Charlotte Gray (2001)

Too much of everything

Slow pace in the most part of the movie.

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Pretty dreadful adaptation of Faulks' novel.Gillian Armstrong presents a sanitised version of the book, with much of the meat of Charlotte Gray's relationships removed. Unfortunately the story hangs off the intensity of these relationships she has - with Cannerly and Lavade in particular who are never really given screen time to develop. The acting is pretty dull, and the actors are not really helped by the witheringly dull script. Gambon does his best with what little he is given in the role of Lavade, as does Ron Cook as Mirabel, but Crudup and Blanchett are just not firing on all cylinders. Maybe this is because the story has been so acutely edited, paring away all the extraneous parts of the story but in the end offering a sequence of events that create no tension either as a thriller or a romance.My other gripe is the art direction. This looks like a made-for-TV drama, with the costumes and mis-en-scene looking fresh, clean and unused. This drama is based in the 1940s during a war, life was dirty and shabby. Armstrong and her production designer give us an unrealistic picture of wartime France and Britain.Unfortunately this is really just an average British Television Period Drama.

If I hadn't previously read the book, I would rate this film much higher. As a film it is nicely made, acting and film-making alike were very good. However the adaptation is a great sin against fine story-telling.The whole point of the original story was about what a character can and will endure, all for the sake of hope. And in the film even, the psychiatrist asks Charlotte what is the most important out of love, faith or hope – she answers that it is hope. Then the film immediately destroyed all hope in the very next scene by letting the audience know what has happened to Charlotte's beau, Peter Gregory. A little while later we are informed incorrectly, that he is in fact dead. In the book, we know that he is alive, but Charlotte does not know until the very end, and survives on the hope that he is - as does he for her.Separate to that, in her uncertainty, she tries to 'make a difference' while she is in France, and hopes in time that she will find out what has happened to Peter. This was conveyed quite nicely in her guardianship of the two Jewish boys, as I appreciate the difficulties of condensing all the information of a novel into the 'short' duration of a feature film. It was translated quite differently to the book here, but I think as a sub-story, done well.However, the whole point in the book about Charlotte's relationship with Julien is that in another time, and other circumstances, they could have been the right ones for each other, and in fact will remain good friends in the longer term. But the film implies her relationship with Julien is more important than the hope and desire (of THE two main characters) which keeps both Charlotte and Peter alive through their trials, confronting the worst of humanity (and some of the best) only to see her reject Peter in the end in favour of the frenchman (with the terribly English accent).Leaving out altogether the issues Charlotte had with her father, a WWI veteran, is understandable considering the time constraints of a film's narrative, as is the omission of a few of the other secondary characters. I was personally disappointed with the altering of Julien's father's character Monsieur Levade as well - albeit brilliantly portrayed by Gambon.But I must confess my overall disappointment with a screenwriter wanting to take a great story, and change a few things, so he can strip away its essence just to leave his fetid stench all over it. Why not write your own story from scratch if you are that full of yourself? If you are adapting a novel to the screen, stay true to the story! I could write forever about this adaptation, but it is not justified really, so will leave it here with a boo!

I know this is a serious board devoted to the merits of the movie... but I would like to just mention the fact that rarely does an actor have the effect on me that Billy Crudup did in this film. Oh my god what a beauty! Perfect in every way... And obviously extremely talented, made more perfect by his professional choices!So, the film. Well, as a (some time ago) graduate of military history, with a particular interest in the sociological effects of war I have a special fondness for stories like this. I sought out the book and devoured it. I loved it, absolutely, as I do pretty much everything else by Sebastian Faulks. I also enjoyed this film immensely, but as a separate entity. A film is generally incapable of reaching the depths your imagination can take you to through reading a truly great book, maybe people should spend more time reading! I don't agree with the mauling this film was given by the critics, it kept me engaged from beginning to end and the happy ending, although a little trite, is a smile worthy event!Sod the dodgy Scottish, Kate Blanchet was believable as far as I'm concerned. Billy was perfect, as I think I might have mentioned! Michael Gambon - always worth watching and the chap that played the teacher was sufficiently creepy from first sight. The boys were sympathetic without being irritating child actors and the atmosphere was intimidating.It was emotional without being over the top, the relationship between the leads was wonderfully portrayed and I feel it was a valuable description of the horrific situation of collaboration.Not the best film I've ever seen but I definitely enjoyed it. And I'm not sure if you've noticed, and I don't like to bring it up, but Billy Crudup is a god among men.Watch it with an open mind.

I have a bias to confess: I could not see too many WWII spy films, read too many Ken Follett novels, get bored by the genre or complain of familiar stories told again. Today's narratives admittedly pit a clear evil force--the Nazis--against "good guy" spies, without delving into the moral complexities that might have led a decent German to join the Nazi party or search deeply into the evils that real spies did as a matter of fact, believing the ends to justify the means. While I understand that the real history is much more morally complex, the good guy-bad guy plots in the WWII spy genre are still satisfying to some more simple side of my personality.Charlotte Gray is every bit as good as any other such film in the genre that I can recall. Admittedly, there are some ridiculous plot points (why the French fellow doesn't get shot down for yelling at the Nazis in tanks is still a mystery to me, and I thought her risking her life apparently just to write a letter to the condemned children was illogical--why not save yourself for the chance to save some other children instead?), but then what movie do I see that hasn't three or four illogical moments? I have no idea why this particular film is so despised, though I have to wonder if it is because a woman is the heroic character. I thought we'd come beyond such silliness, but lately, I've been thinking, no, there is still a lot of male anxiety about strong women, even if they are safely far away in time and place, and I suspect that has skewed the response to the movie.My strongest negative reaction to the film was the same one I have to most recent Hollywood films, and is why I never go to see one at the cinema or even buy many DVDs: the women are too thin, unhealthily thin, hideous to look at for that, and Blanchett qualifies there. This actually interrupts my suspension of disbelief: whenever I see a full-body shot of a size 0 actress, I'm diverted while I think "eat a damned sandwich! Get some eating disorders therapy!" My awareness of the health crisis that this aesthetic is precipitating in our young women always detracts from my enjoyment of movies after that fact. Additionally, it isn't correct historically. Beauty in the 1940's was not stick-thinness, it was a size 10 full-busted woman.