Ensign Lestat's Film Log, 02/09/2016
I sat down to watch 'Me Before You' for no other reason than to have an informed opinion. The book by Jojo Moyes was much talked about where I work (we work with books), and there was an incredible amount of apprehension surrounding the film adaptation.
The story follows Louisa Clark (Emilia Clarke) taking up the job of caring for 31-year-old quadriplegic Will Traynor (Sam Claflin). What begins as a thankless, unforgiving job, gives way to one that is life-affirming and -altering. Clark's efforts to cheer Will up take up an urgency when she realises that she is running against a 6-month deadline. Does she have what it takes to make Will want to live again?
I had already come across some divisive articles about the film. There's no winning with a subject like this, especially not when it is transferred to celluloid. Books encourage discussion and discourse. Films - Twitter attacks and online calls for boycotts.
Many were up in arms over the choice of an able-bodied actor in a role that was confined to a wheelchair. Of course, execs and the author herself retorted that they needed to show his fulfilled life before his accident. That was not received kindly by any of the commentators, and rightly so. Will's two minutes on screen as an able-bodied person enjoying a successful professional and romantic life could have been alluded to or photoshopped. Honestly, studios can and should expand their choices of actors and give more diverse actors roles.
It seems, the more people voice how much diversity in the entertainment industry is stunted, the more people are happy to point out that we can't curtail the roles available to the mass majority. Granted, we wouldn't get a 'My Left Foot' performance if only disabled actors played disabled roles, but it also means that no roles are provided to disabled actors, That's not okay.
Having said that, Sam Claflin does give it his all. He isn't required to emote much, it's more the physical restrictions of his role that he perfects, and he does it well. He's one of the few actors who actually does a good job in this film.
Most of the supporting cast recite lines as if by rote, and the dialogue delivery is stilted at best. I was surprised by the poor turn Clarke puts in. Not a 'Game of Thrones' fan by a longshot, but I'm pretty sure she hasn't spent the last six seasons with her face scrunched up during every scene. It was painful to watch her. Appalling, really.
I find it amusing that despite the two actors being the same age, their characters are a good seven years apart. Except, in usual circumstances Clarke's age would be bumped up, but she plays the younger character, and Claflin plays one a couple of years older than his real age. Not much progress in the film industry, but baby steps are to be commended.
The story itself felt comprehensive, much of which probably has to do with the fact that the author of the book wrote the film's screenplay as well. I felt Moyes got the essence of the plot in, but not having read the book, I cannot comment on the success of the film as an adaptation.
I found it troubling that Moyes falls into at least two terrible traps of a) defining the female character by the men in her life, and b) by making it seem like the female character's life and life choices till before she met Will were poor and inconsequential.
One can say that most people live on auto-pilot for a lot of their lives, but when you are a young person who is also the sole earning member of a family, you'll end up not having much of an ambition or many dreams.
It's also a poor choice to make Clark's boyfriend Patrick (Neville Longbottom) a complete jerk. He's a physical trainer (film warning: never date a physical trainer), who only ever thinks of himself. He's handy at putting Clark down and not paying much attention to her interests. While all this sows the seeds for the relationship that the author and the potential audience will want between Will and Clark, it's a sign of bad writing. There's nothing positive aboutNeville Patrick, and it makes a person wonder how Clark managed to remain her bubbly, optimistic self despite spending six years with this douchebag. Can't people just grow apart in popular media?
I wonder how the book and film would have turned out had Will been from a working class family. Somehow, the opulence of the Traynor family made the story feel far too superficial. It became a neatly tied tragic romantic comedy, rather than a dramatic tale about disability. But that is the author's choice, and she would have probably created just as compelling characters irrespective of their bank balances.
The one thing that surprised me about the film was that it did not wallow in sorrow and tragedy. It is bright and chirpy throughout, even in the end. It isn't a film that I would normally watch, but it has its audience, who I'm sure loved it. If the writer and director had tried to incorporate more of a discussion on disabilities and perhaps involved members of the disabled community as well, we might have had a film which was just as entertaining, yet far more substantial.
I sat down to watch 'Me Before You' for no other reason than to have an informed opinion. The book by Jojo Moyes was much talked about where I work (we work with books), and there was an incredible amount of apprehension surrounding the film adaptation.The story follows Louisa Clark (Emilia Clarke) taking up the job of caring for 31-year-old quadriplegic Will Traynor (Sam Claflin). What begins as a thankless, unforgiving job, gives way to one that is life-affirming and -altering. Clark's efforts to cheer Will up take up an urgency when she realises that she is running against a 6-month deadline. Does she have what it takes to make Will want to live again?
I had already come across some divisive articles about the film. There's no winning with a subject like this, especially not when it is transferred to celluloid. Books encourage discussion and discourse. Films - Twitter attacks and online calls for boycotts.
Many were up in arms over the choice of an able-bodied actor in a role that was confined to a wheelchair. Of course, execs and the author herself retorted that they needed to show his fulfilled life before his accident. That was not received kindly by any of the commentators, and rightly so. Will's two minutes on screen as an able-bodied person enjoying a successful professional and romantic life could have been alluded to or photoshopped. Honestly, studios can and should expand their choices of actors and give more diverse actors roles.
It seems, the more people voice how much diversity in the entertainment industry is stunted, the more people are happy to point out that we can't curtail the roles available to the mass majority. Granted, we wouldn't get a 'My Left Foot' performance if only disabled actors played disabled roles, but it also means that no roles are provided to disabled actors, That's not okay.
Having said that, Sam Claflin does give it his all. He isn't required to emote much, it's more the physical restrictions of his role that he perfects, and he does it well. He's one of the few actors who actually does a good job in this film.
Most of the supporting cast recite lines as if by rote, and the dialogue delivery is stilted at best. I was surprised by the poor turn Clarke puts in. Not a 'Game of Thrones' fan by a longshot, but I'm pretty sure she hasn't spent the last six seasons with her face scrunched up during every scene. It was painful to watch her. Appalling, really.
I find it amusing that despite the two actors being the same age, their characters are a good seven years apart. Except, in usual circumstances Clarke's age would be bumped up, but she plays the younger character, and Claflin plays one a couple of years older than his real age. Not much progress in the film industry, but baby steps are to be commended.
The story itself felt comprehensive, much of which probably has to do with the fact that the author of the book wrote the film's screenplay as well. I felt Moyes got the essence of the plot in, but not having read the book, I cannot comment on the success of the film as an adaptation.
I found it troubling that Moyes falls into at least two terrible traps of a) defining the female character by the men in her life, and b) by making it seem like the female character's life and life choices till before she met Will were poor and inconsequential.
One can say that most people live on auto-pilot for a lot of their lives, but when you are a young person who is also the sole earning member of a family, you'll end up not having much of an ambition or many dreams.
It's also a poor choice to make Clark's boyfriend Patrick (Neville Longbottom) a complete jerk. He's a physical trainer (film warning: never date a physical trainer), who only ever thinks of himself. He's handy at putting Clark down and not paying much attention to her interests. While all this sows the seeds for the relationship that the author and the potential audience will want between Will and Clark, it's a sign of bad writing. There's nothing positive about
I wonder how the book and film would have turned out had Will been from a working class family. Somehow, the opulence of the Traynor family made the story feel far too superficial. It became a neatly tied tragic romantic comedy, rather than a dramatic tale about disability. But that is the author's choice, and she would have probably created just as compelling characters irrespective of their bank balances.
The one thing that surprised me about the film was that it did not wallow in sorrow and tragedy. It is bright and chirpy throughout, even in the end. It isn't a film that I would normally watch, but it has its audience, who I'm sure loved it. If the writer and director had tried to incorporate more of a discussion on disabilities and perhaps involved members of the disabled community as well, we might have had a film which was just as entertaining, yet far more substantial.
Comments