The Beguiled (movie remake)

Cafe Society
1

Anyone else seen or planning to see this? I saw it yesterday and the one word that sticks out in my mind is “unnecessary”. I have nothing against remakes / reboots in principal. Sometimes they’re better than the original (The Ring) and sometimes not but I’m always willing to take a look at another interpretation of a given story.

This version is kind of a big void and I’m afraid I have to lay the blame for that pretty much squarely on Sofia Coppola’s shoulders. I’m willing to concede that her style just doesn’t do it for me as I haven’t really cared for the few of her other (many) projects I’ve seen (The Virgin Suicides,Lost in Translation, *Marie Antoinette and the tv special * A Very Murray Christmas). The problem is in this case there is no style. There’s no “there” there. It’s a slow moving, claustrophobic tale and everything depends on nuance and the individual performances of the actors. The very foundation of the story is sexual in nature so it’s crucial that there’s some chemistry going on with someone. There was not an iota of sexual tension, or tension of any kind for that matter. How can a director not get a good performance from the likes of Nicole Kidman, Colin Farrell or Elle Fanning?

I don’t know if it’s worse to have seen the original or not. I feel like if you take this new version at face value, independent of the original, there’s really no movie there. The story take place over several weeks, I think, and nothing much actually “happens” It’s all about the relationships among the young women and the wounded Union soldier they take in to convalesce at their boarding school while the war rages on around them. That’s a pretty simple premise that only becomes interesting with a lot of attention to atmosphere. And I’m sorry but multiple shots of sun beams shining through the Spanish moss doesn’t quite cut it.

I’ll stop rambling until I see if there’s any interest. Heck, we can talk about the original if anyone would prefer.

2

Have not seen in yet, but have seen the original. The SJ Merc gave it rave reviews on Friday. I think I’ll wait until it comes to cable, but I’m not sure it’s supposed to be more than about the relationships (and, of course, the moody, Southern atmosphere with the war raging outside the walls).

3

Contrary to the Mercury, the SF Chronicle was unenthusiastic. The opening line of the review I think says most of it - “The Beguiled” is an interesting film that should not be mistaken for a good film, though it probably will be.

Coppola is ALL about style and sometimes it works for me. Lost in Translation mostly did, The Virgin Suicides was kinda halfway there, Marie Antoinette did not. Like her or hate her, she definitely has her own visual style and a certain degree of talent. But I’m thinking this one will be a miss for me. I’ll wait until it comes out on cable and give it a try - I like Kidman, Dunst and Fanning generally ( Farrel is hit or miss ), but I’m not expecting much.

And I thought it interesting that the reviewer watched the original version after this one and found it far less opaque.

4

Total pass. As noted by the OP, this film is unnecessary. In every way.

5

I love the original (which I just saw again on the big screen last year, so it’s fresh in my mind) and think it’s probably Don Siegel’s best film in a career with some pretty terrific ones. But I was intrigued by what Sofia might bring to the table, even if I was also skeptical that it could be much better.

Well, it’s not as good, and if I had to sum up the difference, it’s this: 30 minutes. In terms of incidents or important plot points, there’s very little that happens in the original that doesn’t happen in the remake. But the additional 30 minutes that Don uses is all for the purpose of increasing tension, building characterization, and teasing out the sexually-charged dynamics of the story. Everything happens too quickly in the remake, so everything also feels forced.

Also, while Sofia does an excellent job of making the film look gothic (lots of haze, gloomy interiors and candlelight), Don did a much better job of making the film feel gothic. The sun may be shining bright in his, but the mood is dark and portentous, dripping with desire, inhibition and emotions slowly bubbling to the surface. This is where the run time is critical again, for it helps in spinning this lazy feeling that slyly hides this repression and malevolence.

Now Sofia is a good director who’s made films that are brilliant (The Virgin Suicides), underrated (The Bling Ring) and playfully melancholy (the good but overrated Lost in Translation). So this isn’t a bust (far from the detestable Somewhere). But I don’t see it as bringing much new to the story, even with fine turns by all the cast.

That said, I am a guy. And in defending Don’s film, I’ve had a number of women argue that his film portrays the women as a coven of harpies and hysterics. Having just seen the film again recently, I don’t agree with this at all. The gothic trappings invite some over-the-top emotion, but feel all the women are fully realized and that Clint Eastwood’s portrayal gradually reveals itself as unquestionably cruel and predatory. His fate isn’t unearned and while his McBurney projects his misogyny through his rage, it is he who is the fox in the henhouse and who severely underestimates what the women are capable of when painted in the corner.

That’s why while Ferrell’s take on the character starts similarly, his worm turns far too quickly and the film almost feels like a bad hostage drama in his hyperbolic confrontation with the women. But then again, I’m a guy. And perhaps it is possible that gender informs what is seen as a “realistic” performance and what is seen as a pendulum swing in too extreme a direction. I found his character bordering on cliche just like women I know said the same thing about the women characters in the original.

So I’d say it’s a film that’s worth seeing if you’re so inclined, but not one I can ever imagine revisiting.

6

Hmmmmmmm. I’d say “The Beguiled is an okay film that should not be mistaken for an interesting film, and I see no danger that it will” :stuck_out_tongue:

I agree that Coppola is all about style and that’s a big part of the reason I thought this would be so much better. As I mentioned before, there’s not much plot or action to be plumbed and therefore it relies on style. This just feels like so much wasted opportunity.

In contrast to MovieMogul’s excellent comments, I’d say the last thing this movie needs is 30 more minutes. I’d rather the allotted time had simply been used better. Nicole Kidman didn’t need more time to reveal the lonely, vulnerable hungry soul underneath Miss Martha’s prim veneer; she needed to play it completely differently. It’s as if she never saw the original or didn’t understand the heart of the character.

Ditto Colin Farrell. He’s certainly attractive enough so no problem there, but where’s that dark side that he’s so ably shown us in the past? He felt far more a victim than the predator that he’s supposed to be.

What, I wonder, was the reasoning in having Elle Fanning’s character be so restrained? If anyone could ooze manipulative nymphet, it’s she, yet her role was reduced to borderline comic relief.

Sorry, don’t know why I feel the need to go on about it. Maybe because I was so looking forward to it, and though I knew it couldn’t live up to my hopes, I’m kind of flabbergasted that it is this . . uninspired.

7

What the hell is going in that guy’s head?

No, not McBurney’s; Farrell’s. He had to know that this project meant constantly getting compared to manly Clint Eastwood, and he – made the same choice as when they asked him to play the Arnold Schwarzenegger part in the TOTAL RECALL remake? After he tried to fill Don Johnson’s shoes in the MIAMI VICE adaptation?

Heck, he wasn’t fit to fill Chris Sarandon’s shoes in FRIGHT NIGHT!

Why so many invite-comparisons-with-other-versions roles? These aren’t franchises, where money gets left on the table if Hollywood ain’t doing their best to get another SPIDER-MAN flick into theaters as soon as possible; they just – happen?

8

It’s as if he really yearns to get some genuine traction in Tinseltown. After being a virtual non-entity in a Spielberg film and fizzling as a comic book villain, he keeps trying to make a name for himself as a tentpole personality. In Bruges, The Lobster, The New World, Intermission–all fantastic films. But all arthouse fare also.

He was a villain again in the Harry Potter franchise (a non-reprisable role), and while working with Sofia makes perfect sense given her standing and critical cred, the other examples you mention definitely are head-scratchers. It’s similar to Denzel Washington, who is a fantastic actor but whose constant remakes (Pelham, Manchurian, Equalizer, Magnificent 7) are uniformly terrible.

9

Its odd to call In Bruges an arthouse film. Its a straight up gangster film. Just because it takes place in Bruges doesn’t make it any less gangstery than if it had been set in Brooklyn.