Michael LownThe Painted Veil: painted...very...slowly
April 28th 2008 03:28
The Painted Veil is a slow dragging beast that steadily, even a little painfully, turns out to be a thoroughly involving flick. Based on the novel of the same name by W Somerset Maugham, this love story takes so much time introducing and establishing its characters you can’t help but feel for them despite many of their early selfish foibles.
Naomi Watts plays Kitty, pretty, shallow and eager to escape her family. Edward Norton, as Walter, offers her that out when he proposes to her. She readily accepts despite the fact that she barely knows, and certainly doesn’t love him. They move to China where he works as a doctor, and one ill-fated affair later a War of the Roses turn sees them seeking to drive each other mad with fury in some rural province overrun with a cholera epidemic. As we all know, cholera does not a merry movie make, but there are moments of levity that stop the whole thing from ever being depressing. Plus, that Walter sure does know how to take himself some revenge.
The film’s (and I assume the book's, as I haven’t read it) key point seems to be the importance of trully knowing a person. Perhaps it’s greatest achievement is to manage what so few period films with sweeping vistas manage. To give a real idea of love, chemistry and it’s very creation.
The performances are nuanced, and show the passion the mains clearly felt for the project. Both Watts and Norton produced the film. The scenery is mesmerizing, the soundtrack hypnotic, and the supports intriguing.
The only complaint is the first half hour is so damn slow. Obviously ultimately director John Curran triumphs with his choice of pace, but the restless audience has to stay interested enough to care. I saw this with two people famed for their love of the easygoing flick (if it’s too fast, your parents might spend every second moment asking you what just happened, turning the child into an unwitting interpretor of cinema plotting), and even my mother leaned across after 20 minutes and begged me to promise her it would get cracking some time soon. Bad sign.
That’s probably what held the whole event back from even making it to Australian shores (it screened in the US in 2006). Hopefully it won’t stop people from sticking around and enjoying the deserved, luxurious conclusion.
Naomi Watts plays Kitty, pretty, shallow and eager to escape her family. Edward Norton, as Walter, offers her that out when he proposes to her. She readily accepts despite the fact that she barely knows, and certainly doesn’t love him. They move to China where he works as a doctor, and one ill-fated affair later a War of the Roses turn sees them seeking to drive each other mad with fury in some rural province overrun with a cholera epidemic. As we all know, cholera does not a merry movie make, but there are moments of levity that stop the whole thing from ever being depressing. Plus, that Walter sure does know how to take himself some revenge.
The film’s (and I assume the book's, as I haven’t read it) key point seems to be the importance of trully knowing a person. Perhaps it’s greatest achievement is to manage what so few period films with sweeping vistas manage. To give a real idea of love, chemistry and it’s very creation.
The performances are nuanced, and show the passion the mains clearly felt for the project. Both Watts and Norton produced the film. The scenery is mesmerizing, the soundtrack hypnotic, and the supports intriguing.
The only complaint is the first half hour is so damn slow. Obviously ultimately director John Curran triumphs with his choice of pace, but the restless audience has to stay interested enough to care. I saw this with two people famed for their love of the easygoing flick (if it’s too fast, your parents might spend every second moment asking you what just happened, turning the child into an unwitting interpretor of cinema plotting), and even my mother leaned across after 20 minutes and begged me to promise her it would get cracking some time soon. Bad sign.
That’s probably what held the whole event back from even making it to Australian shores (it screened in the US in 2006). Hopefully it won’t stop people from sticking around and enjoying the deserved, luxurious conclusion.
| 122 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by David O'Connell
Screen Fanatic
John Curran is a director I'm very interested in too, I thought Praise was a gritty little film, though of course not to everyone's tastes. It was great to then see him make the transition to the States and do such great work on an indie gem like We Don't Live Here Anymore which I loved.
Comment by Linh
Celluloid Fun
I'm looking forward to seeing this film!
Cheers!
Comment by Jess Paine
Comment by Jess Paine