No thread on this, although it pops up in our thread of 2006 Critics Top 10 lists, cited by National Board of Review and Rex Reed.

I checked it out because I’m a huge fan of director Nicholas Hytners film version of “The Crucible,” and I wanted to see what he did with another adaptation of a stage play. In this case, I was unfamiliar with the source material but had heard it pivoted on an accusation of sexual suggestiveness from a prep-school teacher toward one of his male students.

Several of the people involved with the making of this film are gay, and with the expressed subject matter, I worried that I might not be able to relate to the film. So I was very surprised at the extent to which I got caught up in it. It’s extremely well directed and acted. Although I’m bad with British accents, and at times felt like I was missing half of the dialogue, it’s to the film’s credit that my attention never lagged, even with the holes in my understanding of what was being said.

So, near the end, I was anticipating the opportunity to post here about the film—how much I admired it, how the homosexual angle didn’t seem overplayed, and how the film raises some interesting ideas about teaching methods. But The final 15 minutes of the film wiped out most of the goodwill the film had earned. It’s probably faithful to the play, so I can’t fault the filmmakers. But the story settles for being about sexuality more than anything else, and in a way that suggests a false form of freedom and individual development. It pretty much kills the movie, and frankly, that sucks, because the film is quite good up to that point.

Has anyone else seen the film, or the play on which it’s based?

I still haven't seen it, but one of my colleagues, Fiona Stewart, was impressed by it and wrote on it for Culturewatch.

I don't do this very often, but I want to encourage everyone here to read the review Tony linked to. To me, it's the epitome of what Christian criticism ought to be.

That's not a reflection on other Christian reviews, from which I've benefited, and continue to benefit. It's more my way of saying that the linked review epitomizes what I would like to see more of, especially in my own reviews, in terms of integration of the biblical ideas of truth.

Funny thing is, I think the review basically dodges the elements of the film that I didn't care for, while playing up the aspects that I found interesting. Oh well. To each his (her) own. Maybe I misread the film; maybe this reviewer did. Or maybe we chose to emphasize different aspects according to the weight we thought the film gave them.

In any event, a hearty thank to you, Tony, for pointing me to that review. Very stimulating.

You're very welcome; glad you found it so helpful.

As for whether Fiona dodged the issue or focused the article on another one: if I remember rightyly she decided to keep the focus on the interrelationship of knowledge, truth and history, which is central to the film. To address questions of sexuality would compromise the article's focus - which, I would think, is one of the qualities of the article which Christian has appreciated.

But it does make me reflect on the question of when does focusing become dodging? Tricky.

I think if a writer believes that a particular issue is the one to focus on, and prefers not to muddy the waters by introducing others - especially contentious ones - then I think it's entirely reasonable and defensible. If a writer uses that as an excuse for avoiding saying difficult things, then it gets a little harder. But it's something we've all done. What if a writer doesn't know what to say? I've been there too. I guess whatever we do is done out of a mixture of motives, and only the writer him/herself really knows where the balance lies.

Of course, as we all know too well, it's very easy for a reader to come along and say, 'They bottled out/dodged the issue!' But often we can't easily judge a writer's apparent motivations, never mind really knowing the true motivations.

All of which is not to say that Fiona was a cowardly issue-dodger! Far from it.