I have wanted to see this movie for a long time. Saw it today. I loved it. The first part up until the arrest was amazing. It fell apart a little and not for long. My favorite scene was the one long shot on the beach with the soldiers. Amazing. Great acting by McAvoy and Ronan. Can't believe Wright did not get nominated(even though PTA will dominate but still)

9.5/10

Christ, am I shocked that I enjoyed this movie so much. Don't have a ton to say about it. Sometimes, I just don't have anything to say.

Grade: A

Four out of five Best Pics down (There Will Be Blood this weekend, I hope!), and I wouldn't really be disappointed if any of them won the big award.

I'm truly amazed that this film wasn't recognized for it's editing at the Oscars. It's hard to believe that anyone could have passed this up. The editing is simply superb. The way the film is edited with young Briony to show scenes from her perspective, and we see only what she thinks she knows; and then we see this scene again, under an entirely new point of view, where the whole picture is brought into focus. And it's not only the camera angle, but also alterations in music and pace. As well as the order in which these scenes cut to each other.

More brilliant, subtle editing (and credit goes to the director as well for how he filmed it) involves the way that Mr. Marshall is completely implicated in the sexual assault. Nobody states anything, nobody accuses him overtly or even covertly - and yet we, the audience, know so clearly that it was him who did it. We know that Robbie is innocent, and ultimately it becomes quite tragic in the way that Briony pieces together what she sees and Robbie is arrested.

More editing wonder includes the sweeping shot of Dunkirk (which combines visual, sound, song and music so perfectly). The overwhelming feeling I got was the sense of chaos and disorganisation in the war. It rather reminded me of Apocalypse Now, to be honest. This single sequence contributes so much, as it ties together the war experience for Robbie and all the soldiers for that matter. And the flashback editing to all the events that lead to Robbie's wrongful arrest. The cut back to the typing of the word "cunt" and the handing over of the letter and Robbie's arrest - all well incorporated.

The music is wonderful. It's beautiful on its own, but what is remarkable is that it also works so fluently with the film and it's emotional scope. The track "Denouement" is so lovely. And when you combine it with Vanessa Redgrave's uncanny ability to emote such feeling and history behind a character despite only minutes of screen time, it's a wonderful way to the end the film. (I was also impressed with how well she came across as being inflicted with vascular dementia - I've had personal encounters with vascular dementia, so I was a little amazed, really.)

I feel like the trio of Brionys deserve some kind of collective award. All three - Ronan, Garai and Redgrave - add so much to their character. They act well, all pinpoint the character of Briony precisely, and even seemed to work well in comparison to each other. I feel like they are the same person throughout the film, which is exactly what good actors will accomplish when they are playing a different age cohort of the same character.

Particular scenes that came off really well include: The hospital scene between nurse Tallis and the French soldier. I found that to be particularly riveting, especially the way she announces her name as Briony, just seconds before the man appears to die. This plays off of the scene in which the head nurse tells her that "There is no Briony", and Garai effectively repeats that line in the hall way while looking at her reflection in the window. Briony has been forced to supress her identity - the name Briony ties her too much to her hurtful past, and she's Nurse Tallis until she decides to be Briony again.

One simple moment that I liked was right after young Briony finishes accusing Robbie to the police inspector. You get this close up of Briony, and then all you see is her mother's fat hand place itself on her shoulder, "Good work, darling." You see just the placement of her hand in contrast to her voice, creating a weirdly unsettling moment. You know something has gone terribly wrong here.

The costumes were great because they weren't just costumes for the sake of it, I actually felt like they added to the characters. Cecelia's green, flowing dress for one is eye catching. I felt like the perfect colour was chosen. The colour green is often associated with envy, and has been associated with promiscuity. It seemed so fitting, considering young Briony's relationship with Cee, and the fact that the dress is worn when Cee and Robbie make passionate love in the library. I also really enjoyed nurse Briony's attire when she visits Cee.

There is a lot of great script work too... I loved the line "Bite it... you've got to bite it". This contributed to the portrayal of Mr. Marshall. The whole conversation around the dinner table on how hot weather encourages bad behaviour was brilliant - it came right after Cecelia and Robbie made love in the library and Briony caught them.

Leon: "What do you say, Cee? Does the hot weather make you behave badly? Good heavens, you're blushing."
Cecilia: "Just hot in here, that's all."

Briony: "I've done nothing wrong today." (While staring at Cecilia and Robbie)

And I also liked the line: "Never trust a sailor on dry land."

And one of the most unexpectedly meaningful lines: "Now go and wash the blood off your face."
- This line was uttered by Sister Drummond, the head nurse figure, after Briony got blood splattered on her face when sitting with the French soldier. I thought the line was wonderful because Briony has not just the blood of the French soldier on her, but the blood of Robbie as well. This scene added to Briony's realization of what she has done; sitting with the French soldier was a reminder of what she has done to Robbie.

And finally, the ending shocks me in its tragedy. Just when it looks like the film is working towards a rather tidy ending, it is revealed that the scene when 18-year-old Briony visits Cee is a fantasy. Old Briony reveals she never could work up the courage to visit her. I got the sense that the line "come back, come back to me" is used as a literary device. This would make sense, since it's likely old Briony would have seen that line in the letters Cee wrote to Robbie during war, since she did much research for her book.

And so Briony never could make ammends with her sister or with Robbie, nor could she give them the love they longed for... except for in her book. And the movie ends with Cecelia and Robbie playing on the beach, and enjoying the cottage... the same one mentioned earlier in the film by Cecilia before war. The same one Robbie uttered about just before he went a little delirious and died. And the same one where Cecilia and Robbie now live forever, in the heart of Briony's novel.

A

Fantastic analysis Mike. I'm glad to see someone else noticed the power and grace of Atonement's editing. It truly is the key for the entire film.

I would disagree entirely. Subtle nothing. He was implicated in every gesture, every tic of whatever-his-name-was's performance, every line of dialogue. I'm surprised Wright was able to hold off on actually showing the dude's blank in her blank. What restraint!

That's precisely what I meant. That it is his through his gestures and so on that implies his guilt. There's no big vulgar rape scene, there's no big melodramatic revelation, no silly accusation toward him. That's usually how these movies play it, and it was nice to me that it wasn't that way.

While I don't appreciate your condescension, I'm glad you have your own opinion.

Peace,
Mike

Thank you makeshift! I'm glad you agree about the editing.

Peace,
Mike

Wonderful analysis Mike.

I'm sure you also noticed the shift to a dark background when Old Briony was being interviewed. Same thing happened when little Briony was being interrogated by the inspector.

There's no denying the technical elements of the movie are superb. But the acting and the lack of emotional punch also has to be considered. Atonement was about as flat a movie can get.

Garg. You missed a chance there:


Atonement was about as flat as Keira Knightley's chest.

I know I'm probably sounding like a broken record today, but what is with the obsession with paring a movie apart like this? You're talking about technique and craft like it has nothing to do with the rest of the movie, like it can be applied and disregarded on a whim.

Movies aren't meant to be watched and then solved like math problems. Solid technical achievements minus bad acting minus emotional resonances plus good score equals C+.

The thing is, makeshift, for most people the process isn't that complicated. They leave a film and know they didn't like it and look at why. "Well, I just didn't feel for these characters. It didn't "grab me" the way other great films have. I didn't think McAvoy was any good. BUT...it was pretty, and the score is good and I liked the sets and costumes and camera work. So it's not a complete loss." Yknow? I do that too, I'm sure. It's a not matter of separating the technique from thematic in order to write off one as unimportant, but rather to be able to give credit where due, I think.

I know what you're saying kypade, but I think in a lot of ways what I am suggesting is in fact less complicated than the movie math approach we've detailed above. I think we ought to be watching movies as a whole, with some education and context. Why didn't the movie grab you? What was it doing that made you feel that? Why weren't the performances good? The answers to these questions will undoubtedly bring you back to the "technique" of the film, and that is my point. Technique, craft, style, artistry, skill... whatever you want to call it, is filmmaking. Call it what you want, but you are separating the technique from the rest of the movie when you talk about it like it is independent of everything else that happened.

I respect your opinion. But I disagree, as I felt Briony's character, specifically through Garai and Redgrave, provided a huge emotional punch to the film. I mean, the film is really about the character of Briony, I think everyone can recognize that. And it is her that I come to care about and understand. Briony may not be played by a "lead actress", because of the age progression, but she is certainly the lead character.

There were also specific scenes that I enjoyed between Cecelia and Robbie, such as the tender moment when they meet for coffee and question their relationship. I also liked what was essentially Robbie's mental breakdown at Dunkirk, having expected to be home with his love, at the cottage she described. For me, there was no lack of emotion in that respect either.

And I agree with makeshift in the sense that technical aspects of the film are what add and layer the emotion of a film. Technical aspects aren't just there to be "technical", they are there to add to the plot, characters, and emotional backdrop. Just like the plot and scenery details in (good) books have a purpose. You don't describe something for the sake of describing it - this is something we all learn in English class. My point being, that from my perspective, the technical aspects pushed this film even further in terms of character and emotional development. This is why I described certain scenes and how I felt they added to the film through editing, directing, or writing.

And just to clarify, I'm not doing this to say that your opinion is wrong or to convince you to change it, but just to get my opinion across so that people can understand how I, and maybe even others, feel. I totally respect your opinion on the film.

Peace,
Mike

I'm not sure I see a difference. If someone finds a movie ''flat'' or thinks it's not engaging enough, what would you propose they reason? That they're not engaged because of some fault by the film's artists? I think its asking people to reconcile two extremes, something difficult to do. On the one hand, they have this emotional, gut feeling of boredom or disengagement or lack of enthusiasm by the acting or any number of things they "feel". On the other hand they have the tangible techniques they see and hear. I don't see a problem with both of these working at different levels.

I'm not entirely sure I understand your ideas though.

Mike: I respect your opinion too.

My point is this...

Style is everything. It is acting, editing, camera placement, sound, music, dialogue... everything that comprises the cinematic experience is a part of the film's style and the filmmakers artistry. To relegate the film's style (or "technique", in this case) to some sort of aside is inherently incorrect, because you are discussing the film as a whole at that point. If a movie leaves a person feeling flat, I purpose they reason the film's style did not work. So in this case, it is counter-intuitive for Sam to praise the film's technique while also damning it as a whole.

A day after seeing Atonement, and I still love it. I'll be happy to see it again whenever it gets a DVD release.

That a film is nothing more than a series of techniques seems pretty logical, yeah. But there has to be more than that, because the fact is that people can recognize great composition working together with great sound and great costumes and still not like what these techniques are adding up too. I dunno, that doesn't seem contradictory to me.

This movie gets better with every viewing. For me, at least.

makeshift, I see your point, but I think, inside, you know what Sam is getting at (that the film compromises emotions for a "pretty" appearance, or that the "emotional punch" of the film's cinematography, costumes, use of sound, art direction, etc. are reduced by "flat" performances).

I think Sam's point is silly, but maybe that's because I can simultaneously appreciate the grandeur, epic nature of the film and the subtle, reserved performances Not everything in a film has to be "streamlined" for it to work. There's a difference between a film like Atonement, and, say, Kill Bill Volume 1.

I guess MY point is this. How do you account for those that see a film like this and DO separate the technique from their emotional response? Are they lying when they say they think the visuals and cameras work but the film doesn't? Do they simply not know what they're talking about and indeed the visuals and camera-work really don't work for them? If it were as you say, these disconnects simply shouldn't happen, because when one sees something they consider beautiful and well made and such, that person should come out liking the film.

I think that point is valid. If you didn't like the movie, you didn't like the movie.

Still, it is one thing to have "flat" characters and a "corny" script. It's another thing to dismiss the film because its visuals are of a different mood and nature than its script and acting.

This is probably a bit too harsh, but I can account for that pretty easily... most people just don't know how to watch movies.

As a society we have kind of cultivated this herd mentality of treating movies like dispensable entertainment. Something to keep us occupied in between our shifts at work or classes at school, or something to serve as background noise during a party or house work. To watch a movie, and I mean to really watch it... that is a skill that takes time to develop, as absurd as that may sound. I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain to my parents how to notice something as simple as a cut in a movie. And the fact is that most of us are like this. Lazy, disengaged movie watchers. I think if you are watching a movie properly, an excellent well-timed edit will stir something in you. A gorgeous establishing shot with expressionistic lighting that tells us something about the characters or the events taking place will make you feel.

Ultimately, the disconnect we are talking about shouldn't happen. Of course I understand what Sam is saying. I can even relate to it, since I am as guilty of anyone else as doing that in the past. But at the same time I think it is our responsibility as movie lovers to move past that. I think what it eventually boils down to is misapplication of certain words, something that is actually pretty simple. I think what Sam is saying is that the style (which keep in mind IS the film, so we're talking content, substance, acting and everything) is not enough to heighten the art of the film, and that is a fair criticism. Add in some examples of why it didn't work, and I'm happy as a pig in shit.

I love this movie and I love this thread. I like the in depth discussion its great to read, if only all KJ conv's where like this.

If all of KJ were like this thread, hell would have fierce competition. Sooo boringggggggggg