Has anyone here seen the movie, The English Patient? If so, did you like it? If you did, why?
It was the latest in our Academy Award Best Picture quest, and I had been looking forward to it, largely because I had remembered positive reviews of it. I obviously had not paid enough attention to the reviews. It wasn't the worst movie—I knew enough not to join Porter in watching The Silence of the Lambs—but afterwards I felt I had been walking about in slime to no purpose.I appreciate Heather and Jon's zero tolerance policy when it comes to objectionable elements in movies, but I'm not that strict myself. If a book or movie has enough good in it, I will often put up with the parts I don't like. There's a moment I would like to cut out of Kenneth Branagh's Henry V, for example, but that doesn't stop it from being one of my favorite movies of all time. His Much Ado about Nothing has two scenes that are even more objectionable, but it's right up there in my estimation as well. I've been far more unhappy about some of the Oscar winners we've been watching, but still able to say afterwards, "I didn't like the movie, but so-and-so acted the part really, really well." Or, "There's a lot about this movie I don't like, but I can't help admiring the way it was crafted."
Not so The English Patient. Perhaps my view was colored by it being not at all the movie I had thought it was, but I found nothing redeeming about it at all. My mind is left scarred by disturbing images and sounds, and I find myself none the richer. Did anyone out there get more from the movie than I did?
Why, I wonder, do people watch disturbing films? Am I just unusually fussy? I understand that there are times when a book or movie has become so embedded in the culture that it is probably a good idea to know them, even if they are otherwise objectionable. The Lord of the Flies is an unpleasant book, yet what it says and the effect it has had probably make it worth reading, if only for understanding of the many subsequent references to it. On the other hand, I believe I have learned quite as much as I need to know about Hannibal Lector from crossword puzzles!
I find it hard to believe that I'm the only one dramatically affected by what I read or watch. Words and images make their mark on my brain and soul and cannot be undone. (I wish I remembered names and faces that well, or even history dates. It would be much more useful.) I must be very careful about what I allow into my mind, because it changes me. "Garbage in, garbage out" applies to more than computers. I suppose I could become inured to it all with more frequent exposure, but that's not exactly a comforting thought.
Then again, maybe I'm just being grumpy. Forrest Gump was better, but I was still less than impressed. I'd seen it before and hadn't cared much for it, but it was actually worse than I had remembered. (I must have seen a version that had been edited for television.) It was okay, and I supposed it's good to know the context for "Life is like a box of chocolates," but the sixties were a very unhappy time, and reliving them is not high on my list of what consitutes a good use of a couple of hours.
So, what do you think? Do movies (and books) leave an indelible impression on your soul? Can you appreciate the craft of a movie if you don't like the content (and vice versa) or does the one spoil the other? What makes a movie worth the time it takes to watch it?
Note to Janet: I may not have liked these movies, but I stayed awake! :) I must not be as sleep-deprived as usual.
