Atonement

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

FitzChivalry

Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Messages
6,300
Location
At the bottom of the ocean, in the deepest sea
951_Atonement%20Pic.JPG



Anybody else seen this, yet? Or interested in seeing it?

I saw it last night. I really liked it. I wouldn't say it hit the level of "Great", but it was definitely very good.

It's basically a film in 3 acts (with the 1st act being the longest and the last act being less than 10 minutes). What kept it from being Great for me was that the 1st Act was SO GOOD and captivating, that the rest of the film never really rose to the same level.

All the actors gave really good performances, especially the actress who played the young Briony, who was phenomenally effective in her role.

I've never been the biggest Keira Knightly fan, but I thought she was really good in this movie. She gives a quick look in one scene where she dismisses a servant, which to me showed she was completely in character. And I thought she handled her lines in the library scene quite well.

At times it verges on melodrama, but it has enough bite and depth to keep reining it back in.

I'd definitely recommend it if you like WWII period pieces mixed with sex. :ohmy:


:wink:
 
I really enjoyed it, too. Great film. I especially related to and loved the little girl. She actually felt more like a real person than the 2 lovers. I don't wanna ruin it for those who haven't seen it.

The first time I saw it, I had trouble sleeping the night before and was quite tired. I much preferred it the second time.

My brother also noted how well the WWII atmosphere was captured -- not the carnage of battle, but the left-over misery and frustration. He felt this film did this better than any other he'd seen -- far better than "Saving Private Ryan" which focussed on the fighting.
 
Those of you who have seen it - have you also read the book? And if so, what did you think of it?
 
I haven't seen it, but I have read the book... And if the film is anywhere near as good as the book is, it should be incredible!
 
I saw 'Atonement' a couple of weekends ago and I really, really loved it. I read the book a few years ago now, so I was excited to see the film - it's one of my favourite books.

I actually felt quite devastated by this film, I felt really moved by it - it was beautifully done. I'm not much of a Keira Knightly fan either, but I think she does a wonderful job in this film.

I very much liked her green dress :drool:
 
I think this film warrants its own thread.

Not being the biggest Keira Knightly fan as well, I still really want to see this film. I love WWII/I period films, and British/Commonwealth ones at that. I heard the one scene where James McAvoy is walking, and it's a non-stop camera piece, is supposed to be amazing.

In fact, I think I'm going to watch this tonight.

FitzChivalry, I really liked your review of the film. The way you explained it got me hooked.
 
Slipstream said:
I think this film warrants its own thread.

Not being the biggest Keira Knightly fan as well, I still really want to see this film. I love WWII/I period films, and British/Commonwealth ones at that. I heard the one scene where James McAvoy is walking, and it's a non-stop camera piece, is supposed to be amazing.

In fact, I think I'm going to watch this tonight.

FitzChivalry, I really liked your review of the film. The way you explained it got me hooked.

Thanks. :wink:

And yes, the LOOOOOOOOONG tracking shot on the beach is AMAZING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and, also, very powerful! :yes:

Really good film. :up:
 
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a hard time believing the Dunkirk shot is a tracking shot. Seemed like a sure Steadicam shot to me. But I don't know that for a fact, that's just what it looked like.
 
Lancemc said:
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I have a hard time believing the Dunkirk shot is a tracking shot. Seemed like a sure Steadicam shot to me. But I don't know that for a fact, that's just what it looked like.

"Perhaps the highest possible praise for such cinematic devices would echo that of umpires in baseball -- they're doing their job well when no one even notices them.
New York Times film critic A.O. Scott, however, said the "Atonement" shot's only impression is: " 'Wow, that's quite a tracking shot,' when it should be 'My God, what a horrible experience that must have been.' "



I almost posted this article before
so here it is now

History of long tracking shots rolls in film lore

'Atonement' is the latest movie to use this tough cinematic device. And Orson Welles did it without a Steadicam.
By Jake Coyle
Associated Press

December 28, 2007

NEW YORK -- The story of the long tracking shot would be best told in one take.

Our camera could begin with Orson Welles' "Touch of Evil," pass through Jean-Luc Godard's "Week End" and Martin Scorsese's "Goodfellas" and finally arrive at the latest installment in the canon: Joe Wright's "Atonement."

Through cinema history, audacious, lengthy tracking shots have captivated filmmakers and movie buffs who marvel at their grace and choreography. In a medium predicated on storytelling through the juxtaposition of images, the long tracking shot is the cinematic equivalent of a no-hitter in baseball: rare, untouched and very difficult to pull off.

In the middle of "Atonement," a 5 1/2 -minute shot unfolds as Robbie (James McAvoy), a British soldier in World War II, comes upon France's Dunkirk beach, where the final point in the British retreat from the Germans is portrayed as a grim circus of defeat and chaos.

In the Ian McEwan novel from which the movie was adapted, the scene is described in just a few pages. McEwan writes: "It was a rout and this was its terminus." On film, though, it took a lot more doing.

The scene was composed with 1,000 extras, a number of horses and vehicles on the beach, and (digitally added) ships off the coast. It all cost a sizable chunk of the film's estimated $30-million production budget and had to be shot in one day.

That's how long the extras were available, and that small time frame is what initially drove Wright and his director of photography, Seamus McGarvey, to stage the single long shot, rather than squeeze in a dozen separate setups.

"It was conceived out of necessity," Wright said in a recent interview. "We had one day with the extras and then the small issue of the tide coming in and washing away the entire set."

While the tide was out and the light was right, Wright and his crew managed 3 1/2 takes -- the fourth finally exhausting Steadicam operator Peter Robertson. (They used the third take.)

During production on other scenes, Robertson's course was mapped out, meandering through the shambled beach -- sometimes on foot, sometimes riding on a motorized cart.

"When we were making it, I didn't see it in the context of the classic tracking shot, or the history of great tracking shots," said Wright, whose "Pride & Prejudice" included a long shot, as did his British TV film "Charles II." "It felt much, much smaller than that."

But, of course, the shot has been received precisely in that context.

Variety Deputy Editor Anne Thompson blogged: "This shot has its admirers and detractors. It's a stunning shot, but does it take the viewer out of the movie, or serve a dramatic purpose? . . . I for one get a kick out of bravura shots like this, whether it's Martin Scorsese, Brian De Palma, Robert Altman, Orson Welles, Antonioni or Alfonso Cuaron."

Perhaps the highest possible praise for such cinematic devices would echo that of umpires in baseball -- they're doing their job well when no one even notices them.

New York Times film critic A.O. Scott, however, said the "Atonement" shot's only impression is: " 'Wow, that's quite a tracking shot,' when it should be 'My God, what a horrible experience that must have been.' "

Any discussion of tracking shots typically begins with Welles' opening to 1958's "Touch of Evil," when Charlton Heston and Janet Leigh walk unknowingly alongside a car with explosives in its trunk.

Welles, by then a veteran director, had with director of photography Gregg Toland pioneered the use of deep focus on Welles' first film, 1941's "Citizen Kane." That meant more realism and fluidity for the camera, which could now present a foreground, middle ground and background. The apotheosis of this is reached in tracking shots that hold a film's realism for long periods.

"For the actors, they really enjoy them because you're in a situation where there's a fourth wall created," Wright said. "There's no area on the set they have to imagine; it's all in front of them."

Among the most famous is Godard's 10-minute shot in "Week End" in which a couple is stranded in a traffic jam, as well as Mikhail Kalatozov's acrobatic shot in 1964's "I Am Cuba." The conclusion to Michelangelo Antonioni's "The Passenger" (1975) is revered, as is Scorsese's legendary shot in "Goodfellas" in which Ray Liotta and Lorraine Bracco enter the Copacabana.

Some films have attempted to push the limits of uncut film, beginning with Alfred Hitchcock's "Rope" (1948), which he had wanted to film in one take but settled for 10. In 2002, Aleksandr Sokurov achieved Hitchcock's goal with "Russian Ark," a film that portrays three centuries of Russian history in one shot.

Many of these shots have become a matter of movie lore and are often paid homage. Altman composed a comic and highly self-reflexive eight-minute tracking shot to open "The Player" (1992), featuring characters discussing the "Touch of Evil" shot. In Doug Liman's "Swingers" (1996), his characters worshipfully chat about Scorsese's "Goodfellas" achievement.

Paul Thomas Anderson has made the tracking shot a trademark of his, particularly in "Boogie Nights" (1997) and "Magnolia" (1999).

Technology has helped a new generation of filmmakers accomplish increasingly daring tracking shots, particularly with the use of Steadicams. Cuaron's "Children of Men" (2006) featured several lengthy shots,including a daring Steadicam- and crane-aided shot during a shoot-out.

"One has to completely bow to the fact that when Orson Welles did the 'Touch of Evil' shot, he didn't have a Steadicam," Wright said. "Steadicams have totally liberated the tracking shot."
 
deep said:


"Perhaps the highest possible praise for such cinematic devices would echo that of umpires in baseball -- they're doing their job well when no one even notices them.
New York Times film critic A.O. Scott, however, said the "Atonement" shot's only impression is: " 'Wow, that's quite a tracking shot,' when it should be 'My God, what a horrible experience that must have been.' "


I think I was about 1/2 and 1/2. I do remember noting what a magnificent, beautiful shot it was. But I also remember thinking God, how horrible. To finally get there and then have to wait, and wait through all of that!

I'll probably end up seeing it again, and we'll see what dominates, technique or emotion, upon a 2nd viewing.

I think I still love the first "act" at the mansion best. It was such a normal, non-threatening setting, but Wright made it threatening and frantic and creepy and tense. There were some wonderful, different style shots in that first act, and he just had such control to make it look so odd and menacing.

Yeah, I'll definitely have to see this one again.
 
Looks like "tracking shot" has earned itself a much more liberal definition than I was originally taught. I still think it's worth differentiating between dolly shots, true tracking shots, and the ever-more-common steadicam shots.

And I don't think A.O. Scott's comment is really that true. I strongly believe most casual viewers, who didn't read about it in a review or somewhere, have no idea what a "tracking shot" even is, or are aware that they're seeing one during that scene, or that most of them would even think "Wow, that's a really impressive camera movement." They're either going to be engaged in the scene or they're not, separate from the technical achievements. More hardcore cinephiles are going to notice such things though, and they'll criticize that aspect as well. When I saw the film I thought "Wow, that's a really beautiful moment" as much as I thought "Wow, that's a really impressive steadicam shot and production design."
 
I thought it was a beautiful film, Keira and James were excellent in it. Saoirse Ronan too. Keira just gets more beautiful in every movie. Definitely one to see in a theater.

Keira has said that James McAvoy is the best kisser of any actor she has ever worked with, it was apparent :wink:
 
Last edited:
anitram said:
Those of you who have seen it - have you also read the book? And if so, what did you think of it?



just saw it, and i consider the book one of the best i've read in the past 5 years.

it's about a good a film adaptation as one could possibly make. it's very skillfully made, well acted, gorgeous where it needs to be, and the talked-about 5 minute continuous shot of the retreat at Dunkirk is mesmerizing (if a little showy).

is the book better? i dunno ... i hate comparing books to movies because they are so different. but both are worthy pieces of art that center upon the same essential story that i, personally, find absolutely devastating about how life harms, but art can heal, and apology is meaningless, but atonement can create new life.
 
Back
Top Bottom