Oscar e Lucinda

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.

Do you like great acting? I mean something subtle where an actor's face is like an artist's brush or music by a fine composer. In this film Ralph Fiennes and Cate Blanchett are the virtuosos and they simply dazzled me with their talent.

The main story of Oscar and Lucinda is not very original, a tragic love story. The film does involve pre 1900 English characters that present some basic dilemmas of life. How strange the English of the 1800's seem today. Their repressed world can make an interesting contrast to the lives of free spirits and native cultures.

The dilemma Oscar and Lucinda gives us is that if we follow our feelings and obsessions, we will break away from many silly and confining customs. But such devotion to feeling taken too far can lead a person to commit hideous acts. Oscar and Lucinda goes to the heart of many of these conflicts which are also touched upon by the fine film, The Piano, and by the more obvious and superficial Sirens.

With such weighty issues, there is much hand wringing guilt by several characters. And all of that gets in the way of the love story which was alright with me but may bother some.

There are a few novelistic touches (why use the flashback technique a la Fried Green Tomatoes at all) that felt unnecessary. But these are minor points. The talented director Gillian Armstrong finely crafts many of the scenes and keeps the story moving. As a final dilemma, even though Western Civilization has tragically spoiled much of the beauty of the natural world, it has also created beautiful, finely acted films such as this.

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.

film of a state. not an ordinary one, not easy to define it , unique, provocative, refuge and desert, giving brilliant performances and special atmosphere. a film for remind. old lectures, pictures and situations, characters and meets. and, in same measure, good opportunity to escape. in a fragile, convincing, ambiguous universe. it is a film who must see. for performances and for great cinematography. for lovely trip in the essence of things. and for the delicate portrait of life. and, maybe, for the flavor of a surprising parable. it is it. a trip. across vulnerable worlds and steps in the middle of a kind of fairy tale.

This beautifully made romance has an odd appeal. I only ranked it a seven, because it has some flaws - the complicated story is is not rendered clearly in all its details (I could not figure out what was going on with the Reverend Haslitt, for example) and the style tends towards a gothic/romantic manneredness in places.

All the same, I recommend it for anyone who can tolerate the genre. I love these two actors, Ralph Fiennes and Cate Blanchett. They and the supporting cast, including the bit parts, fill out their roles with life, warmth and poignancy. There are numerous evocative touches in the details of the production - the mysterious moving church in the opening scene, for example, the music, the costumes, and the sets. The story is unique, original, character-based, and there are some unexpected flashes of insight into human nature.