversy continues among viewers, particularly Indian men. Those in my circle (many, since it is an Indian circle!) seem uncomfortable with the movie and angry that it is being shown, as if dirty linen is being aired before strangers. Those who are upset quickly point out that "it's not like that any more." It is odd, since the movie is emphatically about a particular time and place. (Although Mehta has said that her desire to make the film arose out of her own encounters with Hindu windows a handful of years ago.) Yet the enraged are right to be stung, because, despite the particulars, "small" oppressions are part of every era and locale, and it is the beauty of the human spirit, innocently and unjustly tyrannized, that this movie is finally "about." Having said that, I must point out that the locations are gorgeous on a grand and small scale, that the camera loves Seema Biswas, Lisa Ray, John Abraham, and the impish Sarala, that this is a visual poem, balanced between hope and despair, great ugliness and limitless beauty.

If you are looking just for entertainment, it would be better to see another film. But if you are open to total immersion--well, what could be better than *Water*?