If I were more realistic, I wouldn't be affected by the bright scenery and moving soundtrack in the movie, and I would put aside my pre-favorite impression of Whishaw for a while, and deducting a star or two would not be a problem, because this is probably the biography/romance film I've seen. One of the worst scripts out there.
The first is that the film's perspective is very strange, probably because the director Campion's feminist obsessive-compulsive disorder has attacked again.
If the film is named after the poet's work, and the name of Keats is mentioned in the introduction to the story, then the audience will naturally expect this to be a work that revolves around the poet, taking us to appreciate the poet's world, and let us understand the so-called "" What the heck is going on with the "Romanticism", and teach us to appreciate Keats' contribution to English poetry - even if it is not a serious biography, but it also makes it clear that it is not a plot-oriented film, and the audience is not waiting for recognition and To integrate into the protagonist, but to understand the protagonist's heart and watch his growth.
But Keats didn't grow. I even doubt how many viewers will be able to use one or two adjectives to accurately describe the poet's image in the film after the film is over, and how many people know exactly what kind of love he has for Fanny. Because when Keats left to live in London, when he was also suffering from missing, when he was suffering both physically and psychologically, the camera was persistently focused on the lady who was well-fed and loved fashion, and in their biography During the course of the book, we cannot even catch a glimpse of the poet. Through this isolation, the director forces the audience to stand on the same side as Fanny, interpreting Keats and his poems only through her eyes, and the result, as mentioned above, is a blur.
The poet, whom the audience expects to be in close contact with, finally becomes a green leaf that sets off the heroine's growth, and becomes a decoration of her sorrow and joy. Even the nature that Keats loves, the light and shadow, the color and the taste, has not been able to express itself. If it is an audience who has only heard of its name before, after watching this film, whether it is romantic or the greatness of Keats' poems, they are still confused.
It does not mean that the love between men and women must be dominated by men. If it is Chopin and George Sand, Rodin and Camille, Sartre and Beauvoir, they can naturally choose either side. Jane Austen, Margaret Duras, Lady Thatcher, Queen Victoria, should be cut from the perspective of women.
This is a very simple multiple-choice question - first, who the audience wants to see more, and second, who has more story.
Audiences want Keats more, that's for sure, and the most famous poet of the Romantics has a better story than a girl six or seven years younger who spends all her time at home studying the pleats of her clothes. So abandoning the perspective of a poet and starting from the perspective of a little girl will lead to a pale and thin plot. Although love is an eternal theme, how does love arise, how does it develop, and how does this trilogy of ordinary love films end? We still need the plot to make it logical so that the audience can empathize with it, otherwise, the pain of parting and the sadness of lovesickness during separation will become a moaning and worrying about making a movie.
And between Keats and Fanny can only say "inexplicable attraction". Originally, I was expecting to have at least a little spiritual fit in the process of Fanny's poetry study - after all, when this girl appeared on the stage, she felt vain and pompous and aggressive, but it may be that the director himself lacked research on poetry and other things. And feelings, and I can only say two nonsense like "feeling with heart" and exile in any art appreciation.
This nonsense leads directly to another fatal flaw in the script - the lines are uninteresting.
The lines should be in line with each person's age, identity and education, and should guide or imply the direction of the plot in a thread-like manner. But the lines of this film, as a film about the love of a poet, except for a large number of quotes from keats' poems and letters, are chewy and lackluster (of course considering Miss Fanny's age, this is normal)
said so There are no expressive lines, and the characters are treated as green leaves by the script. The Whishaw, which I like very much, is completely in a free state. You can tell by the frequency of his blinking and the way his eyes glance around when he is talking to the lines. If it were me, given me such a role, it would be very difficult for me to perform in such a spirited manner.
As for the heroine, her figure is quite in line with the aesthetics of that era (I don't know if she is deliberately gaining weight), and her appearance is also pleasant, but limited by her own role, it is not tasteful at all.
The only thing that impressed me was Charles and his very ambiguous lines (which made it seem like he had a relationship with Keats). I think it would be better to make a movie with them as the main line.
According to the conventions of the universe, if the story is pale and the lines are dull and boring, then at least a lot of effort must be put into the picture to stir up the emotion. However, Campion is used to the cold, and it seems that it is not suitable for the warm and bright spring and summer seasons - in fact, this is the season when the hero and heroine's feelings germinate, and the scenery also symbolizes the beauty of the two parties when they first fell in love. Empty shots always put the two protagonists in the middle, and then in the distance, they look cold and hard to get close to.
This piece of unrelated love that should have been tragic to others, in the end, if it can impress the audience, I am afraid that it is only the "undestined love", not the work of the movie. This is simply taking advantage of the poet's tragic life!
View more about Bright Star reviews
