Orlando

Tilda Swinton was born for this role. She IS Orlando. But that preoccupation aside, the first striking aspect of this film is the costumes! It opens on a scene with Orlando in Elizabethan finery, and moves through several historical periods, not least of them 18th Century literary England. That's something to see. The film is, as you would expect, very literary. You don't need to have read the book, but a working knowledge of typical euro-centric history and literature is helpful, I guess. Quentin Crisp plays a perfect Queen Elizabeth, the grotesque Institution herself, opposite Swinton's birdish Orlando. The photography is clear and even luminous at times, and the story moves along quite well--I consistently wondered what would happen. The exploration of gender, while it was obviously "the point", was not overdone, in the last analysis. Our freakish Orlando turns out to be quite human, which is a relief. The film is very well done; Swinton is a rare bird, never boring, and not to be missed.

What in the world do we gather from this film. Tilda Swinton plays the never aging male/female lord/lady Orlando. Queen Elizabeth I is also played by the "wrong" sex.

When the young lord Orlando inherits the queens estate it's on the promise that he will always stay young and he does. What follows is a biography covering about 400 years and a sex change.

This is indeed a fun look at the roles held by the two sexes during the course of these centuries. Though it does play more or less as a drama it has large shades of comedy as well. For one we have Orlando often throwing a few comments to the viewers about the plot + the ridiculousness of the whole set-up.

Swinton is most certainly up for the challenge here. Portraying the ever changing lord/lady through this most strange journey. With wits and elegance this film comes off as one of the kind and something which should be experienced.

Though the film has exquisitely stunning visuals and everything looks absolutely beautiful, it just doesn't seem to grasp certain (I think:key) aspects of the book. It might be that their is way too much book to put in one film, but it does make the story less good and certain things would just have been much better, were they done like in the book. Many things just don't get enough time, though other things are added, or changed without making it better. I'd think that when you haven't read the book, you'd enjoy the film more, as always, but that even then you could see that some things could better be done differently. I'd recommend it though, because of the absolutely beautiful way everything is made. The sets are really beautiful and I give my compliments for those. Though the plot and how it is done in general lacks, how stunning everything looks makes it more than worth watching.

I saw Sally Potter's 1997 film 'The Tango Lesson' before I saw this more well-known one, but after viewing 'Orlando' I had the same overall impression of both--that is, I wish I could have enjoyed it as much as I admired it.

As a director Potter is a brilliant craftsman. Scenes are always compelling to look at; sometimes they are luscious, even stunning. Cinematography, art direction and costume design are outstanding. As a feast for the eye, Potter's films are hard to beat.

I have a little more trouble with the narrative, though. Trying to comprehend the meaning of Orlando made me feels like one of two scenarios is possible: (1) I'm a thick-headed Philistine that can't understand anything but the most literal story, or (2) the screenplay and its execution aren't up to handling such a difficult premise in an accessible manner. Even a bare-bones relating of the plot will show one that this is an extraordinarily ambitious and complex undertaking, and Potter's screenplay, which tends towards minimalism, is so obscure and just plain unfathomable at times (and aggressively so, as well) that it leaves me cold. If you're hoping to understand four hundred years of sexual politics by watching this movie, good luck, I don't think it does the best job of explaining things.

Again, as with the 'The Tango Lesson,' I would have to give the movie an overall positive rating, but only slightly, as the visual and the narrative elements are at loggerheads in my estimation. I would like to be able to praise it to the high heavens as a work of transcendent brilliance. Maybe one day I'll be so enlightened. Or maybe one day Ms. Potter will make a film that one can feel comfortable eating popcorn to while watching.

Orlando is a true original,and for that reason alone it deserves praise. It is sometimes irritating,partly because it refuses to answer so many questions it poses- for instance does Orlando actually travel forward in time in some scenes,or is it just time passing? Why does one other character,the Archduke Harry,also seem to live for ages? Some of the film's touches,such as Orlando's addresses to camera,do come across as a little pretentious. Even considering the short running time,the pace is at times extremely slow,but that is not always a bad thing. Those in search of an original film experience which provides plenty to talk about after could do far worse,and the film actually becomes more rewarding the more one sees it,because you can put up with the flaws and concentrate on the many remarkable things about this film.

The film is absolutely gorgeous to look at,so many shots look like they could be great paintings. The film has a unique atmosphere,as it passes through the centuries,it creates a highly stylized,almost fairytale-like view of the past-this is especially successful in the early Elizabethan scenes set around snow. Here there is a terrific sense of a world that may have existed only in Orlando's distant memory,although it must be said the low budget does often show. There is plenty of humor that becomes funnier with repeated viewings-how about the overwrought Victorian melodrama of the meeting between Orlando and Billy Zane's character? The film is also quite erotic in a subtle way that is hard to explain,but it's there.

And of course there is the unique Tilda Swinton-she may have become a star recently with The Chronicles of Narnia,but this is her defining role. No other film has used best her striking appearance,and her casual reaction to the things that happen to her,such as going to sleep as a man and waking up as a woman,provides some of the film's best moments.Of the other performances,Quentin Crisp is unforgettable in the early scenes as a really decrepit Queen Elizabeth,although Billy Zane,as usual,is somewhat wooden.

Virgnia Woolf's novel probably seems completely unfilmable to most people after they have read it,but this film does a great job of simplifying it and yet still retaining the essence. Whether you consider the film {as the novel is}a feminist tract,or just a very strange fantasy,it can be extremely rewarding if you have the patience for something that is at times as offbeat as they come. I should add here that this is now probably one of my favourite films,but I certainly didn't feel like that about it when I first saw it many years ago.