The Blood Oranges

(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.

Sheryl Lee gets to play a dull-witted strumpet--now isn't that creative! Her supposed love interest, Colin Lane, is no heart-throb, but does get to play a tight-arsed boor. Charles Dance is good and likable, but cannot save this turkey. The decayed, picturesque Latin American village is photographed gorgeously, but the movie is better with the sound off.

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.

I got this for my "Charles Dance" collection. Had seen "Angels and Insects", like many others, so that added to the appeal. Hope the book was better. The premise was fine - an attempt at a somewhat surreal tale of sexual intrigue. Aside from Dance, however, the performances were stilted and silly (especially Sheryl Lee, even if she was supposed to sound like she did - it was a distraction). The dialog certainly could have been written to better develop the characters. Pretty to look at, not enough erotica (and I don't mean soft porn, just erotic). But even Dance looked a bit silly with the "love lunch"...... I like it just enough to watch it again as part of my film library - and even to recommend it to friends who would see the value and look beyond the inane.

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.