This review is in part a response to the patently negative and, I felt, horribly inaccurate review given by rt61. I am by nature somewhat cynical, but rt61 beats me hands down in that department. Yes, there were aspects of the script that were clichéd (to condense the author's eloquent prose) but at no point did I feel "bludgeoned" by the film's themes. Given the volume of material produced, it's probably pretty hard to AVOID clichés these days, in either film or literature, when it comes to the subjects of following your heart and standing for your dreams - both topics are done to death by American move makers. In my view, the treatment of those clichéd topics was not of itself clichéd. I also didn't feel that these topics were by any means the main elements of the film.
The writer says the film is supposed to be about "normal people leading normal lives". Oh really? How is the story of Jamaicans trying to adapt to life in post-war Britain, and what they had to go through to do so, in any way normal?? How many Jamaicans did that? Dozens? One or two hundred? I have no idea, but I doubt the numbers were large enough to warrant the way the Jamaicans were living in post-war Britain being labelled "normal". Of course a world war is a watershed event, but the war itself was peripheral to the story; it was merely the catalyst for Michael and Gilbert leaving Jamaica to go to the defence of and utimately living in the "mother country". To me this aspect of the film is about British colonialism and its consequences, not remotely about the war.
Next the writer states that "the only racists in the film are Americans, not British (conveniently whitewashing history - recall that the concept of the White Man's Burden was invented by Englishman Rudyard Kipling)". Did he/she actually watch the film? To the best of my recall there was only one scene in two hours portraying racism that involved Americans - that involving the soldiers and MPs when Arthur is shot; thereafter, one Briton after another, including Queenie's neighbours and returned husband, made life miserable for the Jamaicans. The racism portrayed was not exaggerated - that's exactly the way it was. Nor were the Jamaicans portrayed as lily white (!) just because they were black.
Quote: Perhaps more egregious than the act itself is that the film clearly wants to portray her adultery as "sympathetic," as if she had no choice in the matter, as if that was the only way she would experience "true love in life," her husband, who was off at war, be damned.
Again ... oh really? I did not see that the film (sic) wanted to do anything of the sort. I don't believe the film makers were trying to place any particular spin on the events which took place. I certainly felt sympathy and admiration for Queenie when she gave up her child but did not feel sympathetic towards her for having had an affair. She just did. People do. People always have and always will. People fall in love inappropriately, within and outside racial boundaries - ditto the do, did and always will. Telling a story involving these events doesn't make the film makers guilty of accepting or trying to engender acceptance of them. There are many, many Hollywood movies patently accepting of and even promoting immoral sexual behaviour, drug use and so forth that I would take issue with long before complaining about Queenie's brief affair with the feckless Michael when she was lonely and had never before experienced physical love - certainly not with her wet wimp of a husband.
Enough with the rant about the flaws I perceived (note, I PERCEIVED) in someone else's review. For my part, I thoroughly enjoyed the storyline, the characters and the locations. There was just enough lightness to balance the weightiness of the topics of racism and so forth. The always-brilliant David Oleyowo was endearing as Gilbert, Naomie Harris excruciatingly convincing as the anglophile Hortense, and Ruth Wilson made a great and understated job of portraying Queenie.
If there was one big negative for me it was the schmaltzy voice over - unnecessary and sometimes at downright inappropriate moments. Overall though, two hours well spent.
The writer says the film is supposed to be about "normal people leading normal lives". Oh really? How is the story of Jamaicans trying to adapt to life in post-war Britain, and what they had to go through to do so, in any way normal?? How many Jamaicans did that? Dozens? One or two hundred? I have no idea, but I doubt the numbers were large enough to warrant the way the Jamaicans were living in post-war Britain being labelled "normal". Of course a world war is a watershed event, but the war itself was peripheral to the story; it was merely the catalyst for Michael and Gilbert leaving Jamaica to go to the defence of and utimately living in the "mother country". To me this aspect of the film is about British colonialism and its consequences, not remotely about the war.
Next the writer states that "the only racists in the film are Americans, not British (conveniently whitewashing history - recall that the concept of the White Man's Burden was invented by Englishman Rudyard Kipling)". Did he/she actually watch the film? To the best of my recall there was only one scene in two hours portraying racism that involved Americans - that involving the soldiers and MPs when Arthur is shot; thereafter, one Briton after another, including Queenie's neighbours and returned husband, made life miserable for the Jamaicans. The racism portrayed was not exaggerated - that's exactly the way it was. Nor were the Jamaicans portrayed as lily white (!) just because they were black.
Quote: Perhaps more egregious than the act itself is that the film clearly wants to portray her adultery as "sympathetic," as if she had no choice in the matter, as if that was the only way she would experience "true love in life," her husband, who was off at war, be damned.
Again ... oh really? I did not see that the film (sic) wanted to do anything of the sort. I don't believe the film makers were trying to place any particular spin on the events which took place. I certainly felt sympathy and admiration for Queenie when she gave up her child but did not feel sympathetic towards her for having had an affair. She just did. People do. People always have and always will. People fall in love inappropriately, within and outside racial boundaries - ditto the do, did and always will. Telling a story involving these events doesn't make the film makers guilty of accepting or trying to engender acceptance of them. There are many, many Hollywood movies patently accepting of and even promoting immoral sexual behaviour, drug use and so forth that I would take issue with long before complaining about Queenie's brief affair with the feckless Michael when she was lonely and had never before experienced physical love - certainly not with her wet wimp of a husband.
Enough with the rant about the flaws I perceived (note, I PERCEIVED) in someone else's review. For my part, I thoroughly enjoyed the storyline, the characters and the locations. There was just enough lightness to balance the weightiness of the topics of racism and so forth. The always-brilliant David Oleyowo was endearing as Gilbert, Naomie Harris excruciatingly convincing as the anglophile Hortense, and Ruth Wilson made a great and understated job of portraying Queenie.
If there was one big negative for me it was the schmaltzy voice over - unnecessary and sometimes at downright inappropriate moments. Overall though, two hours well spent.
