Watching the movie on TV, I was surprised that this film could enthrall three members of my family including me. There are many aspects about the film that attracts one's attention.
The story is the most obvious one. If the work were that of an accomplished author, you could perhaps see some reason for appeal. Instead it the work of one Mary Elizabeth Braddon whose literary fame is quite obscure. After watching the movie, I will make it a point to read the book. Not many movies make you do that today--this one strangely does. And when I get to do that, I will know how much liberty was taken by the director or whether the writer wrote a book that was an ideal one to film.
Another strand of brilliance was the casting of the lead character. Neve McIntosh as Lady Audley is a stunning performance and I am convinced this lady will go places if directed by accomplished directors. She has displayed a wide range of emotions in the film without resorting to histrionics.
The art department needs to complimented on the fascinating dresses and hats that adds the mood of the film, though Lady Audley's blue dress appears unusual for sober shades of dresses worn by other characters. Yet again this "flaw" could be deliberate to accentuate a colorful character. The color of hair is so well utilized in the film to further the narrative.
The camerawork is commendable adding to the production values of this small film.
Why did the film appeal to me? The film/story/screenplay is a fascinating study of characters--a duel of wits between a young man and a young woman. The work seesaws between its support for the woman and its disapproval of her actions until the very last frame, where the real winner is revealed.
The story and the film reminds you of several good films that are vaguely similar in treatment the Italian work "Lady of the camelias", Truffaut's "Story of Adele H" and the Julie Christie film of Hardy's "Far from the Madding Crowd."
I am convinced that this film, book and the lead actress need more exposure than they have received. Thank you, Betsan Morris Evans.
The story is the most obvious one. If the work were that of an accomplished author, you could perhaps see some reason for appeal. Instead it the work of one Mary Elizabeth Braddon whose literary fame is quite obscure. After watching the movie, I will make it a point to read the book. Not many movies make you do that today--this one strangely does. And when I get to do that, I will know how much liberty was taken by the director or whether the writer wrote a book that was an ideal one to film.
Another strand of brilliance was the casting of the lead character. Neve McIntosh as Lady Audley is a stunning performance and I am convinced this lady will go places if directed by accomplished directors. She has displayed a wide range of emotions in the film without resorting to histrionics.
The art department needs to complimented on the fascinating dresses and hats that adds the mood of the film, though Lady Audley's blue dress appears unusual for sober shades of dresses worn by other characters. Yet again this "flaw" could be deliberate to accentuate a colorful character. The color of hair is so well utilized in the film to further the narrative.
The camerawork is commendable adding to the production values of this small film.
Why did the film appeal to me? The film/story/screenplay is a fascinating study of characters--a duel of wits between a young man and a young woman. The work seesaws between its support for the woman and its disapproval of her actions until the very last frame, where the real winner is revealed.
The story and the film reminds you of several good films that are vaguely similar in treatment the Italian work "Lady of the camelias", Truffaut's "Story of Adele H" and the Julie Christie film of Hardy's "Far from the Madding Crowd."
I am convinced that this film, book and the lead actress need more exposure than they have received. Thank you, Betsan Morris Evans.