no atonement
The heroine of “Atonement,” Briony, attempts to atone for a lie she told at the age of 12, which had dreadful consequences for her sister and her lover, by writing a happy ending to their tragic story 60 years later. Having read the book, I agree with a lot of the negative press received by the film. A lifetime of regret is conveyed better via the slower medium of a novel, and the pace of “Atonement” is a crucial source of pathos.
TEXT FRANCIS MERSON feedback
But what really irritates me about both book and film is the fact that Briony’s writing is merely a method of assuaging guilt, rather than atoning for it, as the two damaged parties are long dead (helped on their way by WWII). This undermines the premise of the whole story, meaning that the main defect of the book and film is a shared one. Strangely enough, the other strengths and faults of the book seem to have been polarized in the movie. In the novel, the war section was the most persuasive, as writer Ian McEwan vividly conveys the camaraderie of the soldiers on their way to Dunkirk. The dramatic irony is agonizing. Unfortunately, in the film, the battleground becomes a Felliniesque scene peopled by vague, distant figures, and dominated by a huge fairground. The big dipper is working, but the Luftwaffe seem to have gone AWOL. Conversely, the first part of the novel, set in a country house and narrated by the budding 12-year-old writer, is clotted and unconvincing. In the film, this section is brought to life thanks to a mesmerizing performance by Saoirse Ronan. And, despite numerous period gaffes (house far too grand; Keira Knightley’s clothes hideously inappropriate) this first part of the movie is buzzing with tension. But this dissipates as the film drags on, until even the appearance of Vanessa Redgrave can’t overcome your desire to shuffle, in mute atonement, out of the cinema. “Atonement,” based on the novel by Ian McEwan, opens on Jan. 17. |
