Conference bookie::movies

    Tilda Swinton plays Orlando.

    She was Edward II's wife in the Derek Jarman version of "Edward II"

    She also played a Glaswegian Country Western singer in John Byrne's	
    "Your Cheatin' Heart" on BBC TV.

    A good actress, with a cold, cynical sort of charisma. I don't know the
    story of Orlando, (I'll go to the bookstore this weekend. :^) so don't
    know if her detachedness will work in her favor  or not in this
    particular film. 

    I agree that the sets/costumes looked tremendous, and have put this on
    my  'must see' list.

    Cheers, 
    George

    Orlando is breathtakingly beautiful. The scenery, sets, costumes and
    general cinematography were spectacular. 

    I liked Tilda Swinton in the title role. I think her reserved affect
    works  very well for this part. Some of the other casting was also
    inspired- Quentin Crisp as Queen Elizabeth and Jimmy Somerville doing
    some of the soundtrack. 

    The scripting was more broadly humorous than the book, which pleasantly 
    surprised me- I laughed out loud (though briefly) a few times, which I 
    would not have expected. Orlando talking to the audience at times was
    very  effective.

    I have mixed feelings about a couple of approaches where Sally Potter
    diverges from the novel, but unreservedly like others. I think she
    missed a couple of opportunities to make a perfect movie, but this is
    my favorite of the year. 

    Fair warning- this is *not* an action/adventure, even though it
    contains  a bit of both action and adventure. If you are the type that
    finds costume  dramas dull, this movie will likely drag for you. It is
    atmospheric and  subtle.

    I'd give it 10/10 for set/costume/cinematography- better than Howards
    End or Much Ado About Nothing. 8/10 for story and 8/10 for acting. 

    Cheers, 
    George

    Definitely a gorgeous picture, this, but I found it less than
    satisfying. The first half or so (the 1500's through, roughly, the
    1700's) appealed to me the most, perhaps because it had the most
    continuity and the most wit; once the passage of time began to speed up
    I found that I rapidly lost interest in the goings-on. (The
    Victorian-angel bit near the end was either a piece of inspired
    film-making or a Really Bad Idea, depending on one's reaction; I
    laughed aloud, but found it too ludicrous - no, grotesque - no, I often
    _like_ the ludicrous and grotesque. Maybe it was just a bad special
    effect. ;-} )
    
    The whole story is very dream-like, and the lighting and settings tend
    to enhance that (as does Orlando's habit of dropping off to sleep for a
    few days or weeks or ??? every now and then). I don't know whether it's
    intentional or not, but as time passed and Orlando drew nearer to the
    present day, each episode became shorter and more stark, and this made
    me feel very, very sad, to be racing away from that gorgeous, leisurely
    past into the hectic and not very attractive at all present...
    
    -b

    It seemed to me that a disproportionate amount of time was spent on the
    early years, and that modern times were somewhat rushed through.  :-)
    
    Also, I would have hoped that someone who had managed to live for 400
    yrs. and experience being both male and female, could have come up with
    a few profound observations of some sort, but none were to be had from
    Orlando.
    
    I felt it actually dragged in places.  I didn't especially *like*
    Orlando.  The acting was good, but I didn't really care for the
    character.  There were a few very funny lines, but overall I found it
    sort of silly, really.
    
    Lorna
    

    Just saw this, only shortly after reading the book, which may have been
    a mistake.  It is a highly literary book, written in brilliantly
    whimsical prose, and I didn't think the film's style was really an
    adequate analogue (probably an unfair comment.)  
    
    The very first scene of the film, with Orlando under the tree trying to 
    write, disappointed me; she didn't look like a handsome young nobleman, and
    the setting didn't meet expectations (again, set by the book) either.  
    Later on, particularly after she changed sexes, Swinton's appearance
    wasn't a problem, but she remained to me a less interesting character 
    (again) than Woolf's Orlando.   
    
    It's a clever movie, with some effective visuals, and some scenes that 
    work better than others.  The ones I enjoyed most were those that featured 
    writers:  the young Orlando's interaction with the poet Nick Greene, and
    later the 18th-century Lady Orlando with the jocular, contemptuous Swift &
    co.  Crisp as Gloriana was I suppose an effective send-up; I didn't find
    Jimmy Somerville very entertaining.  Lothaire Bluteau (of "Jesus of
    Montreal") plays a sheikh-like character, identified as "the Khan," who
    isn't in Woolf's book.    
    
    - Stephen

    
    i really liked this. so beautiful! so creative!
    
    

    I don't think she ever looked like a guy.
    
    I might have liked it better with a different actress.  She didn't
    appeal to me much.
    
    Lorna
    

	I must say I was disappointed.  From the reviews I've seen,
	and the description on the video box I was expecting a different
	movies.  For example, I was expecting a more gradual change
	from male to female, not a sudden change after having waken
	up from one of those week long sleeping spells.

	I also don't understand the ending with the angel like charater
	singing from the tree ......

    Definitely a gorgeous picture, this, but I found it less than
    satisfying�. I agree with .4 that after 400 years Orlando ought to have
    -something- of value to say but no, she's still sitting under trees.
    
    I was most entertained by her stint as an ambassador (where to?), was
    this not in the original book?
    
    The angel at the end was a Really Bad Idea, no doubt about it.
    
      John
    -----------------------------
    �Thanks to .3 for the wording

    Agree with previous and with .4 -- visually wonderful, but where is the
    story? Orlando was not a particularly interesting character, so who
    cares whether (s)he lives 400 years and changes sexes. I was expecting
    much more from this movie, but to tell the truth, my baby started
    crying around the year 1750, and my interest was too slight at that
    point to finish watching it.
    
    Mild spoiler question:
    
    Is it ever explained how Orlando conceals his/her nature from the rest
    of the world? I had thought his trip to the Orient would give a perfect
    opportunity to "die", and come back in 1700 as his own granddaughter.
    Yet the agent from Her Majesty doesn't even blink when encountering him
    in the orient, supposedly expecting a man well over 100, and finding an
    effeminite youth? Then 1750 rolls around, and here is Orlando looking
    the same as she did in 1700. I enjoyed Highlander, and all of the Anne
    Rice vampire books, precisely because they dealt nicely with these
    sorts of issues.
    
    Is the book better than the movie in this regard? I don't insist on
    linear logic if it is artistically done.
    			Thanks,
    				Jim

  Orlando reminds me of one of those movies from the 60's where everyone walked
out not having a clue as to what the movie was about but no one had the guts to
admit it, especially with the more snobbish in the crowd talking about how
obvious it all was. Was the book like this or was that confusing as well?

  I rented Orlando mostly because my cat is named after the main character. You
see when we 1st got her she was really small and we thought she was a male but
on closer inspection learned that she was a female. Patty had just finished
reading the book, hence the name. Doesn't sound much like a reason to rent a
movie but having seen it I'm lost for a better one.

  I guess I'm on a role here but the last three films I've seen are Little
Women, Mask, and now Orlando and for the third time in a row I've seen a movie
with little or no plot and not much in the way of a theme. Like so many movies
with this affliction, this movie doesn't end so much as it just stops leaving
you to wonder why it started at all. 

  In the movie, nothing happens, no point is made, you don't really get to know
what motivates the main character, and nothing really gets resolved. But why
should it? There's nothing really to resolve. 

  The manner in which Orlando moves through time and gender was at best
confusing. They showed Orlando sleeping but did Orlando sleep for 50 year
bursts or did Orlando sleep for a few weeks then live through 50 years? Also
near the end it seemed that she switched over to running through fog banks to
jump centuries rather than sleeping them off but it wasn't clear why. 

  And what was with the angel at the end? Oops sorry, hope I didn't spoil that
for someone. Is there actually someone out there who's saying "Whoooo, an
angel, that explains it!". And it wasn't even a good angel, sort of looked like
a cheap Christmas tree decoration. 

  Ok I admit it, it made no sense to me at all. It was just a hodge podge of
effects strung together for seemingly no purpose.

  On the plus side (and this is a small part) the scenery and costumes from the
17th and 18th century were lovely and it was fun watching them skate on the
river. The main character did a pretty good job but she looked like a woman
right from the start so the gender thing didn't work for me.

  It was also fun trying to guess which queen they were talking about from time
to time but that was about it. I had forgotten about Queen Ann, they got me on
that one. 

  ** out of 5,
  George

    
    Does anyone know who wrote the music for this film - and whether it's 
    available on record/cd ? 
    
    Unfortunately I only caught the last 15 minutes of Orlando when it was
    on TV recently and was completely intrigued (so thanks for all your 
    entries in this conference!). I had no idea it was from a Virginia W. 
    novel... but at least I now have some impression of what I missed!
                                  
    I would especially like to get the music from the final sound-track.
    
    many thanks, Alison

    Funny thing: I was watching the beginning of the movie while my wife
    was downstairs doing laundry. She paused
    on the way through the room, looked at Orlando, and said "You know
    that's a man, don't you?" She thought it was a male actor playing a
    woman (not having followed the so-called plot to that point).
    It was actually a female actor playing (at that point) a man
    
    Is the book better?
    			Jim B.