Loading ...I’ve been thinking about why I hated Atonement so much, and why so many people don’t. Part of it is what I take to be its incompleteness. A thwarted love story turns into a meandering, half-done war movie, tied together or torn apart, apparently, by a little girl’s dishonesty, which I failed to bring myself to care about.
The cinematography, however, is superb in places, which at times seems completely out of place.It is as if the cinematographer was on set with these horrible actors working with a hopelessly convoluted screenplay, and decided maybe to try to make something beautiful out of it. Artistry from boredom, perhaps?
One particular shot strikes me as incredibly well done and so out of place that it comes off as pretentious. I’ve been trying to figure out why, and I think it has to do with its placement in the film. The shot comes near the end of an already-too-long movie, when the soldiers reach the beach and there’s a mass of confusion about who belongs where, and how they will get home. It is a continuous shot, I don’t know how long, that is elaborately choreographed, and includes a ferris wheel, injured soldiers, camerawork moving from character to character, complicated dialogue. I get what it’s doing: it’s showing the confusion, disillusionment and surrealism that accompanies war. But it stands out almost too much, and it takes place after much crosscutting back to the hospital in England and after the story has become so convoluted that the shot seems to be a comment on the film itself.
It was while rewatching Children of Men that I figured out why that shot didn’t work. CoM also has a very long tracking shot during a battle, with much the same effect, but it works. Why? Because the film sets you up for it with handheld camera work, long takes, and fairly dismal mise-en-scene from the beginning. That tracking shot is a culmination of all that came before, both stylistically and narratively, whereas with Atonement it stands out, becomes obvious in a film that relies on trickery and tired narrative and cinematic techniques to pull at heartstrings in the widest possible way.
megan on All or nothing 
megan on Jobs
erik on Why revisited
Ben Kovitz on Why revisited
Chick Young on 10 tips for surviving a dissertation defense
Agreed.
Remember also the shot where the soldier comes across a field of dead school children? The camera lingers forever on all the dead bodies, pulls back, and then goes into close up of the soldiers face, who, lest we forget how to feel at such a pivotal moment(!) has a single tear streaming down his face. Yuck.
And in the famous long shot, why is he standing in the middle of a movie theater, directly in front of the screen? Does no one want to see the movie here or what?
The other seemingly paradoxical complaint I have about the film is that at 2 hours, it almost seemed too short. The novel is universally loved, and I can see how in a novel lengths time, we could really begin to care about the characters, and understand why their love is so important. But in the film, I feel like the only thing we’re given to go on is a few dramatic close-ups of attractive looking characters, and then we’re expected to just fill in the blanks, perhaps based on our previous experience with romances.
Blueballs? yes. A deep burning desire to keep this young couple who I know next to nothing about together? No.
Oh well. At least the little girl didn’t win an oscar.