Bright Star (2009)

Sitting in a packed cinema in Mill Valley, CA watching this film demonstrates that the film experience still exists and that great films can be made. This is a great movie experience because it is so gentle, simple and direct-no stunts-no noise-no robots-just a piece of history recreated with tenderness and poetic truth. Jane Champion shows how film can tell a story without interference and how the elements of film can join together to open a world of wonder and song.

The film is visual and very moving without being maudlin or melodramatic. It also refuses to dwell on the sensational, even the creative part of the story.

The viewer is left inspired to explore the creation of Keats, and no wonder. Such an introduction to a life would leave anyone hungry for more.

The performances are enchanting and almost mystical in scope. The cinematography is just inspired. So this is it-turn off your lap top and go to a show.....You will remember this for a very long time.

Fmovies: "Bright Star" is not only one of the best films of the year, but also Jane Campion's return to top form. Possibly the most acclaimed female director of her time, thanks to early strong and praised works such as "Sweetie" (1989), "An Angel At My Table" (1990) and particularly "The Piano" (1993), the truth is that Campion hasn't had a real critical or commercial success since... "The Piano". "The Portrait of a Lady" (1996), her adaptation of the Henry James novel, had a stellar cast, but was almost universally ignored; "Holy Smoke!" (1999), with Kate Winslet and Harvey Keitel, had its moments, but failed to impress anybody; and "In the Cut" (2003) was easily her worst film (but far from a disaster). The fact that Campion managed to remain such a respected name all these years even though not being the most prolific or successful filmmaker proves how influential and fascinating she is. She became some sort of figure for all the major female filmmakers from the past two decades and developed a very personal style marked by strong female sexuality (often, repressed), told with visual lyricism. She may be considered a feminist, but not the obviously preachy type, because her work flows like good cinema, and not as a heavy-handed gender discussion.

"Bright Star" is a tragic love story, beautifully directed, acted, photographed and written. Is it a revolutionary or innovative film? No. But the power of its lyricism and unabridged romanticism is infinitely touching. Anyone familiar with 19th century poet John Keats knows that he died of tuberculosis at 25 (and this is no major spoiler, since it's mentioned in every synopsis of the film), so we know the love birds are not going to live happily ever after. Campion centers on the three-year romance between Keats (a discreet and charming Ben Whishaw) and Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish, magnificent); their passion and the issues that prevented them from being together. Whishaw fits Keats' shoes perfectly, even if he might seem a little too low key at times. Paul Schneider ("All the Real Girls"), who's becoming one of the great American character actors, plays the villain as Charles Armitage Brown, Keats' friend who will do whatever he can to keep him away from Fanny. Kerry Fox ("Shallow Grave", "Intimacy"), unforgettable as Janet Frame in Campion's "An Angel At My Table", plays Mrs. Brawne, and Edie Martin is simply adorable as Fanny's little sister Toots. But this is Abbie Cornish's show all the way. This 27 year-old Australian first impressed me opposite Heath Ledger in 2006's "Candy", and here she shows her full potential. Her Fanny is simply incandescent - a terrific performance that could culminate in Oscar glory. For all romantics and admirers of good cinema, "Bright Star" is what Keats himself would call 'a thing of beauty... a joy forever' - intoxicatingly beautiful. 10/10.

This is a classic case of "The Emperors New Clothes" - the hype makes everyone think it should be good, but if you look closely, there's not much there. The cast has the unenviable task of fighting a very poorly constructed script, and they do an enviable job. The performances, however, are one of the few things going for this film.

The script feels like a first draft, and comes off like a checklist of Keat's life. There is no dramatic arc. A good script will have elements established early on that pay off later in the script, but this has none of that. Anything that is introduced is dealt with immediately, and then you move on to the next item, so there is no sense of structure, dramatic tension or story arc. It literally feels like a checklist. The dialogue alternates between clumsy and awful, and the reading of the poetry always seems artificial and overwrought. I also wonder if a lot of footage ended up on the cutting room floor, as there are huge leaps in logic and there is little emotional continuity. There is no sense of the character's relationships to each other and I did not believe that there was any spark of true love between the two main protagonists! The film kept trying to tell you they were in love, but it just wasn't actually there (despite strong performances).

The costumes and sets are wonderful, but the camera work and lighting is dodgy. The film has numerous soft shots and strange use of hand-held, where the camera seems to accidentally move and bump with no sense of intent. The framing is often downright awkward and strange, and aside from a number of scattered "beauty shots", the cinematography is pretty poor.

This was quite a disappointing film, despite the hype. I feel like I am the little girl in Hans Christian Andersen's "The Emporers New Clothes" who says, "But, he's not wearing anything!"

Bright Star fmovies. I would have given this a 4/10 score except, the more I think about it the less there is to say in commendation of it. The principle problem is that Campion has chosen to write the script herself with only the aid of Andrew Motion. No wonder this is so off target. If you are at all interested in history, or God forbid, Keats himself, stay well away. It is a truly appalling representation of a real person's life and work. It gives no sense of the deprivations suffered by Keats. You'd think he was a spoilt brat pretending to live the life of an occasional letter writer, in a well lit, airy rural setting, with Brawne depicted like the 21st Century prick-tease that chimes more with modern day sentimentality. Costumes interesting. Casting poor. Script Godawful. Cinematography odd. Deserving of oblivion.

Each scene, every word uttered by the characters was so beautifully and often wittily crafted that I couldn't help but wish I lived in such a lush world, full of idealism and love of literature, not to mention people who cared about one another with such kindness and unabashed concern. Many of the scenes evoked the sixteenth century Dutch masters, whom Jane Campion may have used to set an authentic tone for her masterpiece. John Keats, the most intensely romantic of the Romantic poets (although Shelley and Lord Byron did their best) could not have received a fairer treatment, plus he was superbly acted by Ben Whislaw; I fell in love with the entire cast. This film lives up to its potential, and if you know anything about the life of Keats, you realize that it is a Titanic sort of plot, because the ship must go down. Yet my sadness was only that I have to live in the current world so dominated by name brands and nonsense rather than the fine stitchery and wit of Fanny Brawne. Drag your husband, significant other and everyone you know to see this film!! I've seen it twice!!

It seems that many viewers have coasted through this, believing it to be a simple love story, told simply. It seemed to me anything but that. This is a movie about the rhythms of poetic image from romantic love, translated to cinematic image. The poet is Keats, who likely was as imagined: melancholy, reaching for a romantic purity. Many such existed it seems, but few that achieved this in words that matter.

The story is a simple one: ordinary in many ways. Instead of romanticizing the woman, and their love, Campion does us a real service. She shows that this great love was largely a matter of accident: two primed lonely souls finding each other. The woman in this case really was not very special, except in finding deep love. The contrast between the souls of the poems, and similar pure romantic love of movies and what we have here is striking.

The shift is not from the poetry to the people. The people stay real. It is from the poetry to the cinematic presentation. Campion is able without being obvious, of slipping real romantic images to buoy this. Usually we have conventional duft, presenting some unrealistic ideal. Here we have true love in sight, surrounding ordinariness.

Our bright star is a seamstress obsessed with fashion — fashion that makes her truly seem shallow. Many of the clothes she wears are strikingly ugly in the overall assembly. But in the small — which we often see — they are composed of elements that could be items of extended meditation. That they are her extended skin, consciously designed and carefully crafted makes her an extraordinarily appealing lover.

The first seconds of this film set the world, one that is extraordinary. We see a closeup of a tiny needle being perfectly threaded. We see an enormous closeup of that needle piercing virginal white fabric. We slowly work to the situation of the woman involved. She is the narrator, the maker. This is a movie that goes in my database of "cloth" films, because the use of cloth is basic.

There is short preliminary, a short courting. It is not from Austin, where strong soulmates bond, just two ordinary souls. But when they kiss, we have one of the two sublime scenes. She lays on her bed (the location of which carries great significance). A white curtain blows seductively over her. Her similar white dress has the wind lifting it and awakening underneath. This is absolutely breathtaking.

A second sequence may seem too heavy for most. Her love goes away and she is forlorn. He writes an amazing letter, thus beginning his great period. Butterflies are mentioned. So she fills her room with butterflies. These somehow actually perform as part of the fabric-ed space, participating as if directed. Oh no! She gets a letter cutting off futures, and the butterflies die, to be swept into bins. If ever there was a romantic cinematic environment, this is it, the butter-feathered bedroom, where words feed image.

The little sister, perhaps ten and named Toots, is patterned after Tootie in "Meet Me in St Louis," redhead, precocious, and romanticized beyond all else. She is a sort of emissary into innocence, anchoring the ideals this elicits but does not exploit. Ms Campion, thank you. A movie about love that makes love. Thank you.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.