I was a little taken aback by how much I was enthralled and near the end overwhelmed by The Beguiled. It may be due to some (misplaced?) expectations on my end when it comes to the director; I admire Sofia Coppola's films on the whole - Lost in Translation to be sure, but also parts of Marie Antoinette and Somewhere are striking and affecting in that 'is-it-shallow or is it deep' sort of ambiguous, poetic way she has with her cinematography and storytelling - but until now haven't felt like I connected that strongly with the characters or in the world that's created. Even with Murray and Johansson in LiT there was something that kept one at a distance (again, this is just me, I'm sure many others feel different), despite the curious subjects at play. In The Beguiled, Coppola has a plot to work with - it's one that should be familiar if you've seen the 1971 film, which I can't help but get to - and it's a strong one. But she makes it her own and has a cast that KILLS across the board (some more literally than others! I'll be here all night, folks).
I have a feeling when Coppola got this material, either if it was seeing the Clint Eastwood/Don Siegel film first or reading the book, she read into it something differently than Siegel did, and I'm glad she did. This isn't a tawdry B-movie melodrama, which was what that movie certainly presented itself as, and in some ways was all the better for it (has one seen Eastwood be that downright *sleazy* before or since?) This is Coppola trying on something closer to a piece of Gothic literature; if Marie Antoinette was her fluffy costume-period biopic, this is her trying to tackle one of the Brontes, only through cinematic grammar. She rarely uses music in the film, certainly not much at all in the first half, and when it comes up it's eerie and brooding, a low synth that sounds like someone is somewhere about to do something sinister. Or, in this case, giving what may be just desserts for some.
You know the story? A Union officer is wounded and discovered by a young girl who is part of an all-girl's school in the South during the later part of the Civil War; she's cared for by the Head-School-Marm and he becomes a focal point of attention for the girls, whether they're pre-pubescent, adolescent, or way past that. He is polite and gentlemanly when he wakes up all stitched up, and tries to make himself useful - will be stay, or will he have to go? Meanwhile as this question hangs over scenes, the soldier John tries to ingratiate himself in another way, with smouldering and sexy looks and glances (hey, it's Colin Farrell looking like he took some of that medicine Paul Rudd's had to make himself look the same as he did 15 years ago, after all).
But how will this all fall apart, we know we have to ask ourselves? If one's seen the trailer without having seen the original it may seem pretty clear - that was one of those trailers that gave away too much, I think, which is not fair for the majority of audiences that likely haven't seen one of the few Eastwood "sleepers" of the 70's so to speak - but there's still much more in the atmosphere that Coppola creates with her production team that is astounding. There's a dark tone to the cinematography so at times it seems like it's natural light only, but I'm not sure that's it; it feels diffuse, like we're looking at a painting, only it isn't the sort of period-painting creation of like a Kubrick Barry Lyndon. No, this is a little like Coppola taking her crack at Gothic horror where you can feel the sweat and stink of a plantation where slaves once worked. It feels raw and lived in, and the dresses the girls wear even have a bigger-than-life quality while still feeling organic to the story and place.
By the way, there is one difference worth noting between the versions: Coppola doesn't have a slave character in the story (the little girl that saves Farrell says away in one line, "the slaves left," which could mean any number of things considering the time, but it is post Emancipation as well), but this doesn't feel like she is trying to change things for the time. If anything the slave woman was one of the flaws for me in the original film, with a good actress saddled with a not totally believable portrayal of a slave woman.
One might say Coppola chickened out or didn't go into what could've been more interesting/uncomfortable terrain. But I think she must've known a) there's already enough as far as sexual politics and WOMEN vs MAN going on to mine, and b) the story being more streamlined, this being shorter than the original, is a wise decision. There's not a wasted moment in this picture, and when there's a moment to see characters working or a meditative pause, it feels earned and part of the storytelling.
Lastly, the acting: it's all wonderful, but Dunst is the one that I hope people remember the most here. Farrell and Kidman are the leads, but she's the one who has the most inner conflict, the person in this tale who has so much responsibility with these girls while at the same time wanting to choose her own path - maybe with John or maybe not. How can she? She's Coppola's one returning star now, and it's clear how her work is getting better, both in the script and how she gets to play it here as someone who has quiet desperation all over her. If one feels for anyone, whether it's in any mixed ways or not, it's for her. 9.5/10
I have a feeling when Coppola got this material, either if it was seeing the Clint Eastwood/Don Siegel film first or reading the book, she read into it something differently than Siegel did, and I'm glad she did. This isn't a tawdry B-movie melodrama, which was what that movie certainly presented itself as, and in some ways was all the better for it (has one seen Eastwood be that downright *sleazy* before or since?) This is Coppola trying on something closer to a piece of Gothic literature; if Marie Antoinette was her fluffy costume-period biopic, this is her trying to tackle one of the Brontes, only through cinematic grammar. She rarely uses music in the film, certainly not much at all in the first half, and when it comes up it's eerie and brooding, a low synth that sounds like someone is somewhere about to do something sinister. Or, in this case, giving what may be just desserts for some.
You know the story? A Union officer is wounded and discovered by a young girl who is part of an all-girl's school in the South during the later part of the Civil War; she's cared for by the Head-School-Marm and he becomes a focal point of attention for the girls, whether they're pre-pubescent, adolescent, or way past that. He is polite and gentlemanly when he wakes up all stitched up, and tries to make himself useful - will be stay, or will he have to go? Meanwhile as this question hangs over scenes, the soldier John tries to ingratiate himself in another way, with smouldering and sexy looks and glances (hey, it's Colin Farrell looking like he took some of that medicine Paul Rudd's had to make himself look the same as he did 15 years ago, after all).
But how will this all fall apart, we know we have to ask ourselves? If one's seen the trailer without having seen the original it may seem pretty clear - that was one of those trailers that gave away too much, I think, which is not fair for the majority of audiences that likely haven't seen one of the few Eastwood "sleepers" of the 70's so to speak - but there's still much more in the atmosphere that Coppola creates with her production team that is astounding. There's a dark tone to the cinematography so at times it seems like it's natural light only, but I'm not sure that's it; it feels diffuse, like we're looking at a painting, only it isn't the sort of period-painting creation of like a Kubrick Barry Lyndon. No, this is a little like Coppola taking her crack at Gothic horror where you can feel the sweat and stink of a plantation where slaves once worked. It feels raw and lived in, and the dresses the girls wear even have a bigger-than-life quality while still feeling organic to the story and place.
By the way, there is one difference worth noting between the versions: Coppola doesn't have a slave character in the story (the little girl that saves Farrell says away in one line, "the slaves left," which could mean any number of things considering the time, but it is post Emancipation as well), but this doesn't feel like she is trying to change things for the time. If anything the slave woman was one of the flaws for me in the original film, with a good actress saddled with a not totally believable portrayal of a slave woman.
One might say Coppola chickened out or didn't go into what could've been more interesting/uncomfortable terrain. But I think she must've known a) there's already enough as far as sexual politics and WOMEN vs MAN going on to mine, and b) the story being more streamlined, this being shorter than the original, is a wise decision. There's not a wasted moment in this picture, and when there's a moment to see characters working or a meditative pause, it feels earned and part of the storytelling.
Lastly, the acting: it's all wonderful, but Dunst is the one that I hope people remember the most here. Farrell and Kidman are the leads, but she's the one who has the most inner conflict, the person in this tale who has so much responsibility with these girls while at the same time wanting to choose her own path - maybe with John or maybe not. How can she? She's Coppola's one returning star now, and it's clear how her work is getting better, both in the script and how she gets to play it here as someone who has quiet desperation all over her. If one feels for anyone, whether it's in any mixed ways or not, it's for her. 9.5/10