"Atonement" is a Best Picture contender

email this story
read comments (28)
post a comment

You can absolutely confirm and take to the bank all serious notions of Joe Wright's Atonement (Focus Features, 10.12) being a top-ranked Best Picture contender. It's a shatteringly well-made, deeply felt, rich-aroma romance that will go all the way with (almost all) critics, Academy voters and public alike.

Wright has totally pole-vaulted himself past the level of Pride and Prejudice (a well-made Jane Austen-er that I was only okay with) and taken costars Keira Knightley, James McAvoy and especially Vanessa Redgrave (a locked Best Supporting Actress contender) right along with him.

You can add Focus Features and everyone else associated with Atonement (young Irish actress Saoirse Ronanas, cinematographer Seamus McGarvey, production designers Jacqueline Durran and Sarah Greenwood) as well. Everybody wins with this film, the audience first and foremost.

This is one of those bulls-eye period dramas that feels wonderfully sharp and literate and authentic with emotional tone-perfect performances, and yet the profundity of the payoff is in the way it combines cinematography, editing and sound effects (not to mention one of the most enjoyably splendid uncut Steadicam shots in cinema history -- the kind that warrants applause in and of itself) to create a sort of cinematic maelstrom effect.

Atonement leaves you with a sense of great regret and sadness (the feel-good kind) that amounts to something much deeper and fuller than what may be suggested by a casual reading of the plotline -- a tale about a woman writer crushed by profound guilt over a harmful thing she did as a youth, caused by foolishness that was amplified by sexual panic. Atonement taps into feelings of regret about all things, about how sadly transitional and here-today-gone-tomorrow so much of life is, and injects them into your system like it came from a syringe.

I'm sorry for having suspected that Variety's Derek Elley was perhaps being just a tad gung-ho-Britain in his Venice Film Festival review (he wasn't), I now feel that a piece I wrote two years ago about Knightley not having "it" is out of date (Atonement shows that she's found it and then some since, and without resorting to any of her old tricks) , and I'm sorry for having taken a cheap shot at McAvoy also. I've seen the light and am trying to make up as best I can.

Based upon an Ian McEwan novel published in '01, WrightÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s incredibly well-configured adaptation may not entangle younger males as much as other demos, but it's an absolute slam dunk with mature viewers, couples and over-30 women.

It feels wrong to describe Atonement as a film with three acts, although it is that, because it doesn't feel defined by "acts" as much as the way Wright has cut it all together, and I mean with not only dazzle but ultra-fine precision. It replays or refrains certain scenes and does flash-forwards and flashbacks with impugnity, and never once does it feel gimmicky for doing so. It all fits together and hums like Swiss machinery.

I can write more about it down the road, including the plot particulars. I have to get to another screening, and I'm late as it is. There's no getting to even half of what you'd like to get to at this festival. So much of it is about curses and lost opportunities. I love it, of course.

I'm not saying Atonement is necessarily "the one" (I'm hardly in a position to say anything like that), but unless I'm crazy it will almost certainly end up as one of the five Best Picture nominees. And hail to the great Vanessa Redgrave once again. She's on-screen at the very end for maybe six or seven minutes (perhaps a touch more), and does nothing except talk to an off-screen interviewer, and she hits an absolute grand slam.

"Elizabeth: The Golden Age"<< previous | next >>Pevere on "Jesse James"

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on September 9, 2007 at 11:18 AM

comment #1

Nick J says ...

Jeff--without giving too much away to those who haven't read the book...is the film faithful to the novel's "meta" ending?

Posted by Nick J at September 9, 2007 1:10 PM

comment #2

gruver1 says ...

Wells to Nick J.: I haven't read the book, but the ending seems fairly meta to me....but let me read the book before saying anything more on this point.

Posted by gruver1 at September 9, 2007 1:15 PM

comment #3

Craig Kennedy says ...

I thought Wright's P&P was a nice surprise. Looking forward to this one.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at September 9, 2007 1:27 PM

comment #4

Wrecktum says ...

Will McAvoy's nose garner Academy consideration?

Posted by Wrecktum at September 9, 2007 1:31 PM

comment #5

Mark B says ...

Nick, perhaps I'm just being overly hopeful, but it seems to me that the film would almost HAVE to be faithful to the ending of this novel (for reasons obvious to those who have read the book) or otherwise there would be a pretty tremendous outcry from the book's fans (of which there are many). Now, having said that, I am curious as to just how the filmmakers pulled off an ending which to me almost seemed to "literary" to work in a cinematic setting.

Posted by Mark B at September 9, 2007 1:34 PM

comment #6

Nick J says ...

Jeff--it sounds like it's faithful, then. Definitely read the book; it's at least as extraordinary as your description makes the film sound.

Mark--I agree, but as we all know in principle it's better to be pessimistic about the fidelity of adaptations... God knows what a hack determined to make this novel more "cinematic" could do to it.

Posted by Nick J at September 9, 2007 1:43 PM

comment #7

TheJeff says ...

"I'm sorry for having suspected that Variety's Derek Elley was perhaps being just a tad gung-ho-Britain in his Venice Film Festival review (he wasn't), I now feel that a piece I wrote two years ago about Knightley not having "it" is out of date (Atonement shows that she's found it and then some since, and without resorting to any of her old tricks) , and I'm sorry for having taken a cheap shot at McAvoy also. I've seen the light and am trying to make up as best I can."

Atonement indeed.

Contrition is a new look for Jeff, and I like it. Perhaps the recent humbling has served him well.

Posted by TheJeff at September 9, 2007 1:48 PM

comment #8

Dave says ...

"However good Wright's new film may turn out to be, McAvoy is more or less "over" -- he had his fifteen minutes in '06, and the world has moved on.

I wrote Knightley off two years ago as an overpraised and under-talented actress who has that flirty thing down but lacks an essential inner aliveness, that river-of- feeling quality that all good actresses have."

Just wanted to put up there for the record.

Jeff, a piece of advice? It's okay to have opinions. It's okay to not like actors or actresses-- okay even to have a visceral hatred of them. It's okay to say "I'm scared of this film because the previews/script/vibes push the wrong buttons in me, and while I will see it because I'm a professional with a job to do, my early impressions are negative."

It's perfectly okay to do that. In fact, we'd expect nothing less from you, it's your style.

That said. . .

Hyperbole ain't just a city in India, Jeff. You may think an actor or actress is "over", but remember that they're only as over as their last bomb. Good actors and actresses get stuck in crap, bad actors and actresses luck out in good stuff, and sometimes, good actors and actresses luck out and catch a break that reveals something in them that was heretofore hidden, or more than likely, undeveloped.

Personally, I have never liked Knightley, and I've found McAvoy merely serviceable. This movie looks like the worst parts of the English Patient. I'm personally as scared of it as you were.

But I know better to pronounce bad ill on something like this without seeing it. This ain't Rob Zombie's Halloween, man. It deserves a chance, and I'm willing to give it one, and I'm very interested in it now precisely because you rave about it, Jeff.

Anyway, I'm just sayin'-- cool off on the hyperbole, it'll only help you as a writer.

Cheers,
Dave

Posted by Dave at September 9, 2007 2:41 PM

comment #9

Dan Revill says ...

Awesome to hear Jeff. I'm seeing it in a few weeks at the VIFF. Can't wait. :D

Posted by Dan Revill at September 9, 2007 3:18 PM

comment #10

austin111 says ...

Hmmmm......can't wait! Sounds as if this is "THE ONE" to me or at least the kind of film that the academy falls fastly and completely in love with. Especially if it hits pay dirt with the older over 30 viewer. Yup, you can't have them giving their statues to another over the edge flick twice in a row. YIPPEE....

Posted by austin111 at September 9, 2007 3:27 PM

comment #11

Zimmergirl says ...

Way WAY too early about talking "the one." It could end up being one of the five but there is a long season ahead and anything can happen. This film is very likely going to peak too early, especially with write-ups like this. But we'll see.

Posted by Zimmergirl at September 9, 2007 4:35 PM

comment #12

lazarus says ...

I can only begin to imagine all the great reviews for this film that will mention The English Patient in an unflattering light. Too bad, as it's one of 2 or 3 deserving best picture winners in the last 25 years, and directed with more artistry than 99% of the fodder that shows up during the awards season. I wonder if people dislike this film objectively or because of Harvey Weinstein baggage.

Is anyone worried that the title "Atonement" is going to keep away a lot of mainstream viewers? This isn't a commonly used word, and I imagine it's one that the majority of our undereducated country doesn't know the meaning of.

Are people likely to see a film with a title they don't understand?

Posted by lazarus at September 9, 2007 5:04 PM

comment #13

Mark B says ...

"Are people likely to see a film with a title they don't understand?"

Yeah, probably so. I don't remember the masses lining up to see Road to Perdition.

Posted by Mark B at September 9, 2007 5:46 PM

comment #14

gruver1 says ...

Wells to lazarus, Mark B.: Wait...people "don't understand" what "atonement" means? Jesus wept...you're serious? The magniicent education standards we have in this country has truly come home to roost.

Posted by gruver1 at September 9, 2007 6:45 PM

comment #15

lazarus says ...

Come on Wells, when do you ever hear people using that word? Jews might know of it more because Yom Kippur is considered the "day of atonement", but other than that...I don't know.

I wouldn't hold out much hope for De Palma's Redacted on the same basis.

Posted by lazarus at September 9, 2007 7:01 PM

comment #16

austin111 says ...

Why way too early to talk "the one"? We all should know the type of thing the Academy tends to like or do we? If this is anything like Wells is describing and mindful of others who have gone gaga for this, I'm thinking it's exactly that. And this coming from someone (Wells) who totally kept finding every reason (some a little preposterous to me) not to like it.

Posted by austin111 at September 9, 2007 7:43 PM

comment #17

Zimmergirl says ...

Right well go ahead and think it if you want to. At worst you'll be wrong at the end of the year and in the grand scheme of things, that's not so bad right? I can think of a couple of good reasons off the top that it will have a hard time being "the one." Right at the top of the list is that it's a foreign story, British, without being particularly universal. The English Patient (with Harvey Weinstein pushing it) being one notable exception, though one could argue that it was a universal-enough story to fit. If Atonement is to win it will follow that track, sans Harvey.

Usually a tough sell for American-inclined (for best pic anyway) AMPAS voters, a la The Queen last year.

Atonement sounds like it's headed for a nomination, though. Everything else will have to fall flat and nothing else emerge for it to succeed. And now there is no surprise element attached to its win, which means it probably won't win.

Posted by Zimmergirl at September 9, 2007 8:35 PM

comment #18

Zimmergirl says ...

PS, but you never know - Chariots of Fire was one that did surprise everyone and win and Atonement could be this year's Chariots of Fire I suppose.

Posted by Zimmergirl at September 9, 2007 8:37 PM

comment #19

slothroplt says ...

Now this post brought a smile to my face. I'm proud of you, Jeff.

libÃ‚Â·erÃ‚Â·al (lÃ„Âb'Ã‰â„¢r-Ã‰â„¢l, lÃ„Âb'rÃ‰â„¢l) adj.

Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

Posted by slothroplt at September 9, 2007 8:56 PM

comment #20

Hal says ...

Jeff, how is Romola Garai?

Posted by Hal at September 10, 2007 2:53 AM

comment #21

NYCBusybody says ...

I like how lazarus is now the go-to-guy for his encyclopedic, researched knowledge about what the American people know.

I think most Americans know the word "atonement". This is a very Christian country. They know it.

Posted by NYCBusybody at September 10, 2007 6:27 AM

comment #22

NYCBusybody says ...

And the problem most Americans will have with this film sure as shit won't be the title - it's the fact that it appeals to "over-30 women". That's a death knell for just about every other demographic. Like Bill Maher, most American men (which is a demographic that doesn't include Jeffrey Wells) have natural aversions to things that "make women nod".

Posted by NYCBusybody at September 10, 2007 6:35 AM

comment #23

Zimmergirl says ...

Hence all of the early leakage of Keira Knightley naked, in hopes of drawing all of that brain-challenged money demo to the table.

Posted by Zimmergirl at September 10, 2007 7:03 AM

comment #24

ben151 says ...

David Poland is lukewarm, with a sort of muted, underminey response that slaps the movie for its ambition; Wells is over-the-moon, & contrite about previously slamming the film sight unseen. The source material kills, an unbearably lovely book. I'm getting a really great feeling about this.

Posted by ben151 at September 10, 2007 7:27 AM

comment #25

adaml says ...

I loved the first 45 minutes but thought it went downhill fast when McAvoy went to France and hit a low with that Children of Men shot which was just pointless and belonged in a different movie. Shame as the first act was 10/10 stuff.

Posted by adaml at September 10, 2007 8:37 AM

comment #26