It has been a while since I have seen this film so I can't remember everything, but I'm going write a blurb based on how I remember feeling after viewing it. One aspect of the movie was brilliant and another was poor.
The movie was generally boring to me and I fault the director for that. It felt like a filmed play, which may have been the intention, as it was originally a play. But I don't think it worked. The most engaging performance was that of Patrick Magee, who was already a seasoned film actor at the time, and I truly believe he helped bring much of the cinematic qualities. The rest of the performances felt amateurish, relatively, since portraying those who are mentally disturbed allows for more suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience. The pacing needed to be more dynamic but it wasn't. And I would have liked it to be more pleasant to the eye with better photography and set design -- some eye candy to keep the interest. I say that because what ends up happening is that words become the main focus. Focusing entirely on words takes away the essence of a film. You have the opportunity to include so much subtlety and such a unique perspective and to not have it seems a shame.
But now there is the other side. The screenplay, the story and the concepts are nothing short of phenomenal. It is highly academic but not arrogant and is very rewarding if the investment in understanding the history relied on is made. So interesting was the commentary and the philosophy it asserted and so clever was the manipulation and method by which it was illustrated. I give great credit to all of the writing involved.
Although, I was not impressed with this film either cinematically nor in the sense of a significant number of the performances, the rest was enough for me to award it a seven out of ten. I feel it was enough to make it worth viewing and I would love to see the play if directed as cleverly as the words deserve. It was smart and different... two commendable qualities that are in short supply.
The movie was generally boring to me and I fault the director for that. It felt like a filmed play, which may have been the intention, as it was originally a play. But I don't think it worked. The most engaging performance was that of Patrick Magee, who was already a seasoned film actor at the time, and I truly believe he helped bring much of the cinematic qualities. The rest of the performances felt amateurish, relatively, since portraying those who are mentally disturbed allows for more suspension of disbelief on the part of the audience. The pacing needed to be more dynamic but it wasn't. And I would have liked it to be more pleasant to the eye with better photography and set design -- some eye candy to keep the interest. I say that because what ends up happening is that words become the main focus. Focusing entirely on words takes away the essence of a film. You have the opportunity to include so much subtlety and such a unique perspective and to not have it seems a shame.
But now there is the other side. The screenplay, the story and the concepts are nothing short of phenomenal. It is highly academic but not arrogant and is very rewarding if the investment in understanding the history relied on is made. So interesting was the commentary and the philosophy it asserted and so clever was the manipulation and method by which it was illustrated. I give great credit to all of the writing involved.
Although, I was not impressed with this film either cinematically nor in the sense of a significant number of the performances, the rest was enough for me to award it a seven out of ten. I feel it was enough to make it worth viewing and I would love to see the play if directed as cleverly as the words deserve. It was smart and different... two commendable qualities that are in short supply.