One wonders what motivates Ms Campion. Like Spike Lee, she seems to have one thing to say, and somehow believes that film is the right place. Well, never mind. In this particular film, she has reached me.
For film to be good, it has to place me where I would not go, and change me. This time, I was swept up in this seemingly simple drama: the wilds, unknown motives, undirected ideals, misplaced trust. The images were unique, and the acting superb. I saw Kate in Hamlet and wondered if this was the same woman I had seen in Titanic. Her Ophelia, a challenge for anyone, was delicately layered. I'll be interested in watching her grow. Somewhat gratifying to see someone without a Barbie figure being sexy.
What worries me is how Campion had to make the whole rest of the world comically surreal in order to focus on her duo. She controls this part, and then lets the central drama run wild. I think she really was beyond her limits with this central drama, but that's what makes it genuine. "Portrait of a Lady" suffered from too much control -- here she shifts that control to the ludicrous aussie family, and lets the central drama roam.
Kate understands that she is not acting a character, but a belief system, or rather a belief in belief systems. We saw that in Ophelia and I'm sure that's why she was picked here. Keitel's defeat is an exposure of Christianity. But poor Harvey is a plain old (excellent) actor who just becomes his character. I'm sure he had no understanding that he was to "symbolize" something, and so while he connects with Winslow, he doesn't with Campion's vision.
Some symbols were unwelcome by me, because they were so deliberately placed: the pee, the reindeer-car, the koala bear...
So a little out of control, tarted up with post-feminist pretentiousness, and one of the performances excellent, but a near miss. So what? Do you want intellectual adventure, served visually or not?
