Wunsch & Wirklichkeit

Fortunately for me, I stumbled on this film with absolutely no expectations--didn't even know the title until I looked it up on the IMDb! But it kept me watching, fascinated, for two hours (including commercials), and at the end I felt like I wanted to spend more time with it. It has romance, elegant atmosphere, a surprising plot, intriguing themes, and good actors...so, while the pacing and direction sometimes seem a touch stilted, I'd definitely watch it again.

I'm a bit baffled that everyone who finds fault with this film picks on the story. For me, the story was the strong point: it had some truly surprising twists and grew from the complexities and relationships of a range of fully drawn characters--a luxury most films, with their flat cardboard characters, don't offer. And the references to Virginia Woolf, also singled out for criticism by many viewers, actually served to enrich and illuminate the ways the film dealt with the tragic inability of a woman to escape the double standard. In the world of the film, where even a seemingly perfect husband could with no warning transform into a tyrant, even a woman who thought she had it all could be trapped by a paucity of choices.

That makes it sound like a preachy feminist movie, which it isn't. In fact, those who enjoy good old-fashioned murder mysteries will get a kick out of it. Perfect it isn't, but I can think of far worse ways to spend a lazy evening.

I was looking for the Australian western of the same name and the Sundance credits writer got it wrong and roped me into this 1930s Boston Catholic melodrama. I still want to see the western, but this was not a bad misdirection.

Whoever cast A History of Violence had to see this film as William Hurt plays the same character in both films - marvelously, I might add. He is a rich Catholic businessman here instead of a mobster, but the basics are the same. He wants to give his wife (Madeleine Stowe in a great performance) a child and Viagra was not yet invented, so he hires someone (Neil Patrick Harris) to do the job. His only mistake was picking a 24-year-old who couldn't just take the money and walk away. OK, so we have a moral question here, but we ignore that for the movies sake.

Into his parish comes a new priest (Kenneth Branagh) and he jumps the Rabbit-Proof Fence, uses The Magic Flute, and we have an Alien Love Triangle. Didn't Richard Chamberlain do that naughty priest bit in The Thorn Birds? There is a lot of Catholic malfeasance, guilt and remorse and penance and symbolism here, but don't let that turn you off as it doesn't interfere with the story. And, no children were hurt in the making of this film.

There are some fine performances and an interesting story. You should check it out.

Kenneth Branagh, as expected, performed very well. What was difficult to absorb as "possible" were the Catholic religious elements depicted. They were wrong and inaccurate. For example, the Mass vestments were not correct. The conversations and characterizations of the pastor and the young priest, for that period of time (Boston in the late 30s, early 40s) were off key, to say the least. The plot was interesting, but the film was too long, and there was too much "symbolism", and the "next move" was always predictable. With such a fine cast, and a great story, the producers and the directors should have taken time to be more accurate and correct about details. Another example of the lack of care was the scene where the young priest is seen administering "Anointing of the Sick" [formerly called "Extreme Unction"] to a corpse about to be buried. This never happens and is actually forbidden in the RC Church. Dead people cannot receive "sacraments." Attention must be paid. Details, details, details. The truth is in the details. However, I did enjoy it. I think most people would find this film interesting and entertaining.

Great actors, good story - what went wrong? Kenneth Brannagh as a priest was an inspired choice of casting (If only all my priests were that ruggedly handsome & masculine, I would never miss confession!). William Hurt's presence, however, always seems to blur the edges of the characters he portrays. I never know where the character starts and the typical William Hurt begins (he did a great job though, I was almost convinced). Madeline Stowe is both brilliant and radiant as Eleanor (a pleasant surprise from her typically subdued ingénue roles!). Blythe Danner is a gem (as usual) even though she is horribly miscast, this lady is really foxy - far from the matronly and bitter spinster she plays. Neil Patrick Harris is always a treat (it's hard to forget him as "Doogie", he could play a cab driver and still be endearing and sweet).

It's amazing how art reflects life. The movie deals with death and I couldn't help grieving because this could have been such a great film. The story had (at the risk of being corny) all the timeless symbolism and core themes of love and life. I was excitedly anticipating to see how these themes (such as that of human creation, as dealt with through the issue of "baby-making", or the relationship between religion and gender etc. etc.) were fully explored. Stowe and Brannagh make a tantalizing pair. They remind me of some sort of "fully ripe" Adam and Eve! (their love scene could have been sooo much better).

Like I said, I kept wondering "What went wrong?" : The actors were exemplary (probably to overcompensate for the movie's weaknesses). The story itself was quite good but the plot line was seriously flawed. The cinematography was exquisite, but the scenes were poorly set up (there's one where saucy family secrets are revealed - where else? but in a soup kitchen!). I don't know much about the art of movie-making (movie-watching, maybe) but I think even a seasoned film professional will watch this movie with tears after seeing such a great cast and good concept go to waste. (Like I said, the movie is sad, unfortunately because of reasons other than it intended).

I propose that this movie be redone and soon! (With Brannagh, Stowe and everyone in it, except Hurt and Danner)- yeah right!

The other option is for it to remain as a prime example of when great acting meets a good movie idea, but the sparks just don't fly.

Watch it for the actors, and weep for the film.

Though there may have been some inconsistencies to real life, I enjoyed the movie and so did my friends and acquaintances...I was taken by the snowball effect...though some scenes could have been done differently...I accept it for exactly what it is...movie drama, not real life...some scenes were predictable and some I never saw coming...I was impressed with the job interview...the job...and then the transition from BOY to MANHHOOD and then the snowball effect that changes the lives of all persons involved including the priest...for me personally...the movie was well done...I am sure it could have been better but so could every movie once it has been seen and critiqued...GOOD JOB!