Yesterday I watched the remake of The beguiled and I found it much less impressive than the film made in 1971, but I couldn't remember so well the older version because I watched it more or less 20 years ago so I decided to watch it today to make a comparison. I find that the new version was completely spoiled by PC fanaticism. I don't understand why Sofia Coppola left out Hallie the slave, slavery was a key point on the American Civil war and Hallie was an important character with lots of interesting dialogues. She also left out the scenes of the crush between the soldier and Amy, the 12 years old girl in order to not shock people with paedophilia. The incestuous memories of Martha were also left out. In summary, she impoverished the characters, their relationships and their thoughts to avoid shocking PC people and replaced the interesting varied characters by a group of pretty blondes. The first version is much more thrilling and interesting. It's a shame that now with much better make up and photography the core of the film was spoiled.
Add a Review
-
nepeta10 September 2017
-
lasttimeisaw21 August 2017A double-bill of THE BEGUILED, Thomas Cullinan's source novel is a civil-war drama positing a tantalizing scenario where a wounded union soldier fetches up in a southern all-girls' school, nurtured to recovery by the apparently good-willed women but also subjected to temptations from female gazes and one false move, he will go through purgatory of his sorry life.
The 1971 version is directed by Don Siegel, the third of his five collaborations with Clint Eastwood, who plays the Yankee Corporal John McBurney, and is discovered by a 12-year-old Amy (Ferdin, an absorbing talent), to whom he indulges with a peck on her lips, a blatant way to take away a child's first kiss (also pretty provocative by today's regressive yardstick), instantly, what Siegel hammers home to viewers is that he is not a humdinger, and through glimpses of fleeting flashback interleaved into the narrative, John emerges as a congenital liar, flippant and manipulative, currying favor from his petticoat accompany to slough from a possible fall of incarceration, whether it is Miss Marsha (Page), the headmistress of the seminary school, Edwina (Hartman), the virginal teacher to whom he claims his attraction, a nubile 17-year-old student Carol (Ann Harris), who is sexually active, even the slave Hallie (Mercer, a defiant soul hampered by her identity), cannot evade his come-ons.
The advent of a hot-blooded albeit bedridden male inevitably causes an erotic disruption among the exclusive distaff clique, whose members are circumspectly secluded from the battlefield merely outside their perimeter and sexually repressed, for pert, callow girls, they are inclined to project John as a perfect specimen of their untested sexual allure versus the opposite sex, in the cases of Edwina and Carol, one is the prudish committed type and the other is a wanton nymphet. But the most complex character amongst them is no doubt Miss Marsha, whose incest past and subliminal lesbian proclivity get a full treatment in the audacious script and visual presentation, the latter is even coalesced with a flagrant religious connotation to soup up the film's maverick idiom. When the crunches arrives, a man's conceit in his potency is punished by blunt castration and signifies a rude awakening of the priapic worship.
On top of his virile stallion credence, Clint Eastwood imbues a cunning, almost overweening facade which audience isn't familiar with, not cut from the same cloth from his hard-boiled tough-guy legend. Geraldine Page, emboldened by her matriarchal gravitas and demanding onus, doesn't shy away from any extraneous intrusion (the Union and the Confederacy alike) and builds a palpably beguiling tension through the mind games she plays with Eastwood yet holds the rein from stem to stern in unyielding resolution of taking the escalating situation in her own hands. Elizabeth Hartman, the fragile Oscar-nominated actress whose premature demise was a harrowing tragedy ripe for cinematic transposition, brings about something equally tangible and visceral as she is bedeviled by the discord between a man's promise and his action, but still holds out the last remaining benevolence out of her own impressionable nature.
Crowned BEST DIRECTOR in Cannes, Sofia Coppola's remake is an aesthetically beguiling psychological intrigue, superbly recreates a mystical Gothic quaintness in the closing days of the civil war entrapped within the terrain of a majestic mansion of the antebellum south, which certainly is a scintillating upgrade from the 1971 version's sepia retro flair.
But story-wise, Sofia's script not only eviscerates the role of Hallie (which is a double-edged sword since she claims that out of the respect of this sensitive issue, she doesn't want to tread lightly, but also can be easily accused of racially insensitive), but also leaves no allusions of all the taboo issues tackled in Siegel's movie, lesbian kiss, incest depravity and of course, that inappropriate kiss between a grown-up man and a teenage girl, are outright sanitized, and in fact, the whole story has been strenuously internalized, for instance, John's transgression, where is given a plausible justification in Siegel's film, is carried out in a slipshod manner, indicating that it is nothing less than a spur of horniness.
Atmospherical over dramatic, it is beyond reproach that Coppola opts to tell the allegory with her own agent, but unfortunately, the resultant impact doesn't meet up with expectation, especially when juxtaposed with its far more entrancing antecedent. Nicole Kidman intrepidly takes the mantle from Ms. Page, and actualizes an extremely sensual sponge-washing scene with Colin Farrell's less forthcoming and more sympathetic portrayal of a soldier turns paraplegic when he is subjected to an ambiguous retribution out of the necessity of saving his life. Kirsten Dunst and Elle Fanning don't make a splash in the shoes of Hartman and Ann Harris respectively, save Oona Laurence, whose Amy, precisely captures a child's malleable mentality.
So, the jury is out, the remake is humbled by the original, which is quite a shocker because on the paper, Coppola's feminine sensitivity seems to be more adept to parse this age-old gender axe battle than an action-inclined Mr. Siegel, again there is no sure thing in the film industry, and that is exactly why it keeps us intrigued every time. -
When movie's form and substance are not in harmony the strain can be obvious. With a stellar cast, superb cinematography and magnificent American Gothic period setting, The Beguiled (2017) has uncompromisingly beautiful form. In terms of substance, on the other hand, its characterisation and narrative interpretation are underwhelming.
The storyline is uncomplicated. A wounded Union mercenary Corporal John McBurney (Colin Farrell) is found in the woods by a young pupil of a nearby prestigious girls school. She helps him limp to the school where the headmistress Miss Martha Farnsworth (Nicole Kidman) agrees out of Christian kindness to provide shelter from the Confederates. The slave servants have fled and the Civil War rages, but the school stays open for a handful of orphaned girls. McBurney knows that his charm and seduction skills are vital to his survival as he smirks privately at having landed in a crinoline paradise compared to the battle outside. The ladies are aflutter at his presence and an atmosphere of repressed sexuality and jealousy simmer below the surface. But he is too clever for his own Irish charm as he tries to worm his way into too many beds. When caught out for his duplicity, the sweet angels of charity exact their revenge.
With a story rich in narrative potential and star-power like Kidman, Farrell and Fanning, you might expect a delicious thriller melodrama with characters of depth, complexity and nuance. But instead we find a flat narrative with two-dimensional caricatures devoid of emotional expression. Apart from McBurney's angry outburst at having been thwarted by a mere handful of women, nobody in this film seems to feel anything more urgent than how the plates might be arranged for dinner. Piques of jealousy, fear, passion, feminist rage? – none of seems to have made the final cut. Perhaps it's a Gothic affectation that upper-class Southern ladies enjoy French grammar and music lessons accompanied by exploding cannonballs. Whenever there is hope for an exciting narrative twist, the ladies spontaneously assemble for a posed composition of exquisite elegance and formality as if beckoned by a painter for a portrait sitting. Seeing this the first time is a visual delight; seeing it multiple times displays a level of artifice that distracts from an already slow narrative. Gothic atmosphere is usually full of tension but here it's more about smoky mists and mood lighting that varies between dark, darker and darkest. What could have been offered as a triumphantly gruesome finale is instead played out as deadpan politeness in a sewing lesson for once rich young white ladies.
Opinions differ widely about this film. Some will have seen the 1971 version or read the source novel, others of course will see it cold. Perhaps it is meant to be a deliberately restrained feminist Gothic noir interpretation. However, despite its high-quality inputs this film is more about form than substance. It has not risen to its potential. -
cousinvin629 July 2017My being familiar with the original 1971 Clint Eastwood version of this movie, I see that Sophia Coppola stripped away all the rich character development and backstory of Ms Farnsworth's incestuous relationship with her brother as well as the flashbacks that revealed the true conniving nature of John McBurney and the sexual fantasy aspect of these characters which was the basis for their motivation in the story. Miss Coppola seemed to sacrifice all this for the sake of making a film that appear to focus on nothing more than a fancy woman's dress party, as if they were all attending a gala ball every day, as well as some obsession of including trees with Spanish moss in almost every scene filmed at almost every angle with the camera being held on them for an usually prolonged period. The result of which made this film nothing more than a boring shallow one dimensional film and was seemingly made by her for the sake of creating nothing more than a moving piece of art to show female regal apparel and Spanish moss trees.
-
In Civil War Virginia, wounded Union soldier McBurney (Colin Farrell) seeks shelter in the plantation house of Miss Martha (Nicole Kidman) who runs a school for young women. The war has reduced the student body to a handful of young girls and teenagers, and only one remaining teacher, Edwina (Kirsten Dunst). Vowing to nurse the injured man back to health before turning him in to the Confederate authorities, Miss Martha and the other girls all become enamored of the handsome soldier, with dire consequences.
Director Sofia Coppola seems to be striving for a Barry Lyndon-esque natural light look, with no artificial lighting used at all, resulting in lots of gloomy and shadows during the evening scenes. The sound design also goes for an antiquated natural quiet, with the sounds of crickets and wind moving through the trees dominating, adding to a sleepy, dreamy atmosphere. The performers are all fine, and I even thought Farrell fit the manipulative soldier role better than Clint Eastwood did in the previous film. The three central women characters are noticeably different, though, and I felt they were each less compelling than those in the earlier movie (Kidman = Geraldine Page, Kirstin Dunst = Elizabeth Hartman, and Elle Fanning = Jo Ann Harris). This isn't a terrible film, but there's not a lot to recommend going out of your way for it, either. -
daoldiges19 May 2018This film does have a distinct visual appeal to it, as well as overall solid performances. However, the underlying tension that Coppola I think was going for doesn't really materialize. Instead the viewer is left with feelings of frustration because we know what we're supposed to be feeling, or what we think we should, but the director just can't make it happen. In part this is due to her going for style in place of substance, when these need not be mutually exclusive.
-
vasco_cid9 October 2017To Beguile: "to lead by deception"; "to engage the interest of by or as if by guile"; "to deprive (someone) of something by guile or deceit".
While conjecturing a position and a review for this film I realised that he Beguiled is more than a moniker for its characters: it is one for the film itself. You will find yourself simultaneously marveled by the ravishing cinematography and production design, seduced by its contained and bewildering performances and puzzled by its apparent dull and stale pacing. True to form, Coppola once again deceits the viewers into believing they've watched something rather stale and uneventful, when in fact the unsaid and the hinted upon is more powerful, substantial and engaging than you were aware.
A circumspect approach to a contained setting and a suggestion to a wider reality, for both the historic background and for the characters themselves, the Beguiled urges the viewer not to immediately praise or dismiss it, but rather to delve on it(s) subject matter(s), digest them and talk about them. That is why once again Coppola proves herself to be a singular auteur. -
SnoopyStyle24 February 2018It's 1864 Virginia, 3 years into the Civil War. Amy finds wounded Yankee soldier Corporal John McBurney (Colin Farrell) in the woods and brings him back to Miss Martha Farnsworth (Nicole Kidman)'s Seminary for young girls. All the slaves have run away. Edwina Morrow (Kirsten Dunst) is the last remaining teacher and Alicia (Elle Fanning) is one of the older students. Martha decides to let the Yankee rest rather than turning him over to the Confederates. The situation heats up as the female occupants compete for the prisoners' attention.
Sofia Coppola delivers a quiet, sparse tale of female competitive power. McBurney is no saint either. It's an empty fleeting world especially with the slaves abandoning the mansion. There is something eerie about this creation. I do want for more tension or more horror like Misery. It's hard to sympathize with any of the characters. Maybe she should concentrate on Edwina as the only protagonist. This has a nice haunted vibe but I don't feel for anybody. -
elenasurikova17 October 2017Sophia Coppola addresses one of the most overlooked problems - a ubiquitous issue of hypocrisy that is reigning in the political games lately and remains an intrinsic part of our society.
An isolated group of women in the movie represents a slice of society, while Colin Farrell, an outsider, who is simply struggling to find his place within it. The outsider is condemned for putting an act, but nobody says or does anything that reflects true feelings. Nothing comes from a genuine respect for another human being. False pretenses and masquerading based on flattery is the only way the characters communicate and stay together. And unfortunately, the only way we know. The only time we see their true colors is during paroxysms of rage, outbursts of lust, hatred and jealousy. But as long as the ugliness is hidden under the veneer of a civilized decorum, it is considered all right by the majority.
Jealousy or repressed sexual desires is just what we see on the surface. All the inner mechanics of their behavior are driven by the fear of a misstep in the eyes of the polite society. The morality they know teaches them to never question the rules and never step out of the dogma-ruled world. Rules like 'keep your stitches even," shield them from facing real moral dilemmas.
The unfolding drama is depicting how morality, which it's just a set of rules established by a self-proclaimed civilized society, has replaced all spiritual concepts. Morality, as a set of standards, is bent and stretched without mercy. Anything is possible for the sake of appearances and propriety. Those who dare to break those pretensions are ostracized, banished or simply discarded.
Sofia Coppola showed the modern world slipping further down into the abyss of hypocrisy, when almost everyone fails to stay true to oneself, twists "morality" as one pleases and values what's proper over what's right. -
george.schmidt24 June 2017THE BEGUILED (2017) ** Colin Farrell, Nicole Kidman, Kirsten Dunst, Elle Fanning, Oona Laurence, Angourie Rice, Addison Riecke, Emma Howard. Unnecessary remake to Don Siegel/Clint Eastwood's Southern Gothic classic about a Civil War era tale of unbridled passion and revenge. To wit - injured Northern soldier Farrell finds solace in a girls' school led by a repressed woman (Kidman very far too low-key) and her unworldly charges chomping at the bit to be with their new guest. While filmmaker Sofia Coppola -who also adapted the Thoma Cullinan's novel - pulls out all the stops with handsome cinematography by Philippe Le Sourd and impeccable production design by Anne Ross the film is basically a beat-by-beat carbon copy of the original 1971 film adding nothing truly new to the story with decidedly mixed results (outside of the principal well-known leads the supporting cast is wan and interchangeable).
-
Based on a book in which each female character expresses her point of view, holds dark secrets, and competes with her fellows, this movie offers many establishing shots and little more. Two primary characters from the book don't make it into the movie, but a nothing character, who adds nothing to the plot, is added. The secrets of one character are hinted at and never revisited. Of course readers of the book know why--the character was seriously miscast. The women and girls never open their hearts to the injured soldier they take in, so we as viewers have no idea as to their motivations. They try to relay all through meaningful looks, but fall short. Personalities that should evolve and shine are stunted and dull. This is a character-based story that has been so diluted it's shares only the title with the original work.
-
AmorLucis22 July 2017It would be easy to view this film as all about gender. (Is it feminist? Is it anti-feminist?) Or even to focus on race issues. (Did Coppola whitewash the story?) But that misses the point of this sumptuous, visceral, superlative movie.
Coppola made a film about what humans do under extreme conditions that is refreshingly devoid of the gender tropes Hollywood loves to spew such as "lusting male manipulator" and "frigid female spinster." In this film, every character is first and foremost human--complex, nuanced and struggling with their conflict between survival, desire and morality. Coppola's film shows that humans (male and female) struggle with the same conflicts. Yes, women lust. And, yes, men have moral struggles. Because both women and men lust and have moral struggles. And both have the instinct to survive.
The experience of the film was a unique blend of powerful sensuality--the intimate sharing of music, food, and prayer, acts of care and service like bathing, bandaging and even gardening, exotic rich nature scenes, the distant sounds of war and the sparse but compelling soundtrack make this a film you want to crawl into and touch, taste, and smell as well as see and hear. The exquisite costuming creates mesmerizing tableaux as well as expresses both what's common and unique to each of the female characters--not an easy feat to accomplish. The leading stars shine brilliantly, but we also see a depth and profundity of character and acting among the 4 young girls in the film. A truly ensemble drama, not usually seen among a cast of such varied ages.
The emotional ride is also a powerful experience. Sexual tension, flirtation, desire, and eroticism alternate with fear, suspense, and even horror. And, of course, the brilliant direction makes you not want to blink for fear of missing even one of the impeccably designed and composed ethereal, exotic, dreamlike visions in scene after scene.
I do not give a 10 rating lighting, but this film really deserves it. It is so far above the normal Hollywood fare.
After seeing the film, I understand and agree with Coppola's explanation of why she chose not to include racial diversity in the cast. Because of the time period, the film would have had to address the racial divide of slavery and to do that justice would take the film in the opposite direction of Coppola's vision, which is to use an isolated group of people to show how fundamentally alike men and women are, even in a sex segregated society. A film can't be all things to all people. There are plenty of African-American films, for example, that do not address the issue of sex segregation in black culture even today.
If you make sense of the world through the lens of gender stereotypes, or need big explosions to feel anything, you are probably not going to enjoy this film. But if you like complex human characters and sensuous subtlety, brilliant acting and virtuoso directing, don't miss seeing this film on the big screen. -
John-564-3424499 July 2017I saw Don Siegel's version many years ago on TV and thought it was great: A surprising, slightly subversive tale of a macho killed by sexually repressed women. I knew nothing about the story before and expected a Clint Eastwood western, but it was something else, something much better: It's like a Southern Gothic Tale told by Ingmar Bergman.
It has similarities to Bergman's masterpiece "Cries and Whispers" (1972) - the closed setting in a house and many women in psycho-sexual conflicts - but "The Beguiled" (1971) was written and shot earlier than Bergman's popular art house hit. Don Siegel's film is simply a timeless chamber piece about the war of the sexes in a highly symbolic war setting. It offers strong drama, nasty fun and uncommon psychological realism.
I was curious to see Sofia Coppola's version, because of the so-called 'feminine touch': Would it really make a huge difference to the material if a woman was the screenwriter and director? In what way? Would it result in a more realistic portrait of the women? Better female psychology? A better film?
I saw the movie today with the expectation that the answer would be "Yes!", but to my surprise, this was not the case. As a piece of dramatic storytelling it doesn't work as good as Don Siegel's version, which made more out of the dramatic scenes at the end. In Coppola's version we never quite understand the psychology of the women as well and sometimes it even appears like whole scenes are missing, because the women suddenly do things that are not clearly motivated.
Like getting shagged by Colin Farrell on the floor after he threatened to shoot them. If a male director would have made that scene, people would cry: "Such a cheap male fantasy! Women don't get aroused by violent men!" But when Sofia Coppola does this kind of far-fetched scene, it seems to be O.K.? For me, it didn't work. Some people laughed, because it appeared ridiculous in the context.
It might not be a popular thing to write, but in my opinion, the artist who understood women better and showed them in a more plausible way, was Don Siegel - yes, the director of "Dirty Harry" - not the ultra-sensitive Antonioni-esque Sofia Coppola, who is mostly concerned with visual design anyway, not story, psychology and character.
But what visual design! Every shot is exquisite and some scenes are crafted to perfection. Cinematographer Philippe Le Sourd deserves at least an Academy Award nomination for his work. The sound design and minimalist score are very effective, too. All of this is the result of careful direction - no doubt - but Sofia Coppola doesn't succeed where Don Siegel had his strongest points: The characters and the storytelling. So, is this the 'feminine touch' ? I doubt it has much to do with gender.
The distributor and some reviewers will try to sell you this movie as the 'feminist version', but it isn't. It's the same story, but not told as well and with less insight into the women. But don't dare to say it too loud - the feminists will get angry at you, because their cliché ideas of the superiority of 'the feminine touch' ain't true.
Another problem of this version is that Sofia Coppola erased the slave woman character, who had a purpose and function in the original story. Even if she was only a supporting character, it reminded the viewer of the past slavery and other forms of inequality beyond gender: Racism, class and access to education. It made the story richer and added to the theme of unequal power struggles within society. It's a poorer screenplay without her and it smells of historical revisionism and artistic cowardice not to deal with a subject like slavery in this kind of historical setting. The 'Good Old South' was not only a horror to rich white women, right?
All in all, it's still worth seeing, at least for the great visuals, good actors and some fine moments.
In my opinion it's only a 6 out of 10, while Don Siegel's minor classic is at least a 9/10. -
Honestly, I can appreciate a slow building drama that takes its time to build characters. Unfortunately, this remake of the film gives us very little in the way of conflict or tension after the setup and introduction of the characters.
There is some decent acting here from the cast, but I found it nearly impossible to see any detail in their faces due to the choice of shooting in very low light or artificially creating the effect in post. While I can't place blame entirely on the film as our local theater may have had issues with their projection system. Still, I prefer to see the expressions in actor's faces, otherwise I might as well be listening to a radio play.
The film could have been a full stop brighter and adding some fill light on the faces still would have allowed the look to be dark and drab as it was apparently intended.
By the time we get to the third act we still aren't rooting for our protagonist and frankly it's not completely clear until the climax that it's supposed to be Kidman's character. The editing is unimpressive.
This remake of "The Beguiled" isn't anything special. I suspect the jurors who awarded Coppola "Cannes Best Director Award" must have not have seen the film. For me it was best summed up by a phrase I overheard by a nearby audience member, "Is that it?". Yes... I'm afraid so. -
smoke026 September 2017I have some lovely scenic videos on my camera, does that mean I can win Best Director at Cannes also? All seeing this film did was remind me of how much I enjoyed the trashy, tawdry original movie, which didn't even have to try half as hard as this one needed to to achieve atmosphere, characterization, and coherence.
Sofia took a simple story of love-starved ladies and adolescent girls alone with a handsome scoundrel who uses and abuses them until they turn the tables on him, and won an award for changing it into a confusing, dull, illogical mess of a movie with some pretty scenic views scattered here and there. Apparently this story was supposed to be told from the women's point of view, but there was no point at all.
There is also no point in viewing this film, so stick with the original. -
"The Beguiled" is an American 90-minute movie from this year that was written and directed by Sofia Coppola and it is another strong addition to her career and is further helping her get out of her father's big footsteps. But the writing part is only partially true because the movie is based on a novel by Thomas Cullinan. So was the movie back in the early 1970s with Clint Eastwood playing the male protagonist. I have neither read the book nor seen the old version, so my approach here is fresh as a spring chicken. I would say I enjoyed the watch here overall. The cast gives good performances and even Kidman and Dunst that I am usually not a fan of were pretty decent I would say. Farrell was good as expected and his role here probably increases his heart throb status. My favorite from the cast, Elle Fanning, proves again she is among the best from her age group. And she is gorgeous too, a gorgeous beast her role is this time. I must admit I am not familiar with the other (all very young) actresses. We will see how their careers go in the next decades.
The first half of the film (probably slightly more even) is pretty harmless, romance may be the biggest genre and comedy may be more frequent than drama almost as the jealousy is there, but feels equally harmless and entertaining to watch. Then, after the amputation, it gets a lot more serious, very dramatic and pretty thrilling at times. Edge-of-seat material too and you wonder what happens next. A bit of a shame the trailer includes major spoilers. Nonetheless, as a whole, it was a good watch. I am not the biggest fan of period pieces really, but this one I liked. The air in the theater was basically full with estrogen from the film's characters. You could maybe say that Coppola makes films that are more for females than males (also her previous collaboration with Dunst) and you probably would not be wrong at all. But men can enjoy it too, if they can stomach scenes like the amputation being a direct consequence of the cheating. It's not a feminist or misogynist film by any means though. It's all good. I have a feeling that if anybody from the cast will score awards attention, then it will be Kidman, but maybe I am wrong. I also have a feeling that the movie already peaked in terms of awards recognition and will not repeat its success from Cannes with the big American awards bodies. We shall see. This of course is not anywhere near the level of Coppola's "Lost in Translation", one of my favorite films of all time, maybe number one, but "The Beguiled" is an interesting little film that is not too long for its own good and succeeds in its own right. I recommend checking it out. -
Don Siegel's The Beguiled is an underrated gem of the 70s that went pretty much unnoticed for quite some time. So when Sofia Coppola announced that she was remaking the film, it was kinda surprising. Surprising because who in the hell would remake The Beguiled and kinda not surprising given the subject matter and timely political message that it could push. Despite it being such an out of left field choice for a remake, the end product is a very well made and perfectly acted film. Starring Nicole Kidman, Elle Fanning, Kirsten Dunst and Colin Farrell, The Beguiled tells a story of wounded Civil War solider that seeks medical attention from a house of women in the rural South. Upon his arrival at the all-women facility, passion and lust become abound when the soldier begins to romance the women one by one. With each relationship he starts, jealousy arises between the women which leads to a shocking act of desperation.
Personally, I thought the film was paced very well. It flowed very fluidly and was actually surprisingly funny. Granted, this is a borderline dark comedy at times but it works very well due to the impeccable acting from the cast. Kirsten Dunst gives the performance of her career here and really carries a lot of the film despite her role being somewhat limited considering the impact she has on the film. I wouldn't rule her out of the competition at the end of the year. She really does a great job. Nicole Kidman and Colin Farrell also give really tremendous performances that just elevate Dunst that much more. Elle Fanning is as sultry as can be but less impressive because the role is not much different from her character in Ben Affleck's Live by Night. Despite this, the film keeps a genuine tension throughout it whether that'd be violent or sexual is completely up to whatever side of the 93 minute running time.
Make no mistake, The Beguiled is most certainly a well acted film but it feels like it is unnecessary. At times it feels a little more political than it needs to be and, a majority of the time, feels like it could have been a better film especially considering the immense talent in front of the camera. Overall, the film is far from being the average remake. It is well paced, has brilliant performances and keeps a steady handle on itself as a potboiler thriller with a hint of dark comedy. It is far from great but definitely worth watching. -
tkarlmann26 November 2018Every scene in this film was dark to a fault. There is reason for this. It was so dark, that the lighting affected the movie. This is, of course the way the Director chose to do it. I must say, all things considered, I had no issues with the cast or the acting, but I'm a Clint Eastwood fan, so I prefer the Original, 1971 version of this story. Knowing that, and also liking Kirsten Dunst and Nicole Kidman. I thought I'd give this a watch. EVERY single scene in this film was dark, dark, dark! Perhaps this is where the Director is in her own life. Funny thing is, she is quoted in Wikipedia as saying that she was happy to get away from the dark (mood) of her last film! Please let someone take this Director on a Holiday to someplace well lit!!!!
UPDATE: 01 Apr 2021: I now like this version better because I cannot stand to see Clint Eastwood 'beguiled'! The Story was just one downward spiral, with one simple question: Why did "the Corporal" visit the bed of that way-too-young little tart, when he could have had Kirsten Dunst's Character?
Also, why was there no "Mushroom Expert" listed in the credits? -
Sofia Coppola delivers a dark and suspenseful Southern Gothic horror film that explores the genre and feminine charm. When Amy (Oona Laurence) stumbles across the wounded Union soldier Corporal McBurney (Colin Farrell) in the woods, she brings the man back to her school for girls to help him recover from his leg wound. Miss Martha (Nicole Kidman) runs the school that has scenes the departure of its slaves and most of the students. The last remaining teacher Edwina (Kirsten Dunst) wishes to leave this place but with the Civil War raging nearby sees no hope of escape. The young and restless Alicia (Elle Fanning) is especially vicious when she first meets the wounded soldier, telling him about the warning symbol of a blue cloth that will bring the Confederate soldiers. The corporal admits that he is cowardly and jumps at the chance for brandy.
Amy seems to think the best of her discovery and Martha takes the man in, sewing up his wound and washing his skin. Edwina also takes a particular attraction to the man especially when McBurny awakes and compliments her in his thick Irish accent. Other girls like Jane (Angourie Rice) don't trust the Yankee presence and tells tales of the awful deeds by Union soldiers. Martha thinks about turning him in but when Amy and Edwina appeal to her Christian nature, they decide to allow him to stay until he recovers. The new presence changes the behavior of the women as Edwina starts dressing up more and young Marie (Addison Riecke) brings him a prayer book as a gift. Alicia sneaks up to give him a kiss during the nightly prayers. He stays up in the music room unable to move and hides up there when the Confederate soldiers march by stopping to check that everything is all right.
Check out more of this review and others at swilliky.com -
Quinoa198429 June 2017I was a little taken aback by how much I was enthralled and near the end overwhelmed by The Beguiled. It may be due to some (misplaced?) expectations on my end when it comes to the director; I admire Sofia Coppola's films on the whole - Lost in Translation to be sure, but also parts of Marie Antoinette and Somewhere are striking and affecting in that 'is-it-shallow or is it deep' sort of ambiguous, poetic way she has with her cinematography and storytelling - but until now haven't felt like I connected that strongly with the characters or in the world that's created. Even with Murray and Johansson in LiT there was something that kept one at a distance (again, this is just me, I'm sure many others feel different), despite the curious subjects at play. In The Beguiled, Coppola has a plot to work with - it's one that should be familiar if you've seen the 1971 film, which I can't help but get to - and it's a strong one. But she makes it her own and has a cast that KILLS across the board (some more literally than others! I'll be here all night, folks).
I have a feeling when Coppola got this material, either if it was seeing the Clint Eastwood/Don Siegel film first or reading the book, she read into it something differently than Siegel did, and I'm glad she did. This isn't a tawdry B-movie melodrama, which was what that movie certainly presented itself as, and in some ways was all the better for it (has one seen Eastwood be that downright *sleazy* before or since?) This is Coppola trying on something closer to a piece of Gothic literature; if Marie Antoinette was her fluffy costume-period biopic, this is her trying to tackle one of the Brontes, only through cinematic grammar. She rarely uses music in the film, certainly not much at all in the first half, and when it comes up it's eerie and brooding, a low synth that sounds like someone is somewhere about to do something sinister. Or, in this case, giving what may be just desserts for some.
You know the story? A Union officer is wounded and discovered by a young girl who is part of an all-girl's school in the South during the later part of the Civil War; she's cared for by the Head-School-Marm and he becomes a focal point of attention for the girls, whether they're pre-pubescent, adolescent, or way past that. He is polite and gentlemanly when he wakes up all stitched up, and tries to make himself useful - will be stay, or will he have to go? Meanwhile as this question hangs over scenes, the soldier John tries to ingratiate himself in another way, with smouldering and sexy looks and glances (hey, it's Colin Farrell looking like he took some of that medicine Paul Rudd's had to make himself look the same as he did 15 years ago, after all).
But how will this all fall apart, we know we have to ask ourselves? If one's seen the trailer without having seen the original it may seem pretty clear - that was one of those trailers that gave away too much, I think, which is not fair for the majority of audiences that likely haven't seen one of the few Eastwood "sleepers" of the 70's so to speak - but there's still much more in the atmosphere that Coppola creates with her production team that is astounding. There's a dark tone to the cinematography so at times it seems like it's natural light only, but I'm not sure that's it; it feels diffuse, like we're looking at a painting, only it isn't the sort of period-painting creation of like a Kubrick Barry Lyndon. No, this is a little like Coppola taking her crack at Gothic horror where you can feel the sweat and stink of a plantation where slaves once worked. It feels raw and lived in, and the dresses the girls wear even have a bigger-than-life quality while still feeling organic to the story and place.
By the way, there is one difference worth noting between the versions: Coppola doesn't have a slave character in the story (the little girl that saves Farrell says away in one line, "the slaves left," which could mean any number of things considering the time, but it is post Emancipation as well), but this doesn't feel like she is trying to change things for the time. If anything the slave woman was one of the flaws for me in the original film, with a good actress saddled with a not totally believable portrayal of a slave woman.
One might say Coppola chickened out or didn't go into what could've been more interesting/uncomfortable terrain. But I think she must've known a) there's already enough as far as sexual politics and WOMEN vs MAN going on to mine, and b) the story being more streamlined, this being shorter than the original, is a wise decision. There's not a wasted moment in this picture, and when there's a moment to see characters working or a meditative pause, it feels earned and part of the storytelling.
Lastly, the acting: it's all wonderful, but Dunst is the one that I hope people remember the most here. Farrell and Kidman are the leads, but she's the one who has the most inner conflict, the person in this tale who has so much responsibility with these girls while at the same time wanting to choose her own path - maybe with John or maybe not. How can she? She's Coppola's one returning star now, and it's clear how her work is getting better, both in the script and how she gets to play it here as someone who has quiet desperation all over her. If one feels for anyone, whether it's in any mixed ways or not, it's for her. 9.5/10 -
quevaal27 July 2019I saw this one a couple of weeks ago. I didn't know of the 1971 version so I thought it was a good film. But now I have seen it I see there are a couple of issues with this script. What happened to Hallie? She was a good character bringing additional dynamics but it seems like she had to go to make it more PC so as not to offend anyone? Also, in the 1971 movie I finally understood why he went to the "wrong" bed. In this version, that is a meaningless thing to do.
There are more issues that other reviewers have pointed out, but the general feeling I have now is that thew new version is sterile in many ways, and that didn't need to be the case.
It's still worth seeing but it does appear like a textbook example of "why the original was better". -
rtcone1 October 2017Worst lighting of any movie I've ever seen. Was this filmed with candles? Thank the Lord it was a short movie or I might have went blind. The slave character (a major character) in the book isn't even in this film version. In the book they are in Virgina but this looks like it was filmed in Louisiana with all the moss covered trees. An all around disappointment and not worth watching. My advice is to read the book.
-
gradyharp22 October 2017'It seems the enemy... it's not what we believe' Director Sofia Coppola continues to impress as she recreates a well-known novel by Thomas Cullinan as adapted for the screen by Albert Maltz, Irene Kamp (aka Grimes Grice) and Coppola herself. Yes, the film was also made in 1971 with Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page, but this version is gentler and more subtle – not only because of Coppola's vision but also because of the impeccable cast she has selected.
Very succinctly, the outline of the tale follows - While imprisoned in a Confederate girls' boarding school, an injured Union soldier cons his way into each of the lonely women's hearts, causing them to turn on each other, and eventually, on him.
But with more atmosphere included the story is an impressive historical setting as realized by designer Anne Ross and captured on atmospheric (if a bit too dark) cinematography by Philippe Le Sourd. And a more insightful synopsis describes this psychological drama about love and betrayal during the Civil War. As the costly American Civil War still rages on, Jane (Angourie Rice) a 12-year-old student of the forgotten Miss Martha Farnsworth's Seminary for Young Ladies in warm and humid Louisiana stumbles upon a gravely wounded Union soldier, John McBurney (Colin Farrell). Taken in to recover from his injuries, the Corporal is imprisoned in a small room inside the mansion, however, before long, the seductive and unwanted guest will manage to take advantage of the female inhabitants' wartime-subdued desires. At first McBurney is met with careful and caring attention by Miss Martha (Nicole Kidman), Edwina (Kirsten Dunst), Alicia (Elle Fanning), Amy (Oona Lawrence), Marie (Addison Riecke) and Emil (Emma Howard). But McBurney charms them as they nurse him back to health, and his lustful manipulations cause them to spiral into jealous and vengeful rages against him. Feeling trapped, John realizes that his benefactress cannot be trusted with his love or with his life!
The musical scoring by Laura Karpman and Phoenix (with nods to Monteverdi's 'Magnificat') greatly enhances the atmosphere. The story takes unexpected turns and ends rather surprisingly, but it all works well. Recommended -
makleen226 November 2017A wounded Union soldier is sheltered at a girls' boarding school in rural Virginia during the American Civil War, igniting pent-up passions and jealousy in this pale imitation of the 1971 Clint Eastwood classic, itself based on the 1966 Southern Gothic novel A Painted Devil by Thomas P. Cullinan. The Beguiled (2017), written and directed by Sofia Coppola, is a remake no one asked for, visually beautiful but emotionally monochrome.
John McBurney (Colin Farrell) is a corporal in the 66th New York and wounded in the leg while fighting somewhere in Virginia in the summer of 1864. He stumbles through the wilderness and collapses. Amy (Oona Laurence), a young student at the nearby Miss Martha Farnsworth's Seminary for Young Ladies, discovers him and takes him back to the neglected school.
Miss Martha (Nicole Kidman) stitches Corporal McBurney's wound and allows him to stay long enough to recover. Meanwhile, he attracts the attention of the other young ladies of the house, Alicia (Elle Fanning), Jane (Angourie Rice), Marie (Addison Riecke), Emily (Emma Howard), and especially their teacher, Edwina Morrow (Kirsten Dunst).
McBurney is passive but emotionally manipulative. He pledges his love for Edwina, but after catching him in flagrante delicto with Alicia, she accidentally pushes him down the stairs, which opens his wound and breaks his leg. Miss Martha amputates his limb below the knee to prevent infection. McBurney flies into a rage when he sees what she has done, gratuitously injures Amy's pet turtle, and terrorizes the girls with a revolver.
As McBurney and Edwina finally consummate their love, Marie suggests poisoning him with mushrooms. They invite him to dinner, feed him the poison mushrooms, and he dies. The girls wrap his body in a shroud and leave it outside the gates for passing soldiers to claim.
The Beguiled is visually artistic, painted in soft tones using natural light and candlelight to illuminate a pallet of pastel creams, pinks, azures, and peaches. The sounds of nature and distant battle serenade every scene. There's a sense the school is besieged not only by an unseen force, but also by nature itself, run wild through several years of neglect.
Sofia Coppola expressed a desire to retell this story from a female point of view, but I'm not sure how she accomplished this goal. She removed all action, tension, and controversy from the original film, leaving a pale, nearly emotionless shadow. She also omitted Hallie, a female slave, because "Young girls watch my films and this was not the depiction of an African-American character I would want to show them." Huh? She wrote the film - she could have depicted Hallie as the heroine if she wanted.
The scene in which McBurney tumbles down the stairs is a perfect example of how this version falls short. In the 1973 film, Edwina attacks him in a rage and beats him with a candlestick, deliberately pushing him down the stairs. As McBurney falls, the audience watches from over Edwina's shoulder as the camera shakes violently. After, she continues to berate him and wishes he was dead. It's a jarring, emotionally charged and almost frightening scene.
In this version, Edwina shoves him against the wall and he accidentally falls down the stairs. She shouts "No!" as he falls, emphasizing that it wasn't intentional. Then she just stands there quietly as Miss Martha rushes to his aid. The camera follows him down the stairs in a tight shot. In contrast to its predecessor, it's clearly shot in his perspective, which seems to undermine the director's vision for a female-centered film.
Ultimately, The Beguiled has a great cast of experienced and up-and-coming actresses but no chemistry between them. A scene in which Alicia and Amy stand around lifelessly hitting the ground with hoes sums up the whole film. When Alicia asks, "Are we almost done?" she might as well be speaking for the audience. -
styanmike3 August 2020Terrible lighting, can't tell what was happening. The most boring waste of talented actors ever assembled.