The Blood Oranges

''My fiction,'' he goes on to say, ''is generally an evocation of the nightmare or terroristic universe in which human sexuality is destroyed by law, by dictum, by human perversity, by contraption, and it is this destruction I have attempted to portray and confront in order to be true to human fear and . . . Ruthlessness, but also in part to evoke its opposite, the moment of freedom from that constriction, from that restraint, and from death.''

I saw this movie just recently and liked it a lot. It's a different take on marriage and relationships and for that reason alone worth seeing. It's very different from the usual Hollywood version of romance and marriage. I once saw Hollywood described somewhere as a machine for making marriages, well this movie is an antidote. As a movie it's subtle and works through imagery and symbolism integrated into everyday reality and succeeds pretty much. John Dance does a great job and the supporting cast is just as good. The movie is perhaps summed up by the line utterance by John Dance's character Cyril: "Monogamy is the enemy of marriage". Many could be outraged at this movie, but it's just possible the movie has got it right.

(1997) The Blood Oranges DRAMA

Adapted from the novel by John Hawkes co-written and directed by Phillip Haas has open marriage couple of Cyril(Charles Dance) narrating him and his wife, Fiona (Sheryl Lee) while settling down in the ruins of Illyria, soon succumbing to be friendly with a middle age couple of three kids stuck onto a stream wile riding on their van. The couple, is an one arm photographer name Hugh (Colin Lane) and his wife Catherine (Laila Robins). While his wife gives in to temptation Hugh on the other hand is reserve. And the movie flashbacks between past and present, which may lead to heartbreak for it is just a matter of when and what happened.

Viewers understand what Hugh's objective was as he is a photographer of natives, but it's like why did the husband chose to stay when he has the opportunity to leave some place else as Illyria is not the country that has natives.

I have seen in various places negative comments about this film, but I found it engaging and well done. The characters are complex,interesting,human, and don't fit the usual stereotypes. The situation is not at all formulaic. I can see how some people may not get this film, or may be turned off or threatened by the subject matter, which has to do with people exploring alternative forms of intimate relationships, sometimes successfully, sometimes not. The acting is very good, especially Charles Dance - plus you get to see him sans clothing a few times, if you like that kind of thing, which I do. Sheryl Lee is kind of an odd actress, and it's kind of an odd character. The narrative, told from Cyril's point of view, goes back and forth in time, and the way it's structured creates a mystery that hints at tragedy. Cyril is a fascinating character, seemingly laid back, but you get a sense he's controlling everything under the surface. Wonderfully nuanced acting from Charles Dance. The film has tons of one my favorite things - moral ambiguity. Is it really Illyria, or is it Cyril's little kingdom - and does it matter? Now I want to read the book to dig further into the many layers of the story and characters.

While the acting wasn't fantastic, I found the movie interesting from the point of view of the way the open marriage of Fiona and Cyril was explored, and how it was treated by people viewing it from the outside. And how the new couple of Colin and Catherine reacted in different ways to the ideas presented, and how their feelings evolved.

I think that a lot was left out, and I am looking forward to reading the book to get some more of the background about why things happened they way they did, and what the history of the two couples are.

I'd recommend watching this movie, but keep an open mind, and imagine how you would react, given the situations presented.