Can you spell "objective correlative.."
Added 6/14/2009
I guess plenty of reviewers have outlined the story, and so far the few I have read have not given away the dramatic secret near the end (though several claim that it becomes obvious early on - well, I guess I'm just slow or something..) Of course, after that one can see much more meaning in many of the scenes earlier in the movie.
I endorse all those who have found it a masterful, dark, sexually charged retelling of the tale, and like them I love the constant interplay between the (not-so-angelic!) Angels and Insects of the title. Yes, there are many neat similarities between the bustling ant colonies that William studies and the claustrophobic life of the well-to do family in their hierarchically-run mansion. Roger Ebert did a very good job of describing this at [...]- though he made one egregious error, describing William as a Scotsman! Ah, Americans will never get these accents straight - William is a North-Country, or perhaps North or West Midlands, Englishman.
Some find it slow going at first - I can only say I did not, just enjoying the excellent re-creation of late 19th century English country house life is sufficient pleasure. So much is done so well: the servants standing like unnoticed statuary in the background while main characters talk or argue over the most personal things: also how the servants stop and turn to the wall so as to be politely "invisible" when one of the household passes them on the stairs.
The only quibble - perhaps dealt with more clearly in the novel, which I haven't read - is William's absolute certainty that after the shipwreck he would be totally lost for any way to make a living. It seems he was already known as a naturalist of repute - surely there would have been some post in academia, even if humble? But then of course we would have had no story.
I'm always amused by those who have to "warn" us that there is some nudity in the film. Oh, that human body is such a scary thing, and of course none of us have ever seen one before! Considering the way the plot turns out, none of the sexual elements are irrelevant.
2 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
Of insects and dark family secrets
Added 5/11/2009
"Angels and Insects" unfolds leisurely, and is an aesthetically pleasing movie. Based upon A.S. Byatt's [whose "Possession" was also adapted for the big screen] novella "Morpho Eugenia", the story centers around an impoverished naturalist, William Adamson [Mark Rylance] who has spent a great many years in the wilds of the Amazon, studying the insect colonies there. Upon his return to Victorian England, he is taken under the benevolent wings of Rev Harald Alabaster [Jeremy Kemp], and promptly forms an attachment to the Rev's daughter, the ethereally beautiful Eugenia [Patsy Kline]. The pair marry and settle in Eugenia's family manor, where Adamson finds himself treated with disdain and condescension by Eugenia's boorish brother. Even his wife blows hot and cold, exhibiting wanton passion one moment, and shunning all physical contact the next, leaving Adamson perplexed. The years pass, and Adamson finds himself unaware of darker undercurrents running through the Alabaster household, which harbors some very dark and perverse secrets. Adamson meanwhile dedicates himself to his bug study, aided by a poor Alabaster cousin, Matty [Kristin Scott Thomas], and it is only in the last half an hour of the movie that the action speeds up and Adamson is made aware of the darker events occurring in his home.
Though I was engrossed in this story, I did find the first half rather plodding, and also quite infuriating as the viewer senses the 'secret' in the story long before naive Adamson does. Mark Rylance is credible as the unsuspecting husband and devoted naturalist, as are Kristin Scott Thomas' spinsterish Matty and Patsy Kensit's blonde beauty Eugenia. The cinematography is lush and beautiful, even to the extent of romanticizing the insects featured.
Viewers need to be forewarned that there is plenty of graphic nudity in this, i.e. male and female full frontal nudity. To some extent it does serve a purpose in the narration of the story. This is no prudish Victorian drama, but a period movie that happens to deal with some dark themes. It is definitely worth checking out for fans of serious period dramas.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Truly a case of too little too late...
Added 3/4/2009
I had really high expectations for this film walking in. I love period pieces and I love the idea of the erotic love story; and even the whole fascination with the study of insect life mirroring the relationships of the human counterparts seemed really intriguing to me.
What can I say; I love the bizarre.
The problem I have with this film is that it takes so long to actually grab your interest that it's over before we have a chance to really appreciate all that it has to say. The final thirty minutes is shockingly good; stellar to be exact, but getting there is rather difficult when the film fails time and time again to be even remotely interesting.
The film tells the tale of William Adamson, a naturalist who returns home after an expedition fully reliant on the financial help of his sponsor, the wealthy Sir Harold Alabaster. Sir Harold is smitten with William, who possesses and intelligence he only wishes his own son Edgar would possess. When William falls for the emotionally damaged Eugenia, Harold is happy, but Edgar is furious. William and Eugenia are married, and despite their social differences they seem to be happy; having child upon child, but it is obvious that they are not as connected as William would like. That is when William seeks the company of the Alabaster cousin Matty, a young and interesting girl who has the same fascination for insect life that William has. They indulge themselves in study and grow fonder and fonder of one another.
Until...
The film moves at a very slow pace, but it doesn't possess the brooding quality of a good dramatic film, so despite it's efforts, it fails to be captivating or moving. There are times where I longed to fast forward to find some meaning within the film; to find a sequence of events that didn't leave me cold.
Then the last thirty minutes happened and I found my dreams coming true; but it's a case of too little too late for sure.
The acting is very strong in areas and then very weak in others. Mark Rylance is superbly understated as William. He matches the tone of the film well, and says a lot with his eyes, conveying emotions and concerns long before his words are spoken. Kristen Scott Thomas is a major highlight, especially in her final scene where her emotional guard is dropped and her character is fully fleshed out to us. In fact, the finest scene of acting comes during a card game towards the films finale when William makes the word `insect' only to have Matty rearrange the letters.
Look at those eyes.
Patsy Kensit, Jeremy Kemp and Douglas Henshall are all effective. I at first as put off by Henshall, but he grew on me towards the end. Annette Badland is just plain bad, but whatever.
I really wanted the best for this film. It has a lot to say about the deeper side of human relationships and it's theories of Darwinism and their social relevance could have been rather enlightening; but the films construction and overall delivery is poorly done and takes away from any significant impact this film could have had.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Abstract Ideas Always Better Than Reality
Added 2/28/2009
Mark Rylance, a naturalist in the Darwinian/Victorian sense returns to England after losing his life's work in a shipwreck. While visiting the estate of an educated wealthy sympathizer, he falls in love with the patriarchs daughter, Eugenia (Patsy Kensit). Eugenia agrees to marry him and continue to live on the family estate. Because the naturalist has no visible means of support or noble lineage, he is despised and mistreated by Eugenia's brother. Apparent to everyone is the fact that the naturalist should have married a poor though educated and intelligent cousin of Eugenia played by Kristin Scott Thomas.
The most interesting thing about this movie is the way the naturalists abstract ideas seep into his real life. Darwin talked about the evolution of species and how the strong survive. But does the evolution of a master race mean you should procreate with your sister? Darwin postulated that the best looking of a species will procreate because they can aptly a mate. But the reality is that the best looking person may not be the one to love. People are complex creatures and what we need in love goes far beyond what our biology dictates.
A very good movie with excellent performances. [...]
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
A Victorian Costume Drama That Is Way Off The Beaten Path
Added 1/18/2009
Set in England in the 1860's, ANGELS AND INSECTS is a highly unusual film. Briefly stated it is the story of William, a young entomologist from working class beginnings, who can't believe his luck when Eugenie Alabaster, the lovely, fragile, daughter of his very wealthy benefactor agrees to marry him and everyone in the Alabaster family but her brother Edgar seems to approve the match. It seems poor Eugenie had previously had her heart broken by a fiancé who committed suicide. However it soon becomes apparent to the viewer if not her new husband that Eugenie's relationship with her overbearing brother, Edgar, may be the real cause of her unhappiness.
The positives of the movie include the fine acting (especially by Kristen Scott Thomas as Maddy, the poor relation serving as governess to the Alabaster family), beautiful photography as well as on location settings and unique, vibrant Victorian costumes that may not be totally historically accurate but underscore the connection between the female members of the Alabaster household and certain insects. Unfortunately the movie is so heavy handed in connecting the Alabaster family drama to the bug world that some characters become almost caricatures. And the film has some explicit scenes including nudity that seem unnecessary.
0 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Can you spell "objective correlative.."
Added 6/14/2009
I guess plenty of reviewers have outlined the story, and so far the few I have read have not given away the dramatic secret near the end (though several claim that it becomes obvious early on - well, I guess I'm just slow or something..) Of course, after that one can see much more meaning in many of the scenes earlier in the movie.
I endorse all those who have found it a masterful, dark, sexually charged retelling of the tale, and like them I love the constant interplay between the (not-so-angelic!) Angels and Insects of the title. Yes, there are many neat similarities between the bustling ant colonies that William studies and the claustrophobic life of the well-to do family in their hierarchically-run mansion. Roger Ebert did a very good job of describing this at [...]- though he made one egregious error, describing William as a Scotsman! Ah, Americans will never get these accents straight - William is a North-Country, or perhaps North or West Midlands, Englishman.
Some find it slow going at first - I can only say I did not, just enjoying the excellent re-creation of late 19th century English country house life is sufficient pleasure. So much is done so well: the servants standing like unnoticed statuary in the background while main characters talk or argue over the most personal things: also how the servants stop and turn to the wall so as to be politely "invisible" when one of the household passes them on the stairs.
The only quibble - perhaps dealt with more clearly in the novel, which I haven't read - is William's absolute certainty that after the shipwreck he would be totally lost for any way to make a living. It seems he was already known as a naturalist of repute - surely there would have been some post in academia, even if humble? But then of course we would have had no story.
I'm always amused by those who have to "warn" us that there is some nudity in the film. Oh, that human body is such a scary thing, and of course none of us have ever seen one before! Considering the way the plot turns out, none of the sexual elements are irrelevant.
2 out of 2 people found this helpful.
|
Of insects and dark family secrets
Added 5/11/2009
"Angels and Insects" unfolds leisurely, and is an aesthetically pleasing movie. Based upon A.S. Byatt's [whose "Possession" was also adapted for the big screen] novella "Morpho Eugenia", the story centers around an impoverished naturalist, William Adamson [Mark Rylance] who has spent a great many years in the wilds of the Amazon, studying the insect colonies there. Upon his return to Victorian England, he is taken under the benevolent wings of Rev Harald Alabaster [Jeremy Kemp], and promptly forms an attachment to the Rev's daughter, the ethereally beautiful Eugenia [Patsy Kline]. The pair marry and settle in Eugenia's family manor, where Adamson finds himself treated with disdain and condescension by Eugenia's boorish brother. Even his wife blows hot and cold, exhibiting wanton passion one moment, and shunning all physical contact the next, leaving Adamson perplexed. The years pass, and Adamson finds himself unaware of darker undercurrents running through the Alabaster household, which harbors some very dark and perverse secrets. Adamson meanwhile dedicates himself to his bug study, aided by a poor Alabaster cousin, Matty [Kristin Scott Thomas], and it is only in the last half an hour of the movie that the action speeds up and Adamson is made aware of the darker events occurring in his home.
Though I was engrossed in this story, I did find the first half rather plodding, and also quite infuriating as the viewer senses the 'secret' in the story long before naive Adamson does. Mark Rylance is credible as the unsuspecting husband and devoted naturalist, as are Kristin Scott Thomas' spinsterish Matty and Patsy Kensit's blonde beauty Eugenia. The cinematography is lush and beautiful, even to the extent of romanticizing the insects featured.
Viewers need to be forewarned that there is plenty of graphic nudity in this, i.e. male and female full frontal nudity. To some extent it does serve a purpose in the narration of the story. This is no prudish Victorian drama, but a period movie that happens to deal with some dark themes. It is definitely worth checking out for fans of serious period dramas.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Truly a case of too little too late...
Added 3/4/2009
I had really high expectations for this film walking in. I love period pieces and I love the idea of the erotic love story; and even the whole fascination with the study of insect life mirroring the relationships of the human counterparts seemed really intriguing to me.
What can I say; I love the bizarre.
The problem I have with this film is that it takes so long to actually grab your interest that it's over before we have a chance to really appreciate all that it has to say. The final thirty minutes is shockingly good; stellar to be exact, but getting there is rather difficult when the film fails time and time again to be even remotely interesting.
The film tells the tale of William Adamson, a naturalist who returns home after an expedition fully reliant on the financial help of his sponsor, the wealthy Sir Harold Alabaster. Sir Harold is smitten with William, who possesses and intelligence he only wishes his own son Edgar would possess. When William falls for the emotionally damaged Eugenia, Harold is happy, but Edgar is furious. William and Eugenia are married, and despite their social differences they seem to be happy; having child upon child, but it is obvious that they are not as connected as William would like. That is when William seeks the company of the Alabaster cousin Matty, a young and interesting girl who has the same fascination for insect life that William has. They indulge themselves in study and grow fonder and fonder of one another.
Until...
The film moves at a very slow pace, but it doesn't possess the brooding quality of a good dramatic film, so despite it's efforts, it fails to be captivating or moving. There are times where I longed to fast forward to find some meaning within the film; to find a sequence of events that didn't leave me cold.
Then the last thirty minutes happened and I found my dreams coming true; but it's a case of too little too late for sure.
The acting is very strong in areas and then very weak in others. Mark Rylance is superbly understated as William. He matches the tone of the film well, and says a lot with his eyes, conveying emotions and concerns long before his words are spoken. Kristen Scott Thomas is a major highlight, especially in her final scene where her emotional guard is dropped and her character is fully fleshed out to us. In fact, the finest scene of acting comes during a card game towards the films finale when William makes the word `insect' only to have Matty rearrange the letters.
Look at those eyes.
Patsy Kensit, Jeremy Kemp and Douglas Henshall are all effective. I at first as put off by Henshall, but he grew on me towards the end. Annette Badland is just plain bad, but whatever.
I really wanted the best for this film. It has a lot to say about the deeper side of human relationships and it's theories of Darwinism and their social relevance could have been rather enlightening; but the films construction and overall delivery is poorly done and takes away from any significant impact this film could have had.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
