PDA

View Full Version : The Beguiled (Sofia Coppola)



TGM
07-05-2017, 01:25 PM
THE BEGUILED

Director: Sofia Coppola

imdb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5592248/?ref_=nv_sr_1)

baby doll
07-06-2017, 04:19 AM
I don't think it's quite as a good a film as the Don Siegel original, where the Clint Eastwood character was a bit of a bastard from the start and basically got what was coming to him. And given what Elle Fanning brought to Coppola's Somewhere, it's a shame she's given so little to do here except stand around and look slutty. (We get it, Sofia. You don't like skanks. You've made that abundantly clear.) But that said, what a relief to see a Coppola movie that actually has some drama in it.

number8
08-16-2017, 06:38 PM
Her restraint is one of the things I admire most about Coppola's films and that habit works swimmingly here because it's a tale of repression. It actually makes the story more disturbing, because McBurney's accusation that the amputation was intentional seems more unhinged in this (since there's no outright rejection scene between Farrell and Kidman), and similarly, Farrell's performance seems especially bolstered by the fact that he doesn't do any deliberately sleazy action until the night visit reveal, yet you get the sense that he's toying with them all the same from the get-go (there's a moment really early in the film where the girls leave the room and Farrell turns away from the camera, and with his face hidden, you hear him chuckling to himself; I thought that was great).

Also, this (http://www.vulture.com/2017/07/the-beguiled-subtly-tackles-race-even-when-you-dont-see-it.html) is one of the coolest film criticism I've read this year.

Idioteque Stalker
08-17-2017, 03:07 AM
Her restraint is one of the things I admire most about Coppola's films and that habit works swimmingly here because it's a tale of repression.

Yes. It's never too blunt yet we still get a thorough understanding of each character's psychology. I wouldn't say Coppola is dealing in strict archetypes either; there have been days when my friend and I have found it useful to describe our mood as a bit like Oona Laurence, Kirsten Dunst, et al.

The Vulture piece is good stuff. There's still a part of me however that wishes the critical focus were on the actual text, so to speak, rather than what is or isn't included in the margins.

Peng
08-26-2017, 08:09 AM
I watched Don Siegel's 1971 version the day after watching Coppola's, which makes for all kind of illuminating and fascinating contrasts. Siegel's sleazy, more heated direction suits the material better, but Coppola's more restrained approach also paints the repression angle more internally, so the performances are more acutely felt (Farrell excepted, to not much fault of his own). It becomes an equally strong companion to Siegel's version in its first two acts. Her characters' glancing and often giggly competition for Farrell's attention stands in sharp contrast with her usual dreamy, vaporous atmosphere, which makes for some wickedly funny bits (Fanning is a hoot; she continously draws the audience's laugh for most of her scenes); the first dinner scene is a preening showstopper. But the film also doesn't lack in dramatic undercurrent, with Kidman's steely resolve being tested and a stand-out Dunst, quietly heartbreaking in her yearning.

However, when the story takes a turn for the more lurid in its third act, Coppola seems to be out of her comfort zone in how to depict it. Emotional logic feels really lacking, with story progressing in fast lurches and becomes all surface-y (without the compelling heated frenzy of Siegel's version), and especially with regards to Farrell's McBurney. He follows the original story beats, but with such tonally different reconfigure and nuance, the character comes off more opaquely and vaguely threatening, rather than full-on frightening and twisted like in the original. I just don't believe the film's third act emotionally at all, so that makes the ending rather weak and frustrating to me. 6.5/10

Grouchy
10-08-2017, 01:40 PM
I gave it a Nay although it could easily be the most marginal of Yays. I agree with baby doll - not being at all a fan of Sofia Coppola's work, this is the first time I've felt actively involved by one of her films since Virgin Suicides.

I have a hard time doing anything but compare it to the Don Siegel version, and it doesn't come well under that prism. The Siegel film is sleazy, energetic and filled with memorable performances and character quirks. Coppola's film, on the other hand, seems to focus almost exclusively on its somber, foreboding atmosphere, which makes for an experience that's more aesthetically cohesive and also kind of dour. Interestingly, while watching I noticed something that number8 mentioned as a positive and that I didn't like at all - that since the film features a lot less of the machinations of the girls (you could even say it abridges and simplifies the story) the possibility that John's leg was amputated on purpose is obviously absurd in this version while it was left ambiguous on the original. Also, even before reading the review that was linked, I found the absence of the black slave a problem, not because of any moral or racial qualms, but because she was a character who added a different perspective and didn't delude herself about what was going on.

Regardless the comparison between the films is an interesting case study, since it's essentially the same story made under two wildly different directing styles.

dreamdead
02-04-2018, 07:23 PM
I think that Farrell is the standout in this after Dunst. His McBurney is calculating, but never overbearingly so--he works each girl to his advantage until the final time and choice, and then the film recalibrates to underscore how he cannot go back afterwards. Our knowledge of the film trailer undercuts this film just slightly in that it literally doesn't go anywhere that wasn't already suggested in the trailer. That said, McBurney's calculation never pushes us to such a degree that he is fully villainous until the chandelier--and yet he also makes us question Kidman, in a smart underplaying from all performers.

Not perfect, but interesting throughout.