No details until release date, as sworn...

...except to say that the film did not disappoint me. In fact, it's the finest high seas film I've seen.

Any O'Brian fans here? I've never read any of his novels, but this movie sure makes me want to read more about Aubrey and his men.

Man... Weir is a fine filmmaker. Favorites?

Jeffrey,

I agree. Stunning work. Really captured an age gone by. Makes me want to read all 20 of the novels. If you check out the "official film site," there are snippets from the books sprinkled throughout the notes.

I like Weir quite a bit. I really appreciate the mystery and the unknown that find prominent places in my favs - Picnic at Hanging Rock, Fearless, and The Year of Living Dangerously.

His films have led me to consider, among other things, what it means to encounter that which I don't understand, that which is strange to me. And as I've thought about it, to fulfill our great commandment as Christians to love God and love neighbor, we must be willing to encounter that which may not at first make sense to us. For if we simply reject it, then we prevent ourselves from carrying out our greatest purpose on this planet.

To those who have already seen his upcoming film, I am envious. It has been one of my most eagerly anticipated films all year.

I'm relieved to hear your vague praise, Jeffrey. As one who's read and greatly enjoyed the 20-book Aubrey/Maturin series, I was worried that the film would bungle it.

O'Brian is a master of detail -- history, nature, politics, geography, and of course, plenty of nautical bits -- in whose books the characters and stories develop gradually and subtly. I loved these books and came to care deeply about the people involved in them, not only Aubrey and Maturin but the large supporting cast that we encounter repeatedly in the saga.

I've heard that this movie is part of the actual Master and Commander novel fused with the conclusion of yet another novel in the series. So I'm sure there will be a hailstorm of protest from the book devotees, just as there continues to be with Lord of the Rings.

(And yes, Tolkien fans, wait until you see the couple of massive changes that Jackson is going to ask us to accept THIS time!)

But not knowing was a blessing for me with this film. While it suffers a bit from the Manly Men Being Men and Telling Boys and Younger Men How to Be Manly format, and while a library of submarine films have made several of these high seas crises a little too familiar, there is such an earnestness to the film, an unshowy professionalism and sincerity, that I was reminded of the pleasures of pure cinematic storytelling. Weir has no interest in indulging our appetites or showing off new tricks. He just gets the job done.

Speaking of Tolkien... very weird to see Billy Boyd in another major role. Will he ever be anything but Pippin to us?

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: Speaking of Tolkien... very weird to see Billy Boyd in another major role.
: Will he ever be anything but Pippin to us?

Wait a minute. You mean, between Boyd and Bloom, that now makes TWO former unknowns who have followed up their lucky break in Lord of the Rings with films about going to sea in ye olden days?

Yup. And he's fine in the part, although it's not a complicated part. He's got this great scar under his right eye in this film, but it doesn't do much to keep us from thinking, "Hey, there's Pippin again. Tall Pippin!"

I'm glad the movie is good. In anticipation I read Far Side of the World (book 10 I think in the series) this summer. But when I've seen trailers, I've been left wondering what the film had to do with the book. Perhaps it is more in tune with Master and Commander. I've heard that O'Brian fans are somewhat displeased with much about the film. The joining of two widely different books in the series. The casting of Crowe (Aubrey is a bit on the portly side.)

ALthough the sea story does seem made to order for Weir and his penchant for putting people in situations where they are out of their element.

I'm so glad to hear this is good. I'm looking forward to it. I've long been a big fan of Witness and I thought Truman Show as better than most said it was.

Weir strikes me as an Existentialist who leaves room for God. And I like that. It seems he and Kierkegaard would have gotten along swimmingly.

FWIW, the film has more references to Christianity, more prayer, and more positive portrayals of men of faith than any of his films since Witness. (In fact, I'd argue it is more positive about faith than even that film.)

And regarding "portly" Aubrey, Crowe's not exactly thin in this film. I thought he looked like he'd bulked up quite a bit.

QUOTE

I like Weir quite a bit. I really appreciate the mystery and the unknown that find prominent places in my favs - Picnic at Hanging Rock, Fearless, and The Year of Living Dangerously.

I haven't seen "Dangerously," but I'll add the mystical "The Last Wave" to the list.

One Weir film I really don't care for is "Dead Poets Society," a messy film that many of my friends admire.

QUOTE

Any O'Brian fans here? I've never read any of his novels, but this movie sure makes me want to read more about Aubrey and his men.   Man... Weir is a fine filmmaker. Favorites?

I have many friends & acquaintances who think O'Brian is one of the two or three best historical novelists of the later 20th century (the other two candidates--Dorothy Dunnett & Mary Renault). I've tried to read his books & couldn't make much headway, but maybe it was all the sailing jargon. I should probably try again. I certainly intend to see the movie.

My Peter Weir favorites--Gallipoli, Witness, The Truman Show.

QUOTE

I have many friends & acquaintances who think O'Brian is one of the two or three best historical novelists of the later 20th century (the other two candidates--Dorothy Dunnett & Mary Renault).  I've tried to read his books & couldn't make much headway, but maybe it was all the sailing jargon.  I should probably try again.  I certainly intend to see the movie.

The one book I read didn't quicken my heart as I picked it up each night. Like you said, the sailing jargon and even the way the navy worked at that time just sort of went over my head. There was also a lot of back story that I didn't know since I was in the middle of the series.

Jeffrey, what big changes are you refering to in regards to The Return of the King? Clue me in.

Scott.

That belongs on another thread, Scott, so I'll post something there soon. Keep watch.


And by the way, Jeffrey Wells today is raving about Master and Commander, so I guess the barrier is breaking and we can start talking about it. He says:

QUOTE

I recommend this to all guys out there as a girlfriend character-indicator thing. If she says she'd rather not see this film, or if she sees it and goes \"naah...not for me,\" dump her. Really. The same way you should dump any girl who doesn't like to go camping because she's afraid of bugs or something.

He also says:

QUOTE

MASTER AND COMMANDER is from the great Australian director Peter Weir. It's clearly his best film since WITNESS, and apparently his most physically ambitious ever. Of all Weir's first-rate films (and he really killed from PICNIC AT HANGING ROCK in '75 until his last good one, DEAD POET'S SOCIETY, in '89), it probably most resembles GALLIPOLI in terms of the male camaraderie thing and the anti-war leanings.

A day later, here are my SPOILER-FREE thoughts (and forgive those that are redundant with my earlier post):

I'm giving the film an A-, and at this point I still think Fearless is a better Weir film. (It's at least a braver one when it comes to the risks he takes as a storyteller.) Master and Commander is not the typical philosophical Weir film punctuated by bursts of action; it's more like an action film punctuated by bursts of Weir philosophizing. I'm not sure it'll be in my top ten at the end of the year, but it's close.

Who'da thunk we would see two creaky battleships pull up alongside each other, one on each side of the screen, firing at close range with lines of cannons... TWICE this year on the big screen? And what are the odds BOTH movies would be good? Strange.

And while it suffers a bit from being another Men Being Manly and Teaching Boys and Men How to Be Manly film, Weir's got another feather in his cap with this one. It's the finest seafaring film I've seen, except perhaps Das Boot, and boasts another great performance by Russell Crowe (although Paul Bettany's supporting performance equals and perhaps surpasses it.)

The action is spectacular. I have not felt so immersed in a high-seas screen environment before. This film makes CGI water in other films look far less convincing. Nothing like the real thing. (Although I've read that some of these shots ARE CGI, which blows my mind.) Show me which ones!

Regarding violence: The violence in this film is harder to watch than the violence in Kill Bill. It's realistic, for one thing. There are a few emergency surgery scenes that had me digging my fingers into the arm rest of the chair and gritting my teeth. Ow.

There are strong visual echoes of Gallipoli (one that I suspect was deliberate), Dead Poet's Society, and a thematic connection to The Mosquito Coast... a theme that seems to pop up in all Weir films, really.

And there is a moment here that gave me a chill of dread I haven't felt since the Imperial Walkers were first spotted through Rebel binoculars.

I was surprised at the amount of God-talk in the film. Bettany plays the ship's doctor, a man who is both fascinated by the idea of evolution and yet does not disagree that the changes that come about in creatures are caused by both their own efforts and God.

The closer it gets to the end, the more predictable it becomes, and one scene that is supposed to play like a major twist near the end is unfortunately painfully forseeable. But the film is not about surprises. It's mostly about characters, about the corrupting nature of power, the difference between duty and personal agenda, the tendency to take God's good gifts and immediately put them to use in violent ways... there's a lot to talk about, and the conversations are allowed to stretch on just long enough to haunt us afterwards.

One subplot, regarding an uncomfortable officer who is disrespected by his peers, does not carry the weight it clearly is supposed to carry. And it too ends predictably. But again, the actors and the dialogue keep it from sinking the film.

I was surprised at just how obviously the film is availing itself to a sequel. There are not major loose ends, but we get this sense that this is just the beginning for many of these characters, and I do hope to see them again. Bettany and Crowe have good chemistry. And there's a very young actor, the blonde kid you saw in the preview, who is very very good. He's never made to seem "cute"; he is treated as seriously as the grownups, and you get the feeling that he may emerge as an even more formidable seaman than Crowe's Aubrey.

Finally, I've got to comment on the soundtrack. Wells compliments the film composer, but most of the film's musical impact comes from Variations on a Theme by Thomas Tallis, one of my favorite pieces of classical music. It is used very effectively. I'll bet it was Weir's idea; you couldn't ask for more sombre hues of drama and historical significance than that. An Oscar nomination for the late Thomas Tallis may be in order.

Are people deliberately avoiding discussion of THE MOSQUITO COAST? Because, to me, that film represented Weir's best work... (of the stuff I've seen.... so not including YEAR, GALLIPOLI, and PICNIC).

Nick

I love Mosquito Coast, and I still think it boasts one of Ford's finest performances. It also has River Phoenix, which gives any film an unfair advantage. Unfortunately, the shrill portrayal of the evangelist (Andre Gregory) gives the film a bad aftertaste. But there is some great work in that film. It also bears the odd distinction of being a film in which Harrison Ford and Helen Mirren are a married couple... one of the strangest movie marital matches I can think of, and yet it worked.

Thanks for the additional details, Jeffrey. I can't wait to see it now, though I'm mystified (not peeved) as to why the screenplay writer is drawing from the first and a much later book for key aspects of the plot, and even for the title, for that matter.

Regarding the original O'Brian books: FWIW, I found the first two in the series to be slow going, while the next several ones were much more engrossing. Had I started with books 1 and 2, I'm not sure I'd have kept reading. Thankfully, the earliest book my local library had at that time was #6, so by the time I read the books in order, I was already hooked.

QUOTE

[snippage...]Weir's got another feather in his cap with this one. It's the finest seafaring film I've seen, except perhaps Das Boot, and boasts another great performance by Russell Crowe (although Paul Bettany's supporting performance equals and perhaps surpasses it.)

Well that certainly sounds good. I thought Das Boot was so great that I've avoided every subsequent submarine movie, so you've raised my expectations considerably.

QUOTE

Regarding violence: The violence in this film is harder to watch than the violence in Kill Bill. It's realistic, for one thing. There are a few emergency surgery scenes that had me digging my fingers into the arm rest of the chair and gritting my teeth. Ow.

I actually prefer this, painful as it may be, as I see it as justified by context and I'd prefer that violence not be trivialized, unless the movie really is ckearly fantasy or cartoon. Sometimes the lines are hard to draw & describe, but KB is off my list. Appreciated the discussion on this board very much.

QUOTE

There are strong visual echoes of Gallipoli (one that I suspect was deliberate), Dead Poet's Society, and a thematic connection to The Mosquito Coast... a theme that seems to pop up in all Weir films, really.

Sounds good to me. And if there's a sequel, the many O'Brian fans will be ecstatic, I'm sure. The film-makers had to know they were out there. Maybe they could hear them breathing.

A nifty thing to think about for potential sequels to this film is the diversity of locations portrayed in the Aubrey/Maturin books: Indonesia, Australia, the near-Antarctic, Pacific Islands, a tense War of 1812 Boston, a French prison, etc. If done well, these could be a thrill to behold.

I'm relieved to hear good things about this film. I read all of the Aubrey/Maturin books back in high school, and was thrilled when I heard there was a movie coming out. However, I was a bit nervous as well--although I'm no literalist when it comes to movie adaptations of books, I at least want justice done to the source.

Welcome to the boards, Caleb. As one who has also read the Aubrey/Maturin series, I'd be interested in your take on my comments below:

Jeffrey's comment about the amount of God-talk in this movie got me thinking about the way religion was depicted in the books. I don't remember it being a huge feature of the stories, talked about rather matter-of-factly, like the fauna of Batavia. As I recall, Aubrey was very much of a nominal Church of England man, a captain who is much more comfortable reading the Articles of the Navy than the Bible at Sunday service on the ship. Maturin has paid much more of a price for being a Catholic in English society, but I got the impression that he was more of a cultural Catholic than a man of active faith.

Interestingly, the books had other references to contemporary faith practices, such as Methodism (viewed condescendingly by Aubrey)and 'blue light captains' (those overtly full of evangelical fervor, also looked on unfavorably by Aubrey).

FWIW, Rolling Stone has posted a rave.

Andrew,

Although it's been quite a while since I've read the books, what I remember matches up with your observations. Aubrey is nominal C of E and looks down upon Methodists, and Maturin is a cultural RC.

QUOTE

Andrew,   Although it's been quite a while since I've read the books, what I remember matches up with your observations.  Aubrey is nominal C of E and looks down upon Methodists, and Maturin is a cultural RC.

Even convinced C of E believers tended to look down on Methodists at the time. Swift, for example, and Johnson, thought their "enthusiasm" showed a distressing lack of decorum--all that shouting and singing and raw emotion. Those were the days to be a Methodist, I often say

Master & Commander is a shoo-in for my Top Ten list. A smart, smart script, exciting action, intelligent and thoughtful characters intelligently and thoughtfully disagreeing, scenes that make you wince and cheer and laugh out loud -- what's not to love? Why isn't this movie getting UNANIMOUS raves at RT? How the heck are a few critics even calling it "boring"? I think it's a nearly perfect film.

An action-adventure film that contains serious and genuinely ambiguous discussions about such moral issues as whether a promise is absolutely binding or subject to exigencies and circumstances, about when military discipline and duty are carried too far, in which characters debate and the movie doesn't telegraph which one we're meant to agree with by having one of them be the unreasonable, unsympathetic, gray-haired hard-ass from hell and the other one the righteous, handsome, sensitive new-age guy. Imagine that. And faith and science, creation and evolution, taken for granted to be in harmony, not conflict. Wow.

Give it up to Russell Crowe -- the man may be a complete [expletive deleted] in his personal life, but he doesn't make trash. And with Peter Weir rather than Ridley Scott or Ron Howard at the helm, this is a much better film than any of his other recent projects (not that Gladiator or A Beautiful Mind were trash, but they were both flawed pictures).

Well, it IS predictable. But beyond that, I agree with you completely.

True, two discoveries made by the characters toward the end of the film could both be seen coming. But since this wasn't a twisty thriller type film a la Matchstick Men, I wasn't at all bothered by that; there was no added benefit of a twist, but I didn't see it as a positive drawback or flaw.

My full review is posted.

And mine.

To steal a line from Stephen Hunter, “Master and Commander,” which I saw last night, is the best film of 1957.
That’s good and bad. It means the pyrotechnics and special effects take a backseat to character development and, thank goodness, subtlety. But watching it, I felt the movie’s length – something that surely must have worried the studio, which invested $135 million in “Master.” How might that go over with today’s audiences? The group I saw it with enjoyed it, but they all had reservations. And no one in the theater applauded at the end. The movie, regardless of its merits, isn’t what I’d deem blockbuster material. It will be curious to see if it recoups its production and marketing costs, and if it will hold up after its first weekend.
I was pleased to see Charles Krauthammer devote an entire column in today’s Washington Post to “Master and Commander.” He touches on some of the concerns I have about the film’s reception:
“The [film’s] austerity works … as does the fidelity to detail. My only worry is that it won't sell to the kids who flock to see ‘Pirates of the Caribbean,’ who expect sex and swashbuckling between their battle scenes, and whose patronage is needed for the movie to recover its $135 million cost.
It is perhaps odd to worry about a film's box office, but when a film is as splendid as this one, you want it to succeed.”
Yeah, financial success would be great, but Weir has proven himself as a masterful filmmaker of films that aren’t embraced by the masses, and his latest will, I think, be no exception.
I don't have time to go deeper into the what I liked, and didn't, about the movie, but suffice to say that I see nothing in Jeffrey's comments in this thread with which I disagree. I'm looking forward to reading SDG's review, too.

Christian wrote:
: But watching it, I felt the movie’s length -- something that surely must
: have worried the studio, which invested $135 million in "Master." How
: might that go over with today’s audiences?

Not having seen this film, my immediate reaction to this comment is, "Hey, I felt the length of Pirates of the Caribbean, which was clearly too long, but audiences didn't seem to care!"

I never felt M&C dragging. I did feel PotC dragging. I hope M&C makes a mint. It deserves to.

[quote]
Not having seen this film, my immediate reaction to this comment is, "Hey, I felt the length of Pirates of the Caribbean, which was clearly too long, but audiences didn't seem to care!"[/quote]

I did.

You raise an interesting issue, though. Will audiences be as willing to put up with a period piece, light on humor, as they were with "Pirates"?

It's hard to project, based on the reaction of one audience, but I got a distinct feeling that the crowd I saw the film with was underwhelmed by it. I'm guessing the length had something to do with that.

Ah, subjectivity!

I saw M&C this afternoon and loved it! Obviously, I don't get to view even a third of the films that you famous film critics see on the big screen, but this was my most enjoyable cinematic experience of the year (most meaningful, OTOH, I don't think so, but I was still a very happy moviegoer today).

More than any other film of 2003, I felt intensely immersed in a different world and era, with characters that I cared deeply about. No doubt it made a difference that I've read all of the Aubrey/Maturin novels at least once, so not unlike the bigger Tolkien fans here with FOTR, I felt as though I were seeing old friends in a delightfully new way.

It's been too long since I've read The Far Side of the World for me to recall precise plot details, but the cinematic portrayals of Aubrey, Maturin, and even lesser characters like surly Killick felt very true to O'Brian's written depictions. Even some of the jokes and tales told at the officers' suppers were familiar from the books.

Lastly, as far as the duration debate, I didn't feel there was much extraneous stuff going on in M&C. As a matter of fact, I was wondering why they didn't reveal more of Maturin in this film, particularly his double life as an intelligence agent. Perhaps the sequel, eh?

I would have happily sat through more M&C, whereas the climactic battle in 'Pirates' plodded on to its predictable solution for 15 minutes too long (with its dramatic music recycled from 'The Rock'), in my opinion.

With the exception of Crowe's charisma, the film does not offer much more than the Horatio Hornblower series, or a good Klingony episode of Star Trek. Great entertainment, to be sure, but not deep filmmaking. The "discussion" of issues are brief and incidental. (One exception: the "we are all God's creatures" bit.) They are so insubstantial as to be nonsubstantial.

A good adventure flick, serious, where Pirates is goofy. Naturalistic where Pirates is supernatural. But largely forgettable.

I pretty much agree with this review from New York magazine:

"winning...but rarely soars. On a conceptual level, nothing in this movie surprises, or is meant to. The film is an immersion tank of old-movie memories and attitudes about heroism and fighting the good fight. As soothing as this can be, it's not enough--at least not for those of us who want more from movies than the reassurance of remembered enjoyments recast with new faces. In times of war, there is something derelict in the spectacle of a filmmaker as gifted as Weir offering up varnished portraits of fighters. The director of Gallipoli and The Year of Living Dangerously has muffled the rage and darkness of his best work in favor of an antiquated pleasingness. Master and Commander is a too-comfy classic."

:threestars:

Saw Master and Commander this afternoon and loved it! Not much too add to the discussion here, but I sincerely thought it was a great film. I'm unfamiliar with the O'Brian novels, but like someone else here has said, the film makes me want to seek them out.

Has anyone noted why the film changed the ship being chased from American (in the book Far Side of the World) to French? Easier to identify as Britain's enemy at the time? Trying not to offend people in the big US market by making them the bad guys?

Andrew Sarris, one of my favorite critics, surprisingly poo-poos Weir's latest.

I have little doubt that the bad guys were turned to Frenchmen in this film to avoid offending the American moviegoing public. I hope this film series eventually makes it to the War of 1812, however, as one of the most exciting adventures in the books occurs in Boston.

I've been giving some thought to Alan's comment about M&C being little better than a rollicking Star Trek episode. While I can see the similarities, I think there are other areas where M&C is a significant improvement (offered up in no particular order):

SPOILERS AHEAD!

- the soundtrack: Gustav Holst ripoffs vs. lovely classical music played by Yo Yo Ma
- battle sequences: the pandemonium of the final battle in M&C seemed quite believable, compared to the formulaic photon torpedo hit - fly out of their seats - recovery in a couple of minutes standard sequence of Star Trek
- other visual effects: the special effects in Star Trek often seemed rather cheesy (the decaying planet in 'Search for Spock' immediately comes to mind); I had no such experience with M&C
- acting: Shatner/Nimoy vs. Crowe/Bettany. 'nuff said.
- characterizations: There seemed a substance to Aubrey and Maturin that I just don't sense with the folks from Star Trek - especially in the films with the original TV show cast, it seems they devolved into increasing self-parody ('There be whales here, captain!'). Even the minor characters seemed better developed, as in the endearing Midshipman Blakeney vs. the generic new-guy-on-the-bridge-who-will-die-in-the-next-battle-sequence
- settings: the intense detail of a 19th century ship vs. the sterile bridge of the Enterprise

Overall, with Peter Weir's direction, I felt I was in the more than capable hands of a master storyteller, with a power to convey detail through a visual medium (the brutally hot sun for days on end, Aubrey's longing for female company conveyed thru a momentary shot, etc.). Although I've enjoyed most of the Star Trek films, I don't think I've ever felt a similar confidence with them.

I don't think the issue of the nationality of the enemy ship is quite as simple as a marketing issue, although I admit it played a part. The Master and Commander stories start around 1905, and there are good moviemaking reasons for wanting to make the first film in that context rather than post 1912, when the The Far Side of the World novel is set. After all, there are eight books in between Master and Commander and The Far Side of the World, and you want to keep the door open to borrowing or adapting material from them without necessarily locking yourself into either retrofitting it for a post-1912 setting or making it as a prequel.

Peter T Chattaway wrote:

Methinks you've got your centuries mixed up, SDG!

Oh. Duh. No, actually, I'm just not very accurate at typing numbers. :oops:

I must say that I'm pretty shocked by the hype that M&C is receiving here and at large. The film just felt very underwhelming (and I saw it at the Cinerama!). My ultimate measure of a film is what and how it makes me feel, and with M&C...I just didn't care.

That being said, there were many nice touches, most of which have been mentioned already. To the music, the FX, some of the acting, and the general atmosphere, I give credit where it is due. And I think that, perhaps, behind Crowe's ever anguished face, behind the doctor's twitching upper lip, and somewhere inside the faceless mass of sailors, there might have been stirrings of believable humanity...a touch of something to care about.

But in the end I had difficulty seeing the movie (as a whole) as anything more than a vehicle for some rather impressive effects, a chance for the writers to make some very vague commentary on leadership and naturalism, and an opportunity for Mr. Crowe's hair to maintain a perpetually pretty state. Could any fewer risks have been taken? I can't even accuse it of being ponderous.

Perhaps a good summation would be to say that it felt, in so many ways, like a movie. I spend two and a half hours staring at a screen and never once was I transported out of the theatre.

SDG (masquerading as Peter T Chattaway) wrote:

: : Methinks you've got your centuries mixed up, SDG!
:
: Oh. Duh. No, actually, I'm just not very accurate at typing numbers. :oops:

Or at finding the "quote" button (as opposed to the "edit" button).

Apparently a couple of Hornblower movies are being aired on A&E this week.

Finally saw this yesterday. Liked it a lot. I can see why people who go for 'character development' might not find the film all that interesting, since it is more about a way of life than about any particular person's growth or development -- it's not really even about the Surprise's hunt for the Acheron or vice versa -- but man, what a way of life. Very interesting, not just in terms of the physical and technical practicalities of living and fighting at sea, but also in terms of the codes of honour and respect and the psychology among the crew. And as a big fan of movies with inter-generational casts (e.g. Rushmore), I was quite struck by the way we see British boys barking the orders and even firing upon the Frenchmen -- it kind of puts all those images of underaged combatants in the Third World into perspective.

I was reminded of that documentary on Shackleton, the way all these characters were conscious of living in a "modern" age in which the world was full of things just waiting to be discovered and "great men" could do great things; that whole scene in which Aubrey says he had the honour of serving under Lord Nelson and being spoken to TWICE was rather intriguing, I thought. The film, which takes place at a time, half a century before Darwin, when men knew about evolution but not natural selection, straddles an interesting line between the new sciences and the old superstitions -- is there a more Weirian, capital-R Romantic moment in this film than the sight of all those animals being loosed from their cages in what seems to be the untamed wasteland of the Galapagos Islands, or the scene in which an officer commits suicide to relieve the ship of the alleged curse that he has brought upon it? And yet I feel that the film is somehow more ambivalent towards the Enlightenment than I would have expected of Weir; the Paul Bettany character IS filled with a genuine sense of wonder at the creatures he discovers, even if he would rather dissect them than commune with them, and it does seem a shame that his military duty should get in the way of all that; is his science, in a sense, more "free" and thus more Romantic than his being a naval officer? or is it just a different kind of "freedom" and Romanticism than the sort which inspires captains and sailors and the like to go to sea? (Of course, Charles Darwin himself would be inspired to come up with his theory of natural selection after observing the fauna of the Galapagos -- perhaps this film is suggesting that Paul Bettany's character would have come up with that theory a few decades earlier, if only the war hadn't gotten in the way.)

Anyway, I've got more posts to plow through here, but I did want to respond to this one:

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: FWIW, the film has more references to Christianity, more prayer, and
: more positive portrayals of men of faith than any of his films since Witness.
: (In fact, I'd argue it is more positive about faith than even that film.)

Could you flesh this out a bit more?

Jeffrey Wells wrote:
: I recommend this to all guys out there as a girlfriend character-indicator
: thing. If she says she'd rather not see this film, or if she sees it and goes
: "naah...not for me," dump her. Really. The same way you should dump
: any girl who doesn't like to go camping because she's afraid of bugs or
: something.

Heh. My girlfriend was actually interested in this film, but I ended up seeing it without her because our schedules just didn't work out, and besides, she doesn't mind putting off watching films until they're out on video anyway. She liked my description of the film, though.

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: I'm giving the film an A-, and at this point I still think Fearless is a better
: Weir film. (It's at least a braver one when it comes to the risks he takes
: as a storyteller.)

Pfeh! Bravery is no guarantee of excellence. (I am reminded of Ken Eisner's review of In the Cut, which begins with him saying something like, "It's easy to say that Meg Ryan was brave for taking on this role, but the film is proof that some risks aren't worth taking.")

: And while it suffers a bit from being another Men Being Manly and
: Teaching Boys and Men How to Be Manly film . . .

Um, in what way does the film "suffer" because of this? Do you want a film that is accurate to the period in which it takes place, or not?

: This film makes CGI water in other films look far less convincing. Nothing
: like the real thing. (Although I've read that some of these shots ARE
: CGI, which blows my mind.) Show me which ones!

Yeah, I noticed a reference to this in the credits at the end. I also noticed that the miniatures were built by Richard Taylor and the other folks at Weta Workshop.

: There are a few emergency surgery scenes that had me digging my
: fingers into the arm rest of the chair and gritting my teeth. Ow.

But you gotta love the way the crew were so fascinated by the operation on the one guy's head!

Oh, and speaking of predictable moments, how about that prolonged farewell between the two boys, when they both say they look forward to meeting again after the battle? You just KNOW that at least one of them is gonna be a goner!

: Finally, I've got to comment on the soundtrack. Wells compliments the
: film composer, but most of the film's musical impact comes from
: Variations on a Theme by Thomas Tallis, one of my favorite pieces of
: classical music. It is used very effectively.

I don't know which particular piece you're referring to, but I did recognize some of the music and I agree that it was all very effective.

: An Oscar nomination for the late Thomas Tallis may be in order.

Ha! If they won't allow Aimee Mann's 'Magnolia' to be nominated for Magnolia because it was originally written for Jerry Maguire, then they sure as heck aren't going to nominate any long-dead classical composers! Though it's an interesting question -- should there be an award for ADAPTED music, the way that there is for adapted screenplays?

Further to our discussion of the film's pre-Darwinian subtext ...

Jeffrey Overstreet wrote:
: Bettany plays the ship's doctor, a man who is both fascinated by the idea
: of evolution and yet does not disagree that the changes that come about
: in creatures are caused by both their own efforts and God.

Of course, BOTH ideas are essentially non-Darwinian, because they imply intentionality on the part of God and/or the creatures; whereas Darwin, to quote the BBC's page on him,

rejected the idea that God had created the Galapagos Island birds to match the nuts found there, and he rejected the idea that the birds could deliberately modify themselves to grow big beaks. His alternative was shocking because it relied instead on entirely random change. Some finches would be born with bigger beaks than others. On the Galapagos Islands some nuts were big and hard and when there was insufficient food for all, the ones with the bigger beaks would get more nuts, would grow bigger and stronger, and would be better able to withstand the weather and live long enough to find mates.

Consequently the bigger-beaked finches would generally have more babies than those with smaller beaks. In the next generation the same thing would happen again. This gradual process of change, known as 'survival of the fittest', suggested that the birds most fit for the environment were most likely to reproduce. After many generations of natural selection, some finches would come to have big beaks where big beaks were most appropriate for the local environment, but other species of finch would evolve where other nuts existed.

So where would this leave the Bettany character, I wonder.

Peter T Chattaway wrote:

Of course, BOTH ideas are essentially non-Darwinian, because they imply intentionality on the part of God and/or the creatures

Actually, the quote you supply doesn't quite establish Darwin as rejecting the idea that God "changed" the Galapagos fauna -- only the idea that God had "created" them that way to begin with. There's a difference.

Of course the piece does go on to speak of "entirely random change," but it goes on to describe a process (survival of the fittest) that isn't at all "random," though it's not "deliberate" either, but which might be argued to be compatible with the notion of "God changing" the animals.

(Of course Darwinism in that form is untenable -- species are not infinitely malleable, and the range of genetic variability in a species in conjunction with environmental pressures will never give rise to a different species -- so it's necessary to bring in mutation to make the theory viable.)

SDG wrote:
: Actually, the quote you supply doesn't quite establish Darwin as rejecting
: the idea that God "changed" the Galapagos fauna -- only the idea that
: God had "created" them that way to begin with. There's a difference.

I don't believe the quote itself uses the phrase "to begin with", so I do not assume that the word "create" refers only to a single unique event at the dawn of time.

: Of course the piece does go on to speak of "entirely random change,"
: but it goes on to describe a process (survival of the fittest) that isn't at all
: "random," though it's not "deliberate" either, but which might be argued
: to be compatible with the notion of "God changing" the animals.

True, natural selection is not exactly "random", but the features that are selected through that process ARE generally thought to be random mutations. I suppose one could not rule out that God was deliberately introducing mutations into the creatures' offspring, though.