![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Finally watched Cold Mountain. It's entertaining enough but very uneven. Renee Zellwegger did indeed deserve the Oscar nod. She was the heart of that movie and brought Ruby's character to life pitch perfect. I've read most of the book and even there Ruby was the most vibrant character. Just as in the movie, Inman is far more nuanced than Ada and you are far, far more interested in his story than you are in hers. However, the movie destroys that a bit. Minghella asks you to sympathize with a deserter before he gives you a reason to care about/like him.
Minghella has turned the movie into more of a love story than the first 3/4 of the book really is. Cold Mountain as I read it is bascially a re-interpretation of The Odyssey. A man returning home from war comes across a variety of characters as he travels. The Home Guard acts as our Poseiden. The translation of the other characters is somewhat negligible but the family that turns Inman and the preacher into the Home Guard reminded me, at least in the novel, of the Sirens. There is much less for our Penelope to do here. At the point that I quit the novel there was still no Teague although I can see his place if we look at this adaptation as an attempt at a more literal translation to The Odyssey.
What I find most curious about the movie versus the film is that someone actually read the book Cold Mountain and thought, oh, what a great movie this would be. Although the writing is fine enough, if a bit spare in places. It's realatively engaging and flows neatly along carrying you along as Inman walks. But it is a very quiet novel in which, although many adventures are had, nothing really happens. Walking along with Inman feels rather aimless although Jude Law's fine performance trumps the novel's author by instilling Inman with an incredible sense of weariness and desperation. Throughout the movie, if not the book, your bones almost ache with how much this man wants to get home.
However I didn't feel at all connected to the characters, any of them, until well into the movie. I just don't think it translates well. The novel is a book very much about interiors - soul, mind, heart. Getting that onto the screen seems to have somewhat escaped the director and screen writer.
Jude Law did a fine job with portraying Inman and I found myself much more invested in him as the movie progressed and he came across the various characters. It's ass backwards from the book, but at least you get there. Inman, in the novel, is a man who has seen to much in war. The cruelty of men and the senselessness of fighting. He goes, like many non-slave owners, because he is defending his home. Minghella tries to make Inman's plight more personal by adding Lucas Black's (now didn't he grow up to be a hottie) character but there really isn't a frame of reference for his attachment to the boy except that they are both from Cold Mountain. Inman's attachment to Ada is so tenuous that the letter, and her request, which we later discover is only the third he ever received, seems like nothing more than an excuse for him to start walking. There is no emotional resonance. You don't feel the weight of his despair. You don't feel how much he misses Ada. You don't really care that he's been shot. All you see is a distant man that has been injured and wants to go home.
The first half hour of the movie, at least, is purely fictional. The novel itself was so uninteresting that I didn't finish the last quarter, although maybe now I will just to see what else has been changed. There are a great deal of differences in the novel. Some of them are negligble, some not so much. I think if the speech with the blind peanut seller(a much more extended interaction in the book) had been left alone, I would have been far more compelled by Inman's despair earlier on. In the novel that scene conveys a great deal about his emotional and mental state.
Ruby, in both, I loved. Like I said before, Renee Zellwegger was perfectly cast and the part was beautifully executed. Ruby was the most real character in both novel and movie. She is what made Ada's life interesting and which provided the novel with an anchor in the chapters that did not concern Inman. Ada was almost always a bit of a nonentity.
Nicole Kidman I did not like in this movie. She is very obviously too old for the part. I never got the sense in the book that Ada was quite that long in the tooth. Her accent slipped a couple of times, most notably with her accent being heavier in the voiceovers. I'm thinking that if they wanted a tall, cool blonde to play Ada's stagnant ice queen than they should have gone for Charlize Theron or, better yet, Gwyneth Paltrow. Although I don't know who else could have played the part. Initially, I thought of Natalie Portman but I think she was perfect in the cameo that she had. Claire Forlani might have been able to pull it off. Claire Danes is a little too all American. Scarlett Johansen looks a little too sensual. Julia Stiles might have been a much better choice all around.
The ending of Cold Mountain was unfortunately predictable and I can't say that I cared all that much. Although, that love scene was beautifully shot and Hot, Hot, Hot!!! The cinematography was gorgeous. The music was sublime. (I will be purchasing that CD.) Kathy Baker was excellent, as always.
Minghella has turned the movie into more of a love story than the first 3/4 of the book really is. Cold Mountain as I read it is bascially a re-interpretation of The Odyssey. A man returning home from war comes across a variety of characters as he travels. The Home Guard acts as our Poseiden. The translation of the other characters is somewhat negligible but the family that turns Inman and the preacher into the Home Guard reminded me, at least in the novel, of the Sirens. There is much less for our Penelope to do here. At the point that I quit the novel there was still no Teague although I can see his place if we look at this adaptation as an attempt at a more literal translation to The Odyssey.
What I find most curious about the movie versus the film is that someone actually read the book Cold Mountain and thought, oh, what a great movie this would be. Although the writing is fine enough, if a bit spare in places. It's realatively engaging and flows neatly along carrying you along as Inman walks. But it is a very quiet novel in which, although many adventures are had, nothing really happens. Walking along with Inman feels rather aimless although Jude Law's fine performance trumps the novel's author by instilling Inman with an incredible sense of weariness and desperation. Throughout the movie, if not the book, your bones almost ache with how much this man wants to get home.
However I didn't feel at all connected to the characters, any of them, until well into the movie. I just don't think it translates well. The novel is a book very much about interiors - soul, mind, heart. Getting that onto the screen seems to have somewhat escaped the director and screen writer.
Jude Law did a fine job with portraying Inman and I found myself much more invested in him as the movie progressed and he came across the various characters. It's ass backwards from the book, but at least you get there. Inman, in the novel, is a man who has seen to much in war. The cruelty of men and the senselessness of fighting. He goes, like many non-slave owners, because he is defending his home. Minghella tries to make Inman's plight more personal by adding Lucas Black's (now didn't he grow up to be a hottie) character but there really isn't a frame of reference for his attachment to the boy except that they are both from Cold Mountain. Inman's attachment to Ada is so tenuous that the letter, and her request, which we later discover is only the third he ever received, seems like nothing more than an excuse for him to start walking. There is no emotional resonance. You don't feel the weight of his despair. You don't feel how much he misses Ada. You don't really care that he's been shot. All you see is a distant man that has been injured and wants to go home.
The first half hour of the movie, at least, is purely fictional. The novel itself was so uninteresting that I didn't finish the last quarter, although maybe now I will just to see what else has been changed. There are a great deal of differences in the novel. Some of them are negligble, some not so much. I think if the speech with the blind peanut seller(a much more extended interaction in the book) had been left alone, I would have been far more compelled by Inman's despair earlier on. In the novel that scene conveys a great deal about his emotional and mental state.
Ruby, in both, I loved. Like I said before, Renee Zellwegger was perfectly cast and the part was beautifully executed. Ruby was the most real character in both novel and movie. She is what made Ada's life interesting and which provided the novel with an anchor in the chapters that did not concern Inman. Ada was almost always a bit of a nonentity.
Nicole Kidman I did not like in this movie. She is very obviously too old for the part. I never got the sense in the book that Ada was quite that long in the tooth. Her accent slipped a couple of times, most notably with her accent being heavier in the voiceovers. I'm thinking that if they wanted a tall, cool blonde to play Ada's stagnant ice queen than they should have gone for Charlize Theron or, better yet, Gwyneth Paltrow. Although I don't know who else could have played the part. Initially, I thought of Natalie Portman but I think she was perfect in the cameo that she had. Claire Forlani might have been able to pull it off. Claire Danes is a little too all American. Scarlett Johansen looks a little too sensual. Julia Stiles might have been a much better choice all around.
The ending of Cold Mountain was unfortunately predictable and I can't say that I cared all that much. Although, that love scene was beautifully shot and Hot, Hot, Hot!!! The cinematography was gorgeous. The music was sublime. (I will be purchasing that CD.) Kathy Baker was excellent, as always.
