"Orlando" is a curiously ravishing series of essays built around an the title character's travel through four centuries and two genders. The film's critical acclaim and awards in contrast with the luke warm IMDB user rating is testimony to the esoterics and queer plot of the film. "Orlando's" artful and elegant presentation features a wonderful performance by Swinton, sumptuous costuming, lush locations, and a screenplay rich in comedic overtones and serious undercurrents. Not for everyone but a wonderful film for the jaded.
Add a Review
-
=G=2 February 2001
-
SnoopyStyle10 March 2015Orlando (Tilda Swinton) is a feminine well-educated young man. It's 1600. The elderly Queen Elizabeth takes on Orlando as her mascot. She bestows on him land, money and a castle on one condition. Do not fade. Do not wither. Do not grow old. He falls for Moscovite Ambassador's daughter Sasha Menchikova leaving his engagement to Lady Euphrosyne. Sasha leaves him and breaks his heart. He pays poet Greene who then ridicules his poetry. It's 1700. He is sent to Constantinople as British ambassador. He is changed into a woman. It's 1750. Lady Orlando loses her property since a woman has no ownership rights to the land. She rejects a proposal from Archduke Harry. It's 1850. She falls for Shelmerdine. The lawsuits are settled and she can only keep the land if she has a male heir. It's the modern era. She has a daughter and has written a book.
Tilda Swinton has a gender bending role and has the androgynous presence to do it. She does an amazing job taking on this role. The movie should probably be a lot more surreal. It's stuck somewhere in the middle. There is a perfunctory nature to this film. She wakes up one morning and finds that herself a woman. It could be read as she was always a woman pretending to be a man. Some sort of transformation needs to be seen or Orlando needs some more declarative speech. Also spanning so much time leaves very little space for each section. The movie feels shallow hinting at a much deeper source material. -
tritisan16 April 1999This is one of those rare films that really captures magic. After watching it, I feel as though a fairy has enchanted the air around me. Maybe it's Tilda Swanton's fathomless, eyes. She stares at us so enigmatically, as if she can see through the camera, into our souls.
I could also go on about the sumptuous costumes and set design, but I'd say the subtle humor pervading the film was even more compelling and delightful. It assumes an intelligent audience, but does not come across as superior. The end of the film leaves me with a sense of hope for the future. -
semioticz26 October 2007Arguably the greatest British novelist of the 20th century, Virginia Woolf, who invented "stream of consciousness" writing, composed the 1928 novel "Orlando" upon which director Sally Potter's exotic film is based.
Woolf's novel was written for & about the famous cross-dressing British heiress, poet, gardener, feminist, wife & mother; yet bisexual lover to many--Vita Sackville-West--who was one of Woolf's closest friends & perhaps her lover. Sackville-West's son, Nigel Nicholson, calls Woolf's novel "Orlando," "the longest love letter in the world." From Virginia to Vita. I view it as Woolf's way of saying to Vita, 'I know you. You're more than this world could ever be ready for; but, I love you for being who you are'. Instead of Woolf composing a biography, per se, she wrote a fantastical fiction. But, to any scholar of Woolf's & Sackville-West's lives (& I am one), "Orlando" is one of the best biographies ever written. Director Sally Potter does a splendid job of putting a very difficult & complex novel on film.
The narrator says of Orlando: "She's lived for 400 years & hardly aged a day; but, because this is England, everyone pretends not to notice." It's Woolf's biting satirical commentary on Victorian society, from a woman's perspective who, though owning her own publishing house & a truly great writer, was nevertheless oppressed by gender inequality. One of the giant points Woolf contends with is that Vita Sackville-West was an only child born into a 600 room castle; but, solely because she was a female, she could not inherit it. That's gender supremacism. These were two of the women historically spear-heading the way for women's equality through art & by living non-cooperatively with it.
The time span of the life of Orlando (Tilda Swinton) is from the 16th to the 20th century. Orlando starts out as a man to whom Queen Elizabeth I (the ever so queenly, Quentin Crisp) promises her estate as long as 'he' (Orlando-Swinton) never ages. Waking up in a changed sex in the 18th century, 'she' (Orlando-Swinton) learns that women are underprivileged. Especially when Orlando looses her property, since women were not allowed to own any. Woolf's dialog on this biographical point was the most painful of Sackville-West's life; Woolf makes it the height of her scathing satire:
First Official {speaking at Orlando the woman}: One, you are legally dead & therefore cannot hold any property whatsoever. Orlando: Ah. Fine. {stoically} First Official: Two, you are now a female. Second Official: Which amounts to much the same thing. {as being dead!}
Woolf & Sackville-West were of similar minds about gender inequality--outraged. Woolf rebels against it as Sackville-West did in real life by portraying Orlando as outraged, transgender & bisexual. Both feminist writers were profoundly critical of Victorian society's various forms of supremacism. So Woolf's characters bring that out; for example, through this single line uttered by the The Kahn (Lothaire Bluteau): "It has been said to me that the English make a habit of collecting... countries." (Wham, a direct hit upon British imperialism, Woolf style--a razor sharp, compact, one-liner that is also tongue-in-cheek amusing. Woolf was the shrewdest of 20th century British writers who used satire to express truths that make people able to grin & bear it. Woolf didn't want to be viewed as a mere street protester, in-your-face obnoxious & annoying. She was very much like France's 18th century philosopher, Voltaire (read his "Candid," to understand what I mean).
This was a word-smith with one of the most amazingly refined gifts for language & self-expression. That Woolf could provide satirical critiques of her own culture was quite rare. That she published hundreds of them is nothing short of genius not just as a writer but also as a business woman.
Back to the film: a famous solo performer, Jimmy Somerville (who plays an angel singing in falsetto, sounding like a castri, in the 16th & 18th centuries) used to be a singer for Bronski Beat & the Communards in the 1980's. Sally Potter, aside from directing, also did the vocals for the musical score that she co-wrote. The music is fascinating, exotic & indescribable. What an original CD!
Potter's movie grasps the key points of Woolf's novel by being filled with sexually dubious characters & relationships. For instance, Quentin Crisp plays a marvelous Queen; Charlotte Valandrey plays Princess Sasha, a young woman who dresses as a man; Lothaire Bluteau as The Khan has a friendship with Orlando that is highly suggestive of gay flirtations between 2 men. Jimmy Sommerville's voice is the epitome of queerness & dressed as an angel couldn't be more fey if he tried! Considering how Sackville-West played with sexuality & gender, plus, how Woolf was one of the few people who ever understood what she was doing, it is amazing that Potter was astute enough to not only comprehend both women, Potter also interpreted Sackville-West through Woolf onto the screen.
Since I'd critiqued Woolf's "Orlando" text in college, when the movie came out in the summer of 1993, I found it so true to Woolf's quick witted tones of political satire that I couldn't stop myself from cracking up with laughter out loud in the theater. If a movie goer doesn't know the true story of both the biographer's & the subject's lives, they won't get the scathing political points Woolf's made. Genius as they are!
Woolf & Shakespeare have great skills in common that come out through their vast libraries they left to us. That's another story. -
huluvu381 August 2004Simply put one of the best movies I have ever seen. The cast is amazing and deliver in their performances, the stunning visuals and beautiful music combine to create a dreamy atmosphere through which S. Potter uses Orlando as a medium to make subtle and elegant commentaries about life, the human condition and the struggle of the sexes to understand each other when they are basically two aspects of the same coin. As opposed to some of the other reviewers here I did not find the movie slow or boring at any time. Nor is it just about Orlando; there are multiple layers. It flows simply and quietly but with great intensity and an underlying irony at every moment. This film must be Potter's masterpiece.
-
naomioosterhuis18 August 2015Though the film has exquisitely stunning visuals and everything looks absolutely beautiful, it just doesn't seem to grasp certain (I think:key) aspects of the book. It might be that their is way too much book to put in one film, but it does make the story less good and certain things would just have been much better, were they done like in the book. Many things just don't get enough time, though other things are added, or changed without making it better. I'd think that when you haven't read the book, you'd enjoy the film more, as always, but that even then you could see that some things could better be done differently. I'd recommend it though, because of the absolutely beautiful way everything is made. The sets are really beautiful and I give my compliments for those. Though the plot and how it is done in general lacks, how stunning everything looks makes it more than worth watching.
-
DreamingMe27 May 2006I have been watching films for well over thirty years, but this one in particular has remained my favorite since its release for the simple reason that it consistently makes me weep with joy. Joy being so hard to come by, and a commodity rarely associated with any sort of entertainment medium, I don't need any other reason to love "Orlando." It's clever, charming, thought-provoking, at times achingly ironic, and lavishly beautiful. I have to say also that I love seeing and hearing dear Jimmy Sommerville whom we miss so much. While I tend to be hyper-critical of all films, with "Orlando" I just listen to my gut and it says, "this is perfection."
-
Hermit C-225 October 1999I saw Sally Potter's 1997 film 'The Tango Lesson' before I saw this more well-known one, but after viewing 'Orlando' I had the same overall impression of both--that is, I wish I could have enjoyed it as much as I admired it.
As a director Potter is a brilliant craftsman. Scenes are always compelling to look at; sometimes they are luscious, even stunning. Cinematography, art direction and costume design are outstanding. As a feast for the eye, Potter's films are hard to beat.
I have a little more trouble with the narrative, though. Trying to comprehend the meaning of Orlando made me feels like one of two scenarios is possible: (1) I'm a thick-headed Philistine that can't understand anything but the most literal story, or (2) the screenplay and its execution aren't up to handling such a difficult premise in an accessible manner. Even a bare-bones relating of the plot will show one that this is an extraordinarily ambitious and complex undertaking, and Potter's screenplay, which tends towards minimalism, is so obscure and just plain unfathomable at times (and aggressively so, as well) that it leaves me cold. If you're hoping to understand four hundred years of sexual politics by watching this movie, good luck, I don't think it does the best job of explaining things.
Again, as with the 'The Tango Lesson,' I would have to give the movie an overall positive rating, but only slightly, as the visual and the narrative elements are at loggerheads in my estimation. I would like to be able to praise it to the high heavens as a work of transcendent brilliance. Maybe one day I'll be so enlightened. Or maybe one day Ms. Potter will make a film that one can feel comfortable eating popcorn to while watching. -
stevendemaio25 February 2008Swinton is certainly worth seeing in her Academy Award-winning performance in Michael Clayton (2007), but plenty of actresses could have pulled that one off. Too bad that's the film that will bring this excellent artist to a wide audience.
If you want to enjoy Swinton in a role for which she truly deserved a golden statuette, see Orlando. The film showcases Swinton's versatility, and there's hardly another actress out there who could have done a better job. Obviously, if you're a Virginia Woolf fan, that's a bonus.
This is one of 20 or so movies I've ever seen that gets better each time I watch it. Approach this movie with an open mind, and it's sure to become one of your favorites. -
I confess I have not read Virginia Wolf's novel and therefore cannot judge whether the film though very thin on plot and substance is at least faithful to the book.
This idea that an eternal being can almost not develop at all just because he/she is mostly bound to a huge house, is very weak.
Clearly the theme of an eternal being is very tough to treat, especially in a film - consider that such a being could spend 100 years studying, say, ants, and not mind at all given the infinite amount of time available. Because of this it may be that an eternal being would develop slowly anyway, from a human point of view - house or not.
However once one puts aside the weakness and relative emptiness of the plot, one does have to recognize that the film is aesthetically stunning, very beautifully filmed. Worth seeing if only for that.
Antoine -
MycroftHolmes3 July 2020I saw this when it come out in theaters in '92 and just gave it a rewatch. Didn't get it then or now. Looks really good though. In '92 I couldn't figure out why the girl was dressed as a guy. Or how she changed to a girl. Or why she thought she was exactly the same as either. Or why she thought she was Ferris Bueller constantly breaking the 4th wall. Or if anyone knew she/he was 400 at the end. How did she/he get the house back? Had they kept it in mothballs for 380 years waiting for her/him to have a child? Was she a he at the end? I guess it was supposed to be saying something deep about trans people, but failed.
-
Gloede_The_Saint23 May 2010What in the world do we gather from this film. Tilda Swinton plays the never aging male/female lord/lady Orlando. Queen Elizabeth I is also played by the "wrong" sex.
When the young lord Orlando inherits the queens estate it's on the promise that he will always stay young and he does. What follows is a biography covering about 400 years and a sex change.
This is indeed a fun look at the roles held by the two sexes during the course of these centuries. Though it does play more or less as a drama it has large shades of comedy as well. For one we have Orlando often throwing a few comments to the viewers about the plot + the ridiculousness of the whole set-up.
Swinton is most certainly up for the challenge here. Portraying the ever changing lord/lady through this most strange journey. With wits and elegance this film comes off as one of the kind and something which should be experienced. -
lasttimeisaw9 August 2014My third entry in Potter's oeuvre, following YES (2004, 7/10) and THE MAN WHO CRIED (2000, 6/10), ORLANDO is a 7-chapter sumptuous period prose lilting swiftly from death, love, poetry, politics, society, sex to birth, in about 400 years from Queen Elizabeth I (Crisp) to present day (as in 1992).
Adapted from Virginia Woolf's namesake novel, Orlando (Swinton) is a young peer who stops growing old after waning Queen's "Do not fade, do not wither, do not grow old" benediction in the ceremonial DEATH chapter, sequentially, he has a taste of woman's treachery in LOVE from a Russian princess Sasha (Valandrey); in POETRY, his budding initiative is impudently disdained by a snobbish poet Nick Greene (Williams) who is seeking for a pension to get by and unscrupulously claims poetry is dead in England; he forays into POLITICS as an ambassador to Constantinople, forms a brotherly amicability with the Khan (Bluteau), after fighting in a fracas, one day he wakes up and inexplicably changes into a woman. Orlando goes back to SOCIETY, her new gender shoehorns her into a discriminatory reality reeks of scornful male chauvinism and she refuses the proposal from Archduke Harry (Wood). In SEX, at the dawn of industrial revolution, she meets the liberty-pursuing American Shelmerdine (Zane), they engage a spiritually sensual relationship against all odds. Finally in BIRTH, Orlando dashingly steers in a motorcycle with her young daughter in the sidecar in the modern day, rendering a sense of time-defying transcendence, both uncanny and enticing.
Swinton is unambiguously captivating to play out her androgynous physique, extracts the otherworldliness out of the 400-year time-span, her attention-grabbing stare and utterance intentionally break the fourth wall and deliver the gist of each chapter, as if we were watching a seven-act play, only with more detailed and vivid tableaux. Potter knows perfectly about the gender-bending politics and Woolf's feminism stance, grants Crisp, the queer of queers, to play the Queen of Queens is a bold maneuver and potently satisfying. Among the rest supporting group, Heathcote Williams, who plays both a well-known bard and a modern-day publisher, brilliantly strikes as a theater dab-hand in his meager screen-time, and the second-billed Billy Zane is far less interesting and much duller by comparison.
A flourishing and ethereal score from Potter and David Motion tellingly reflects Orlando's emotional trek, Jimmy Somerville's falsetto is beautifully presented both near the opening and in the angelic coda. Sandy Powell's trademark period costume and the entire art direction department also manage to satiate audience's eyes.
Within a compact 90-minute, ORLANDO is running against its major default, a distractingly non- consistent narrative with erratic galloping through time and space, automatically pigeonholes the film in the arty ivory tower, if one is not familiar with the source novel (as myself), it will take more willpower to sustain the attention span and digest its poetic pulchritude. Some literature is innately unsuitable to be transposed into a film, be that as it may, Potter's artistry cannot be diminished as one of the most pioneering female director among her peer. -
bregund27 June 2020I had hoped that this film would have improved over time for me, since I first saw it upon its release and then again last night, and I came away as empty as I did in 1992. Like a hot date that doesn't go anywhere, the story is all self-indulgence, hair, and costumes, dialogue that tries to be witty or to make a point but falls flat, and pithy observations about gender and feminism and the endless female struggle in a man's world, seen through man-shaming goggles. It aint Shakespeare, that's for sure. She finally gets her mediocre book or poetry or whatever published and makes something of his/her life and sees a gay angel floating in the air. What does it all mean? If you expected some grand statement about humanity from a person who has lived four centuries, you'll be disappointed.
-
DrLenera15 March 2004Orlando is a true original,and for that reason alone it deserves praise. It is sometimes irritating,partly because it refuses to answer so many questions it poses- for instance does Orlando actually travel forward in time in some scenes,or is it just time passing? Why does one other character,the Archduke Harry,also seem to live for ages? Some of the film's touches,such as Orlando's addresses to camera,do come across as a little pretentious. Even considering the short running time,the pace is at times extremely slow,but that is not always a bad thing. Those in search of an original film experience which provides plenty to talk about after could do far worse,and the film actually becomes more rewarding the more one sees it,because you can put up with the flaws and concentrate on the many remarkable things about this film.
The film is absolutely gorgeous to look at,so many shots look like they could be great paintings. The film has a unique atmosphere,as it passes through the centuries,it creates a highly stylized,almost fairytale-like view of the past-this is especially successful in the early Elizabethan scenes set around snow. Here there is a terrific sense of a world that may have existed only in Orlando's distant memory,although it must be said the low budget does often show. There is plenty of humor that becomes funnier with repeated viewings-how about the overwrought Victorian melodrama of the meeting between Orlando and Billy Zane's character? The film is also quite erotic in a subtle way that is hard to explain,but it's there.
And of course there is the unique Tilda Swinton-she may have become a star recently with The Chronicles of Narnia,but this is her defining role. No other film has used best her striking appearance,and her casual reaction to the things that happen to her,such as going to sleep as a man and waking up as a woman,provides some of the film's best moments.Of the other performances,Quentin Crisp is unforgettable in the early scenes as a really decrepit Queen Elizabeth,although Billy Zane,as usual,is somewhat wooden.
Virgnia Woolf's novel probably seems completely unfilmable to most people after they have read it,but this film does a great job of simplifying it and yet still retaining the essence. Whether you consider the film {as the novel is}a feminist tract,or just a very strange fantasy,it can be extremely rewarding if you have the patience for something that is at times as offbeat as they come. I should add here that this is now probably one of my favourite films,but I certainly didn't feel like that about it when I first saw it many years ago. -
ifasmilecanhelp4 December 2008Absolutely superb movie...
just saw it right before writing this...
remember having seen the clip on YT,
and it gave me the feeling I should enjoy it :
I definitively did !
As say others comments, mesmerizing, mysterious, delicate...
and very profound even though quiet hidden at the beginning...
It reveals this aspect, like all the movie, like a woman in love,
slowly, enigmatically, words after words, with great sensitivity...
And Tilda Swinton, wow ! what an actress !
Plus she's beautiful ! I didn't see any movie with her before,
but for sure gonna see some more...
Not at all a usual Jimmy Somerville fan, I just love his part too ;
and last song leaves you full of hope in our humanity.
Music, cinematography, set design and costuming are absolutely exquisite and stunning.
But unfortunately guess this exceptional movie is not for everyone's taste..
In one sentence, Sally Potter made a movie that you won't forget !
Her film eventually expresses what Orson Welles wrote with so much accuracy :
"a film is never really good unless the camera is an eyes in the head of a poet" -
gavin694213 January 2014Young nobleman Orlando (Tilda Swinton) is commanded by Queen Elizabeth I to stay forever young. Miraculously, he does just that. The film follows him as he moves through several centuries of British history, experiencing a variety of lives and relationships along the way, and even changing sex.
We start out with some interesting ice skating, a hobby I was not aware had existed in the 1600s (though Wikipedia informs me it most certainly did). And from there we see Orlando go through life learning of poetry, politics and more.
I found this film difficult because of the casting. Now, had I seen it in 1992, the transformation from male to female might have been more pronounced. But seeing it in 2014, Swinton is now a much bigger name, and it was obvious from the first frame that the actor was female. Was this intentional? Maybe, but I think not. -
nepantlera17 September 2004To look to this film to be simply entertaining underestimates the director, the film, and the viewer. The post-modern thrust of the film strikes at the very heart of the academic discussion surrounding maleness and femaleness. "Orlando" resides at the center of transgendered theory and delightfully explores the transcendence of even biology by the social construction of gender. Indeed, transgender theorists, such as Vivianne K. Namaste, address many of the issues presented to the viewer: Orlando's "ambiguous sexuality" (as observed by Archduke Harry), her "erasure" in class-conscious English society (being a woman is tantamount to being dead and without privilege), and the future that belongs to her as a consequence of being able to be "free of the past." The film is rich in gender-bending imagery, not the least of which being the powerful, re-occurring presence of the voice of Jimmy Somerville. To group this production with most other films is to ignore the theoretical brilliance with which Sally Potter adapted Virginia Woolf's novel.
-
ksf-221 August 2020The awesome Tilda Swinton brings us through a couple hundred years, two different sexes, and a personality change. Along the way, she falls in love, loses a couple loves, and changes her outlook on a few things (sometimes by force!) enduring the double standards of living, she personally experiences the positives and negatives of being a man, as well as a woman. it's QUITE well done! and the fact that it had been pointed out to me that this story started out as possibly a love letter from Virginia Woolf to one of her lovers helped explain a few things. Shown on Turner Classics as part of a LGBTQ collection. co-stars Quentin Crisp, Billy Zane, and Jimmy Somerville, all just amazing in their own place really add to the story. Directed by Sally Potter.
-
benc7ca8 August 2004Repeated viewing is the answer to this puzzle of a film. I saw it when first released (egad, has it been twelve years!)and was intrigued and frustrated by it. Now, no longer a callow youth (crap, I wasn't a youth when I first saw it!),I find it intriguing and very fine. Casting Quentin Crisp as Elizabeth the First was a stroke of genius and Tilda Swinton is perfection as Orlando. Billy Sommerville (Bronski Beat)is, now and forever, an angel in my mind. Has Billy Zane ever looked so good? Visuals are important in this movie; there are so many beautifully photographed scenes. Sally Potter lets humour sneak in to save it from what might have been total and impenetrable pretension.
-
kekca19 September 2013It. The humanity. In the first case I did not like his outlook and in the second, I did not like her name. Otherwise brilliant play.
Playful, interesting, my first of this kind and with very good sound-track. Very good historical retrospective told in its cultural context also. Kingdom with a queen, society of men, poetry, science, adventures, future, windy job, time for conscious choice.
High level of abstractness that gets down to the contemporary viewer through different big talks. With the purpose to show him what he looked like, what he is now and to be asked what he wants to be for now on. Historical load showed to us as being left aside the road. Not forgotten. One of the possible ones but came real.
More social concepts in the rubric "it happened like this". Again, interesting, moving. Lovely surprise and amusement.
http://vihrenmitevmovies.blogspot.com/ -
A visually stunning film. I can't think how they could have improved the locations/makeup or the atmosphere created by some of the outdoor shots.
The film covers a 400 year long period in the life of Orlando (Tilda Swinton) who we are introduced to as a well educated young man of high position in the court of Queen Elizabeth I. She takes him as her favourite and asks him to "Never Fade". He obliges. Time passes, and we are presented with several scenes from Orlando's life up to the end of the twentieth century. He does become a woman during this time, but it really has no bearing on the story except that she loses her house and jumps into bed with an American (Billy Zane).
Orlando's character changes little throughout the film. Over 400 years of experience and nothing to show for it? This film revolves around a single character without any real examination of him and his connection to time and place. Quite a shameful waste. Completely unrealistic and unentertaining , unless of course you assume this was intentional as part of Queen Elizabeth's original decree.
I would have loved to have seen an epic journey through Orlando's life especially since Tilda Swinton can act well and her pale skin and striking hair give weight to the kind of frightening confidence/knowledge/experience you would expect to find in a 400 year aristocratic human.
This subject has been better explored in supposedly lower brow films such as "Interview With The Vampire" or dare I say it even "Highlander". -
bigwig_thalyi27 December 2005I got this film in a free offer from a Sunday paper and I was glad that i did. I hadn't come across this film before , i watched it without any preconceived ideas so I had no bias to it one way or another. This film takes us on a whirlwind tour of history seen through the eyes of young nobleman Orlando who is told never to grow old by Queen Elizabeth 1 and who proceeds to do just that.His journey through immortality even includes a change of sex. Visually this film is breathtaking and though you don't stay in one time period very long you certainly get a decent historical view of each one. Some of the humour is spot on and the best scene is where Orlando sleeps for a week and about twelve people stand around his bed trying to wake him up. This is the first time i have seen Tilda Swinton in a movie but she was excellent and I am definitely a fan. The final scene with Orlando sitting under a tree where the camera lingers on her face for a couple of minutes before panning across to Jimmy Somerville in the sky,as an angel,singing the closing song really packs a punch.It also uplifts the viewer, gives you the feeling that Orlando has finally found herself and enables you to leave the film with a feeling of closure. Modern British film classic 8/10
-
Bloom600025 December 2006An entertaining slice provided by Sally Potter, Orlando, based on a Virginia Woolf adaptation, tells the story of an effeminate young nobleman in the 1600s who is blessed by Elizabeth 1 a life of eternal youth. Throughout the next 400 years, Orlando finds love, loses love, travels the continents, discovers his love of poetry, seizes control of various castles, and even changes sex! Tilda Swinton is a witty, charming actress, and she showcases her talents as a man (later a transsexual) with such graciousness, you look beyond the weirdness and admire the character for what he/she is. Billy Zane is a added bonus here, however he doesn't appear till the end of the film, and only for about five minutes total.
If you're a fan of anyone in the cast, of Virginia Woolf, or time travel, then this is for you! -
This was always going to be a hard novel to adapt - the very qualities that make it a great read make a confusing film. The book has a mysterious, dream-like, languid quality - Woolf can slip over hundreds of years in a sentence and the reader admires her prose skill and absolute razor conciseness.
On the screen though a jump of that kind, with no explanation, is just confusing. We detect from early on in the book that it's more of a psychological fable set against a literary / historical background than a naturalistic, historical story with a real plot. But on film all the realistic period detail etc taken in by your eye makes you instinctively expect realistic events. Might have been a better film if done like a Greenaway, so clear to the viewer it's not a 'realistic' story etc. Or if completely re-interpreted, or turned into a feminist polemic - by just translating as closely as possible events from the book to screen it's just thin and pointless. Plus many long, silent, madness-inducing pauses in the film, which obviously you don't get in a book.
There's simply no 'story' in the film, no reason to care, and the only character seen long enough to register is Tilda Swinton's Orlando, who as a distant, expressionless, apparent immortal you just can't care about. We don't even get to know 'what it's like' to be Orlando, and there's no interest in the whys and wherefores of his/her immortality - so no 'threat', no 'learning', no story arc of any kind. All in all I can't recommend the book highly enough (plus it's really thin!) but don't bother with the film.