Oscar und Lucinda

The marketing for this film in America was absurd when compared to the real thing. I had seen the trailers, and as I am intrigued by anything with Ralph Fiennes, I took notice. However, the preview stressed an gambling-chance-obsessive fun aspect that I found less than compelling. Had the true soul and purpose of the movie come through in that two minute-long advert, I would have been hooked. As it was, I waited until it came out on video.

My expectations, coloured by this misleading trailer, were well exceeded. The film had to do with love and gambling, yes, but there were elements of faith, guilt, family, destiny and survival that were wholly ignored in the press. Ralph Fiennes is marvellous as a disheveled and uncertain faithful, with a boyish charm and utter purity that is difficult to portray without seeming slow-witted or unlikeable. Cate Blanchett, who has received a tremendous amount of notice for her recent portrayal of Elizabeth, is a fountain of strength, charm, capricious abandon, intelligence and sensuality. Like her minor role in _Paradise Road_, she steals scenes and breaks hearts with an undeniable charisma and resolve.

Set in Australia, the story is surprising, and ultimately shocking in its constrast of the ideal and the real. I was moved, and thoroughly impressed with this movie. This is a romance for those who are tired of the predictable, the trite and the overworked. The scenery is beautiful, and the direction is both soft and unflinching. A wonderful achievement.

--Salome

England, mid-19th century. Lucinda is a wealthy Australian heiress with a love of glass, resulting in her buying a glass factory. Oscar is a young Anglican priest. Both have a gambling addiction, though Oscar has been very successful with this pastime. Lucinda builds a church made entirely of glass and transports it to Australia. On the ship she meets Oscar, setting off a dramatic chain of events.

Good, but not great. Had massive potential - it was compelling viewing for the first 60% or so of the movie. But then it takes a rather random turn, a turn which should have just been a minor detour but becomes the ultimate plot line.

Great performance from Ralph Fiennes and a good one from Cate Blanchett. Good support from Ciaran Hinds.

I don't know what it is about Ralph Fiennes and Booker Prize-winning novels (like 1996's THE ENGLISH PATIENT), but this shows him to have a pretty good track record with them. This novel was extremely difficult to follow, but director Gillian Armstrong, who also did a good job with her adaptation of the more straightforward LITTLE WOMAN, cuts through the confusing storyline to make an entertaining and thoughtful film about gambling, religion, and, of course, love. She and writer Laura Jones can't quite defeat some of the overdone symbolism of the novel (like the glass church), but for the most part, this avoids the stateliness of many literary adaptations by being alive.

Fiennes took awhile to warm up for me as Oscar, because this is a more outwardly nervous character than he's ever played before, and the voice he uses takes getting used to as well. Once I got over that, I enjoyed his performance. But the real star here is Cate Blanchett as Lucinda; she is simply enchanting, and you can really see the fire in her eyes. The supporting cast is excellent as well.

This is one of my favorite movies. Regular readers of my comments will wonder why I elevate it to my "must see" category

Part of the reason I want you to see it is because of how well it pairs with Cate's masterpiece, "Heaven." Now, that film can stand on its own as a transcendent cinematic experience. It easily shifts us from a "real" world into one more magical and over the course of the experience that distance increases.

It took Kieslowski's notion of cinematic distance and added the journey to that distance. It is one of the most important successful experiments in cinema and it owes much to the collaboration of Cate.

That reflects on this. A smaller project. A less ambitious director, but still with an affecting emotional directness. A pre-existing story that has literary strengths that become cinematic defects. And yet there is that same collaboration with the creating of an alternative magical reality fueled by obsession.

There is that same smooth slide from here to there. There is that same equating of wilderness (a Herzogian river) to the internal landscape. The same trigger of the gamble.

And also, there is the remarkable glass chapel. One shot has it moving down the river, but it seems as if it is floating through the trees. You are dead if that does not stick with you for years.

Alas, not much is made of a central image in the book — the tensed glass tears that explode when gently traced at their origin.

The major flaw is Fiennes. Both brothers have a sort of forehead acting style which unravels much of the subtleties of Cate's acting by breathing. But she is so breathtaking an actress in both these films, even though she is only the referent in the last part of this.

See the two films in one night. Any order.

Ted's Evaluation -- 4 of 3: Every cineliterate person should experience this.

I wandered by it in the video-store a couple times before deciding to rent it. After seeing it, I wondered why this wonderful film wasn't in more places.

Ralph Fiennes and Cate Blanchett are dazzling in their roles, as a aqua-phobic priest and a defiant glassworks business woman. The scenes with them together are simple radiant.

The church floating scenes are also brilliantly audacious and thrilling.

One of the ten best of 1997.