Douce Audrina: l'enfant sans passé

Once again, Lifetime TV attempts to adapt a novel by the much loved cult author V.C. Andrews. The Dollanganger series was a mixed bag, successful in some ways, but failing when they made alterations to the source material. "My Sweet Audrina" falls victim to the same kind of amateurish "tweaking" of the original story.

To be fair, Lifetime didn't have so much to work with, as this novel wasn't really the author's best work, unlike the Dollanganger series, which was a huge success all over the world. This film is successful on some levels, such as the set design and cinematography being really gorgeous, as well as the mostly unknown cast. The house in which the drama takes place is a visual treat that will please fans of Gothic and romantic architecture. I just wish the script had been more like the novel. Yes, it is a rather strange book, and I imagine Lifetime didn't want to gamble on something that would put off their usual audience. So what we get is less of a Gothic horror/mystery, and more of an erotic thriller/soap opera production that Lifetime TV is known to produce. What a shame; the books were immensely popular, and the movie could have garnered more attention if it had been a bit more unique and daring. As it stands, "My Sweet Audrina" is still worth a look as a curiosity piece for fans of the V.C. Andrews books. It's surprising that this weird book was ever made into a movie in the first place.

V.C. Andrews is a great writer, her movies are beautifully reproduced in these telemovies MySweet Audrina is no exception, and the addition of the music box music makes the story complete, Other notables are Heaven and of course Flowers In The Attic. It is such a refreshing change to all these Marvel vs DC movies. Class is the only way to describe these Stories.

Having not read the novel it originated from, I was able to go into My Sweet Audrina totally cold with no knowledge of the story except that it was billed as a creepy, gothic family drama much like V. C. Andrews' more popular Flowers in the Attic which I enjoyed.

Perhaps it was the Lifetime trope of speeding up the events of the story to squeeze in as much into 90 minutes as possible that caused this movie to fall flat to me or maybe it was the awkward acting by just about everyone in the film, but this one was a dud to me. As I was watching, I could tell the concept and story itself were interesting and strong, but the adaptation felt off. The filmmakers aren't allowed to let moments flow naturally and everyone's at the same emotional pitch throughout most of the movie. Things happen so fast and there's not enough time for the actors, characters, or audience to deal with some of the pretty insane things that happen throughout the movie.

When she was nine-years-old, something awful happened to Audrina. This character is referred to as "the first Audrina." The tragedy has caused everyone to go crazy. The parents have another Audrina and try to protect her from the same awfulness by secluding her in the family mansion. This "second Audrina" is home-schooled. Also, she is forbidden to associate with the surrounding community. However, when a sexy piano teacher offers lessons, brooding papa James Tupper (as Damian Adare) lets the alluring young India Eisley (as Audrina) share the handsome man's piano seat. Strange. Modestly costumed, but in sultry make-up, Ms. Eisley's only friend is sisterly sexpot Tess Atkins (as Vera). Finally, although he supposedly only knows her as the village freak, muscular blond William Moseley (as Arden Lowe) has fallen madly in love with Eisley...

The above set-up really doesn't make much sense. However, the situations do become clear, by the end of the story. It's not a bad story, but what this TV movie does is show us the highlights in long family mystery. Unfortunately, events just happen. There is little attempt to build a mystery or piece them together. We are shown, not guided or told. The emphasis is clearly on sex fantasies. Apparently, this is the main thrust (sorry) of the assignment given director Mike Rohl and his crew. The performances are all highly sexualized. You don't see much sex, by the way, since this movie is geared toward foreplay and fantasy. The problem is... the story really wasn't about sex. The violent incident triggering the drama, and its repercussions, are lost in the mix. The best you can say that is everyone looks sexy and the photography, by James Liston, is outstanding.

**** My Sweet Audrina (2016-01-09) Mike Rohl ~ India Eisley, William Moseley, James Tupper, Tess Atkins

This movie is a total disgrace to the book. The book draws you in, but this piece of trash movie just makes you want to run away from the television.