Atonement

So sue me for an unappreciative boor, but Louisa May Alcott gets on my nerves these days. So do Charles Dickens, E. M. Forster, Paul Scott, George Eliot, Somerset Maugham, Jane Austen, any of the Brontes, and now, Ian McEwan. Why? Because the stiff upper lip, afternoon tea-parties, wan looking gentlemen, and imperial undertones just aren't my cuppa, thank you very much.

No surprise then that I found myself rapidly bored a little way into 'Atonement' - Keira Knightley and the over-hyped green dress notwithstanding. In a nutshell, I thought the movie (based on McEwan's novel of the same name) would be better served by a one hour short rather than a feature length movie. The first hour of the movie, combined with the title and the lingering nature of the screenplay gave away the ending (to me, at least). Overall it was neither gripping nor cathartic nor delightful. Just a ho-hum, all righty then kind of movie. Enough to fetch a rating of 3 on my 5 point inverted scale, for being well made...

Then again, I am merely representative of a niche - the geeky high fantasy reading bunch used to reading 10 book series where each book has the doorstopper size (and pith) to rival 'War and Peace' and who frankly do not see much poignancy or point in melodramatic phrases like 'atonement for a seemingly innocuous, ill-advised lie that shattered lives'. Unabashed Plug: Google for Malazan Book of the Fallen :)

The plot then, obsessed with how one lie changes three lives, begins with a classic summer vacation setup where a bunch of characters congregate at a well to do family estate. The story unfolds over a number of years; five or six for the main part, with a somewhat unexpected jump of about sixty years toward the end.

One of the things that irritated me were these jumps, and how they come without much of an audio-visual cue. Events are retold from a different perspective/ point of view, and at times jump to a different time entirely. I found the retellings/ revisions somewhat... well I don't know, soul-less is the word I guess. It just didn't sink in that said events were of any import to warrant so much ado.

The central idea of the movie - or what I took away from it - was that some sins cannot be atoned for and that often a creative mind that cannot find release from guilt in the real world will then seek it in another. Or some such. Insofar as I cared. An interesting idea, certainly, but in hindsight the story was better suited for a book (duh!) than a movie, or would've been enjoyable as an hourlong TV special - not a feature length movie.

I have to grant that the performances are quite good. I could see why Saorsie Ronan, who plays the young Bryony Tallis would get a nomination for Best Supporting Actress. Keira Knightley gives a good performance - and looks amazingly good. James McAvoy pulls off a very nice character. The director's take on the beaches of Dunkirk was fantastic - the madhouse/ funhouse feel reminded me instantly of Apocalypse Now.

All said, in the end the story simply didn't grab me enough to be interested or care about the 'reveal' at the end (or at any of the incremental reveals along the way).

So the movie gets a big round 'Meh' out of me.