This film isn't a stinker, far from it. I was entertained. It was professionally made. Visually it was lovely and the performances were fine but something still grated with me.
For example can someone please tell me why does Emelia start an affair with Jonathan? He's not charming or wealthy, he's boring, has let his looks fade, he's lazy and stuck in the past and it turns out he can't even provide good sex! And don't say the little white sports car; this girl is drawn as too ballsy to fall for that. Yet this vivacious beautiful young woman greets his first advances seemingly with an almost casual: 'yeah alright then.'
Let's go through the possibilities:
Starved of male company – no she has a boyfriend her own age and almost as feckless as she is.
It's a 'The hand that rocks the cradle' plot line – obviously not as the story pans out differently.
She's looking for a father figure after losing hers at a young age – possibly but aren't these relationships born out of love, admiration, respect? How can you respect someone who on first meeting you catch them masturbating? In fact he has no redeeming qualities at all until almost the last scene in the film. Couldn't he at least of been charming? Bit of a cliché I know but it would understandable why she fell for him. (Is fell the right word? Because she didn't really - she just progressed into having an affair.)
So if it not clear why she does this, then the rest of the film will go about telling you – right? No not to me, but if it's there and I missed it I apologise. As far as I can see the story proceeds traditionally, both young girls absorbing each other's worlds and developing because of it.
The only conclusion I can come to is that it was prerequisite to have negative male characters throughout the film and boy have we got a few. From the pedantic and sleazy room guests to the arrogant snobbish undergraduate there is isn't one positive male character, save Emelia's Grandfather who isn't a central figure and is he really positive? Colluding in the great deception that eventually shatters her bond with her best friend?
I'm interested to find out whether the original script contained the elements above that I'm whining about or had to be inserted, at the producer's request (in order to find an audience), during the 'development' stage.
This is one of the problems facing the British film industry – they don't have the luxury of simply telling a good engrossing story – they have to try and guarantee an audience to backers by aiming it fairly and squarely at a specific audience. What's that I hear? All movie makers have to find an audience. Very true but as many fine film makers have demonstrated you can find an audience without spoiling the story and pandering to needs of a select group.
For example can someone please tell me why does Emelia start an affair with Jonathan? He's not charming or wealthy, he's boring, has let his looks fade, he's lazy and stuck in the past and it turns out he can't even provide good sex! And don't say the little white sports car; this girl is drawn as too ballsy to fall for that. Yet this vivacious beautiful young woman greets his first advances seemingly with an almost casual: 'yeah alright then.'
Let's go through the possibilities:
Starved of male company – no she has a boyfriend her own age and almost as feckless as she is.
It's a 'The hand that rocks the cradle' plot line – obviously not as the story pans out differently.
She's looking for a father figure after losing hers at a young age – possibly but aren't these relationships born out of love, admiration, respect? How can you respect someone who on first meeting you catch them masturbating? In fact he has no redeeming qualities at all until almost the last scene in the film. Couldn't he at least of been charming? Bit of a cliché I know but it would understandable why she fell for him. (Is fell the right word? Because she didn't really - she just progressed into having an affair.)
So if it not clear why she does this, then the rest of the film will go about telling you – right? No not to me, but if it's there and I missed it I apologise. As far as I can see the story proceeds traditionally, both young girls absorbing each other's worlds and developing because of it.
The only conclusion I can come to is that it was prerequisite to have negative male characters throughout the film and boy have we got a few. From the pedantic and sleazy room guests to the arrogant snobbish undergraduate there is isn't one positive male character, save Emelia's Grandfather who isn't a central figure and is he really positive? Colluding in the great deception that eventually shatters her bond with her best friend?
I'm interested to find out whether the original script contained the elements above that I'm whining about or had to be inserted, at the producer's request (in order to find an audience), during the 'development' stage.
This is one of the problems facing the British film industry – they don't have the luxury of simply telling a good engrossing story – they have to try and guarantee an audience to backers by aiming it fairly and squarely at a specific audience. What's that I hear? All movie makers have to find an audience. Very true but as many fine film makers have demonstrated you can find an audience without spoiling the story and pandering to needs of a select group.