(no subject)

[sunshine_queen]

So, I just saw Atonement again. Happily, Paige cried harder than I did, but I still shed a bucket of tears. It's



What of Cecilia?

I find it so interesting that in Briony's own story, she is selfish enough to ignore her sister. There is the accused, and the accuser, but not the one damaged along with the accused, and I really find it fascinating. We know that Cecilia is a nurse, a ward sister or whatever, and that she lives in Balham. And she writes to Robbie. That's it. She doesn't get her own section.

Why would Briony ignore her? I would argue that would be too painful to imagine her sister's suffering, but if she can imagine Robbie's (which has to be greater,) why not Cee's?

I think that's why I like Cecilia best. I get to wonder so much- how intense was her guilt, from her family and her class? How much did she hate herself for all the time she wasted with Robbie? Did she hate herself for not hiding the letter better? How did she find out about Robbie's death? Did Nettle write her, or was a dispatch sent to Mrs Turner, who then told Cecilia?

What also intrigues me is that one could argue that Robbie didn't have to die. If he hadn't been accused and recruited out of prison, if he had enlisted, he could have gone for officers' training. That means (I think) that he would've been evacuated sooner from Dunkirk, and therefore might have survived, or, he might never have been wounded at all. This I understand. But Cecilia- her death was entirely a fluke. A bomb hit the gas and water mains over the station; the station flooded. Cecilia drowned. She would've drowned if Robbie had been there, she would have drowned if Robbie had been alive and still at war, she would have drowned if Robbie was on his way home to her. The water pipe burst, and the tube was flooded. Cecilia died.

(It makes it all the sadder, really: Cecilia was as innocent in the situation as possible- Robbie was innocent, but he was sentenced, Cecilia only suffered because she loved him- and she died in an unpreventable way.)

It was... not fitting, but good, that it was a flood that killed her, since water played such a huge, awesome role in this story: the fountain, the lake, the ocean, the flooding, the effing beach they wanted to get to so badly. It's so horrible to think that they never saw each other after the tea room, and that he didn't get on with her. I think sometimes that Cecilia got off at the next stop to wait to see if he'd come on the next bus, but it makes it too depressing. They still never saw each other again. They didn't even have pictures of each other, and Robbie lighting a match to look at the postcard just slays me.

And I know that I'm a sucker when it comes to love stories, but, really? It's the most beautiful one ever, because it's so doomed and so horrible and so real that you just ache for them and what they never had.


So, anyway, those are some of my thoughts. I have so many more, but the amazingness of it all makes it all swirl around my head.

Comments

[nova25.livejournal.com]

Eee, Atonement discussion! I love it so, and so I'm going to ramble on a teeny bit more.

I really like what you're saying about Briony in regards to Cee (I am actually quite weirdly attached to Briony and her writerly thoughts, but to be honest, I see some of myself in Briony. Minus the rape accusations part, but I just find her very interesting). It's interesting to me that Cee's faults are heavily discussed, while Robbie's are not so much-- I like your theory that Briony simply cannot being to approach her guilt in regards to Cee. And Briony is of course the most unreliable of narrators.

I might have to take issue with the idea that Cee's death is unpreventable-- if Robbie had not been arrested, then she and Robbie would have almost certainly gotten married, and I'm not sure that Cecilia would have taken up nursing (I get the indication that she took up nursing as a way to keep herself busy and support herself free of her family after Robbie's arrest).

[sunshine-queen.livejournal.com]

I don't hate Briony, which most people seem to. I think she's a life-ruiner, but I think she was entirely aware of just what a life-ruiner she was, and spent her whole life feeling awful about it. Not that it makes up for it, but still. I think she honestly felt like she was doing the right thing then, no matter how wrong and fanciful it was.

Hm. About the faults, I can't really remember Cecilia's being described more than just being messy and a bit cross, but I didn't read that part too deeply (though I will!)

Briony is the most unreliable of narrators, and it's awesome, because no matter how much research she did at the war museum or the correspondance she had with Nettle, she still is making things up, and I can't imagine that Cee and Robbie would be happy about it.

Hm. I suppose you're right in a way, but had they gotten married, and then Robbie had been called to the front (or enlisted) cause it was wartime, she might still have become a nurse just to do something/ feel she was helping the boys and her own husband, and had she been living in the same area, her evacuation during the air strikes would have taken her down to the Balham tube station.

[counteragent.livejournal.com]

Was the tearoom scene made up? How much of the story was made up? We only have alternative viewpoints in the beginning...and then only the clickety clack of the typewriter to tell us what is real.

What do you think?

[sunshine-queen.livejournal.com]

As far as I can tell, the tearoom meeting did happen. Going on what Briony tells us at the end (that she managed to read their correspondence in the War Museum), that actually did occur. In the book it says that they only just missed each other another time before Robbie was shipped off to France.

But basically, everything is made up. What happened the tearoom could have only conjecture, which Briony made up based on the letters between Robbie and Cecilia. What happened in Dunkirk, Robbie's words and all, those came from Briony talking to Robbie's friend Nettle. Exactly what happened by the fountain, Briony could only assume. The meat of the library scene- the words and whatnot- those were constructed by Briony, because she walked in on it, (so we know it happened) but not what was said. The only event that was one hundred percent entirely made up is when Briony goes to apologize to Robbie and Cecilia, because we know that Robbie was dead and that Briony never went to see her sister.

Briony is an entirely unreliable storyteller, so, really, you can assume that everything was made up. It's so cool.

[counteragent.livejournal.com]

Cool. Hee. I didn't mean to make you write so much! That's pretty much my take on it.

My hubby insisted that all events other than the apology scene were accurate. I'm like, "did you HEAR the typewriter?" Which is not to say that they weren't emotionaly accurate; they may have been. But this is Briony's story, not Robbie and Cecilia's. They don't really have control over the details.

[sunshine-queen.livejournal.com]

LOL, are you kidding? I love thinking/talking about this story. Writing it was fun, not tiresome!

Also, hee, I didn't even really notice the typewriter, which should have been such huge clue, so, you know, go me. But you're absolutely right: Robbie and Cecilia are what Briony created entirely, and she was allowed to add whatever embellishments she chose. Poor Robbie and Cecilia.

[prettyparadox.livejournal.com]

I still have to see the movie. :3 I don't think they said in the book how Cecilia died - there wasn't any detail about drowning? I hope they don't show that in the movie...I don't think I could take it. Maybe the movie's focus is more on Cecilia; the book I felt is centered on Briony.

Perhaps since I read the book first, that I'm more...sympathetic is not quite it...less condemning toward Briony. Briony could have rested the blame on Lola, but she didn't. Briony bore the burden herself (as she should have, but any number of people in Briony's shoes could and would have dismissed the crime as a folly of youth). She could have repressed the truth, and kept her silence for the rest of her life, but she didn't. Also, there is no such thing as an reliable narrator. Events as viewed through human eyes will invariably be subject to distortion - Briony's is an extreme case of course. Even though Briony must have desperately craved forgiveness, that she knew asking to be absolved would be another selfish act, and therefore didn't let herself off the hook - I think that's brave, and I have to give Briony at least an ounce of credit in the end.

[sunshine-queen.livejournal.com]

In the book it said that Cecilia died when the bomb hit the water/gas mains over Balham tube station, so it was pretty much implied that she drowned.

And the movie is centered on Briony, hence my "what of Cecilia?" It's never explored, not the way Briony's and Robbie's lives are.

I'm totally sympathetic to Briony- to an extent. I don't think she was malicious or that she was a life-ruiner on purpose. However- she totally was. 100% a life-ruiner. But, one could argue Briony is a narcissicist, and "sharing" the blame with Lola would've lessened her role. Also, I don't really think anyone who understood the scope of what their words had done could chalk it up as "the folly of youth." She ruined two people's lives. She didn't inconvenience them. She didn't disrupt them. She ruined them.

Also, there is no such thing as an reliable narrator.

When it's an omniscient narrator, yes there is. When it's the narration of someone who lived it, then it's subject to personal view and desires, hence the entire story.

Even though Briony must have desperately craved forgiveness, that she knew asking to be absolved would be another selfish act,

- Whoa. You think that her writing this book wasn't a desperate stab at attempting to create her own absolution, since she couldn't get it from her sister or Robbie? The entire book's purpose was to clear Robbie's name through her words, published after she and the Marshalls had died so that no one could contest it. Briony writing this novel was totally her way of attempting to alleviate her guilt and try to atone for her sins.

[prettyparadox.livejournal.com]

When I first heard about Atonement, it was admittedly through hearing about James McAvoy and Keira Knightley being cast as Robbie and Cecilia. So I was surprised when I read the book that Briony's the pivotal character (but then again in Briony's mind, especially as a child, everything revolves around her). I wasn't particularly intrigued by Cecilia, but maybe Keira's performance texturizes Cecilia. I wonder if our difference is perspective is because we started with different mediums.

When it's an omniscient narrator, yes there is. When it's the narration of someone who lived it, then it's subject to personal view and desires, hence the entire story.

But what's "omniscient"? Essentially the narrator is the author, and authors have to pick characters to focus on, which perspectives to place emphases on.

- Whoa. You think that her writing this book wasn't a desperate stab at attempting to create her own absolution, since she couldn't get it from her sister or Robbie? The entire book's purpose was to clear Robbie's name through her words, published after she and the Marshalls had died so that no one could contest it. Briony writing this novel was totally her way of attempting to alleviate her guilt and try to atone for her sins.

Whatever Briony may have fabricated or embellished, she didn't write that her sister or Robbie forgave her; to do so would have been selfish. Briony recognizes that regardless of the happy ending she gives Cecilia and Robbie in a parallel, fictional universe, it's not enough to atone for her crime, and hence the paradox of being a writer, which McEwan conveys better than I.

[sunshine-queen.livejournal.com]

I knew when I started reading the book (before I saw the movie) that Briony was a pivotal character; what I didn't know was how minimal Cecilia's role was. Keira's role does "texturize" Cecilia- Keira Knightley is truly brilliant in this role, IMO. However, I've always been the kind of person straining after bits of information I'm not given in canon, hence fic-writing.

Omniscient (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=omniscient): having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.
Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.

A narrator can choose which character to focus on, but that doesn't mean he isn't entirely aware of the motivations and actions of other characters. In this case, the narrator is not omniscient, and, arguably, the failure to realize that is what gets everyone into that mess.

Whatever Briony may have fabricated or embellished, she didn't write that her sister or Robbie forgave her; to do so would have been selfish. Briony recognizes that regardless of the happy ending she gives Cecilia and Robbie in a parallel, fictional universe, it's not enough to atone for her crime, and hence the paradox of being a writer, which McEwan conveys better than I.

She didn't write that Robbie and Cecilia forgave her, but I think that was less her choice and more the sharp pang of realization that she couldn't stray that far from the truth. However, her novel had her working to atone herself by telling the truth to a solicitor and to her parents, therefore doing whatever she was capable of to right her horrible wrong. It didn't lessen her crime, but it would lessen her guilt. I think she's totally aware that creating a fictional happiness for her sister and Robbie is a way of making her feel better, and, also- she totally thinks that in writing it, she gives them a bit of happiness. She even says "the lovers survive and flourish. As long as there is a single copy, a solitary typescript of my final draft, then my spontaneous, fortuitous sister and her medical prince survive to love." And I really think that by creating this realm of fictional happiness for them, she is making herself feel better, which is selfish. I truly believe that Briony writing that fictional ending is the ultimate act of selfishness: I don't think Robbie and Cecilia, whose lives were so altered by her words, would want their lives changed by her anymore.

[prettyparadox.livejournal.com]

But the other part that Briony realizes the problem with being a writer - there's no higher power to grant the writer forgiveness or absolution, because the writer is "God." She may have given them the happy ending, but the Robbie and Cecilia in her book are separate entities from the people whose lives she damaged irreparably in real life. Maybe she felt the truth and burden was hers to bear, not readers' (this could be interpreted as selfishness, that she wants to keep the true story to herself, but it could also be selflessness). Briony's issue in her youth was that she could not distinguish fact from her world of fiction - but at the end of the life, she recognizes that no matter what kind of ending she gives Robbie and Cecilia in her book, it does not erase the crime she committed at age 13. Briony's guilt isn't assuaged in the end.

[sunshine-queen.livejournal.com]

Well, clearly. But just because her guilt isn't assuaged doesn't make it any her any less selfish for manipulating the ending. In her youth, she couldn't separate fact and fiction, and sixty years later she's still mixing them up.

[prettyparadox.livejournal.com]

Briony purposely changed the ending - she knew the truth, but she chose not to write it, which may be deceitful, but it may also be selfless as I said before. This is not the same as her accusation of Robbie; her changing the ending is a purposeful and conscious act - Briony's not schizophrenic, not according to the book anyways. McEwan left the relationship between authorship and atonement ambigious; on one hand Robbie and Cecilia get the happy ending they were robbed of in real-life, and on the other no amount of fantasy and fairy tales can change reality. We disagree on which side of the coin it lands on, like so many other things we've discussed before.

[sunshine-queen.livejournal.com]

I am entirely bewildered at how Briony changing the ending could be construed as "selfless." Please explain.

[prettyparadox.livejournal.com]

I did explain. She gave them the happy ending, yet stopped short of her having Cecilia and Robbie forgive her, "not quite, not yet." Briony's sins are hers to bear, not the readers'. What difference would it have made if the ending in the book was tragic instead of happy? Since when are memoirs entirely accurate anyways? Briony wrote a happy ending, but she still didn't let herself off the hook entirely; she knows she is still accountable for her crime for as long as she lives.

[sunshine-queen.livejournal.com]

Do you honestly think that it's selfless to write a happy ending? SELFLESS? As in, Briony is only thinking of others, and not herself, when she wrote that ending? The difference between Briony's ending and the real ending is HUGE: THE TRUTH. The truth is the difference between Briony's happy ending and the tragic real one, and to sugarcoat is being the God of her own universe. It wasn't enough that she had to engineer their lives while they were living: she has to pay them the ultimate disrespect by continuing to fuck with their lives after they'd died. It isn't a kindness, it's desecration. Briony did not write this book to tell a nice story to an audience, she wrote it because she had to, and she did it to allievate her guilt. She may know that she is accountable for her crime, but she's still trying to find a way to atone, and through writing this book- HENCE THE TITLE- that is what she is achieving. Atonement doesn't mean forgiveness, it means reparation for a wrong, it means to make amends. Briony wrote the story in an attempt to atone for her sins, and she can't do that by way of the wronged, because they're dead, so she's trying to get it anyway she can.

Briony wrote a happy ending, but she still didn't let herself off the hook entirely

Entirely. Didn't let herself off the hook entirely, but she wriggled off a it, and relieved herself. Writing that book with that ending was wriggling off the hook to make herself feel better. There is nothing but selfishness in that act.

[prettyparadox.livejournal.com]

Yes, I honestly think that it's selfless. Why would I be any less than sincere, unless this isn't a question, or rather a patronizing one? Briony didn't give HERSELF the happy ending - Robbie and Cecilia didn't forgive her, so she wasn't acting in self-interest, in assuaging a guilt that can't be erased. The truth matters little in this book - it didn't matter when the police took the word of a 13 year-old girl instead of opening an investigation, it wasn't going to matter years after they closed the file on Lola's assault. Even if Robbie's record was to be corrected and expunged, the damage has already been done. He served the time, he's been separated from his love.

If the ending was all that mattered, had Briony wrote the truth, the tragic end of Robbie and Cecilia, would her atonement have been successful then? Because I don't think it would.

[sunshine-queen.livejournal.com]

Okay, clearly I'm the retard here, because... I honestly DO NOT SEE how you could possibly think of it as selfless. Because your reasoning, as I see it, boils down to this:

- Because in her FICTIONAL VERSION, Robbie and Cecilia didn't forgive her, that means that Briony was not selfish.

=> because she was not selfish, that makes her book selfless.

I don't remember the names of all the fallacies I learned in TOK, but I know that that's a big honking one.

Briony CANNOT give herself a happy ending because, oh, I don't know, there isn't one. Robbie and Cecilia are unable to forgive her because, aside from the whole ruined-lives bit, they are also MUCH WITH THE DEAD. Very much dead. So very dead, in fact, that Briony has had sixty some years to mess with the details of their ruined lives to fit her own selfish need to feel better. The whole book was written in self-interest, because if she was truly being selfless, she wouldn't have written the book. She would have suffered in silence. There is no name to clear, no record to expunge. Writing the book benefited NO ONE except for Briony, which pretty much earns her the crown of selfishness.

The thing is? The truth matters. And the violation/bastardization of the truth (in addition to the blatant disregard for it) is a HUGE PART OF THE NOVEL. It matters that Briony lied then, it mattered that Briony lies in the novel. It matters because all these years later Briony is still dealing with things she can't comprehend, and she's still using her words to give her version of the events, which is what she did when she accused Robbie and what she's doing now. Briony didn't learn her lesson, and, sadly, doesn't even realize it.

Her atonement will never be successful. But I think changing the ending sets her back four or five steps. She may not be selfish on purpose, but selfish she is.

[prettyparadox.livejournal.com]

Are you essentially saying that even attempting to atone for one's mistakes is selfish? Then the ending doesn't matter, because Briony shouldn't have written the novel in the first place? Briony's James Frey then, but even if she didn't achieve her personal absolution, as a writer she decided on the ending that fit with the book she wrote. Robbie and Cecilia are very much dead, so they couldn't forgive Briony - well, what does it matter what they'd think about the book then? They're dead. Those are the facts, if that's all you care about.

[sunshine-queen.livejournal.com]

My friend and I were just discussing that, actually: if Briony's book got published, and people found out that it was essentially a lie, there would be a lot of unamused Oprah Book Club readers out there.

It's not selfish to attempt atonement in and of itself, but Briony can't achieve it because those whom she wounded the deepest are no longer there to give it. Therefore, this attempt may seem to Briony to be an atonement, but it's totally not.

And it does matter what Robbie and Cecilia would think. It's called "respecting the dead." Some people care about that sort of thing. Especially when they're, oh. I don't know. Trying to atone for the great distress they caused.

[prettyparadox.livejournal.com]

Well screw Oprah's minions club following her every pick of book, candidate endorsement, etc. etc. A book can be beautiful and poignant even if it's not entirely factual, or a true memoir. In Briony's case, the crux of the facts are presented - that Robbie never assaulted Lola, that he was wrongly imprisoned.

Briony never said that she achieved atonement; in fact she admitted she will always fall short, "The attempt is all that matters." [paraphrased] Briony used her powers as a writer to give Robbie and Cecilia the happy ending in her book that was unattainable in real-life, without wedging herself into it. How is that selfish? As a writer Briony made the decision for the best ending for her book, for her readers. The burden of the truth, the sins of the past, Briony still carries.

[sunshine-queen.livejournal.com]

Dude, it's not like Oprah made something up to turn people against James Frey, he was a liar who said what happened to him was true and it wasn't.

A book can be beautiful and poignant and not true, but when it is presented as true, as Briony's book is, then it ceases to be... oh, true. When people write their memoirs or autobiographies, they might change a date, or overexaggerate, or not mention something, but very rarely do they say, "well, my mom died when I was seven, but in my memoirs, I'm going to make her... not die. Because, well. I just... think the readers would like that better." Because that's... a lie. And therefore it should be fiction and not autobiographical or whatever.

Briony used her powers as a writer to give Robbie and Cecilia the happy ending in her book that was unattainable in real-life, without wedging herself into it.

Writing it at all was wedging herself into their lives. She was meddling. Again. Some more. Changing the ending for her readers makes it seem that Briony thinks less of her readers, who couldn't handle the ugly truth. It is selfish that Briony is essentially wrote fanfic to her sister's life. Briony might still be burdened by the truth, but she isn't doing it out of a feeling of obligation, she did it for her readers.

[prettyparadox.livejournal.com]

Dude, Oprah trots out her army and soon all anyone can see is how that didn't happen in "real-life," instead of looking at the body of work itself, and perhaps the value of the work itself outweighs whether or not it actually happened. Briony acted not out of malice or ill-will, in my opinion, but out of love. And you can go on and contest how it's not love, it's meddling and once again ruining her sister's life, blahblah, but the underlying intention that she had in writing the book is to make things "right"; atonement. Of all the mysteries about Cecilia, what about that of her sisterhood with Briony? It's your opinion that Cecilia wouldn't appreciate Briony's book, but nobody really knows what Cecilia would think; it's all conjecture. And before Briony's crime, Cecilia loved her sister very much. And perhaps despite the crime, maybe she still does. Family members hurt each other, and the wounds run deep, but the bonds remain. Cecilia, and Briony chose to ignore each other for the remainder of their lives, but it would have been impossible to have never thought about each other. It's not unfathomable to think Cecilia ran a thousand conversations in her head, of what she would say to Briony if they ever met again. Maybe Cecilia would not appreciate Briony changing the ending, but perhaps she would recognize how it must have taken her sister a token of apology, courage and love, to publicly admit she ruined Robbie's life. It's convenient to think of Briony soley as a "life ruiner," the foil to an epic love story. But then why didn't McEwan write from Cecilia's, Robbie's, or an "omniscient" point of view? People who do bad things aren't always bad people.

[sunshine-queen.livejournal.com]

If James Frey had wanted his book to be respected as a body of work in and of itself, he wouldn't have lied and called it a "true" story. He made his own bed when he called that book autobiographical and... it wasn't. The value of the work cannot overcome the basic fact that the author said "I did not make this up. This happened." when really he totally made it up.

This entire conversation was started when you conjectured that I had something against Briony to start with. This is the first conversation I've had with anyone where I have not been defending Briony, so you can kindly get off your valiant steed of defensiveness. You think that Briony wrote her false ending out of love. And I agree. I think Briony legitimately thought she was doing what she thought was right. Can you do something and be unintentionally selfish? Yes, you totally can. And that's what I think happened here.

Of Cecilia: she is a mystery which! Was my original message. If Briony felt so badly towards her sister, she might have included her more. I think Cecilia wouldn't appreciate Briony's book for several reasons, which are as followed:

- She cut herself off from her family after Robbie's incarceration.
- She ignored all attempts from her siblings to reconciliate.
- If we can believe that the letter excerpts we read in the book were true, she told Robbie that she could never forgive Briony.
- She might very well have loved her sister, but that has nothing to do with approving of her actions.
- Bonds beyond blood do not necessarily remain.
- And to say so off-handedly that Cecilia probably though often of Briony is ridiculous. Yeah, sure. She probably wondered idly about her sister. But I'm sure she also thought 'oh, well, I'm totally worrying about my boyfriend because he's in a prison because of my sister's testimony' or 'boy, I'm so glad Briony testified at Robbie's trial, cause now he's in France and it's just fabulous.'
- It is entirely fathomable to think that Cecilia probably thought about what she'd say if she saw Briony again. That does not mean in any way that she wanted to see her sister, or that she wanted to forgive her sister.
- And yes. Perhaps Cecilia would have seen through her sister's flight of fancy for the umpteenth time and thought, 'oh, I suppose Briony did what she thought was right,' but she could have thought that about the trial, too. That doesn't mean that what she did was right, it means that Cecilia could acknowledge that Briony thought what she was doing was right. They are two very separate things.

But you're right: everything about conjecture about Cecilia. So you could be entirely wrong too.

No one ever said that people who do bad things are always bad people. I didn't say Briony was a bad person, I said she was a life-ruiner. One who ruins lives. Briony ruined both Cecilia's and Robbie's lives, therefore making her a life-ruiner.

[prettyparadox.livejournal.com]

In everything I've said, I've prefaced with a "maybe" or "perhaps," so how this translates to a "valiant steed of defensiveness," is beyond me, but then again so is this entire "conversation." Good night, and good luck.

[sunshine-queen.livejournal.com]

... Except where you didn't. But whatever.

[raptor47.livejournal.com]

FYI: I've friended your journal (due to your undying love for all things Alias). I hope you don't mind.

[sunshine-queen.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the head's up! Oh, Alias. You bring such joy.

[xenaamber.livejournal.com]

I finally saw the movie, just for you. And I actually liked it a LOT more than the book. Usually I love the book and hate the movie, but I thought 1) this was a beautifully-made movie in its own right, and 2) the book lends itself more to images than words.

The music was extremely striking, and I really noticed the lighting as well -- I don't know if they have lighting awards, but this movie deserved it. The two examples which stand out in my mind are the library scene where Briony walks forward into the stripe of light and keeps weaving in and out of the darkness, and Robbie lighting the match to see the postcard. But there were a lot of others I noticed as well. All the actors were perfect, and despite my annoyance at Keira Knightley being the only person ever cast in the "young British female" roles now, I thought she was the right choice here.

And I think this story works better as a movie than as a book, because so much of it depends on misperceptions and not understanding what's happening behind the images. In a book it's very easy to overexplain things, but in movies you're forced either to work in a lot of clunky exposition, or to leave it unsaid. And the whole point of this book is what is unsaid. Usually that's the problem I have with movie adaptations of books -- they screw up the character development in order to get from Plot Point A to Plot Point B -- but I found quite the reverse about "Atonement."

That said, I recall being distinctly uninterested in the book, so take my recollections of it with a grain of salt. But I genuinely liked the movie. I'm considering rereading it, actually.

I love that discussion above, btw. :D

[sunshine-queen.livejournal.com]

Well, don't forget that we have entirely opposite tastes in books, so you might not like it anyway.

I think it is an AMAZING book, and the many subtleties in it make it more fantastic than the movie, but I agree that it was better to see the movie first and then enjoy the extra information provided by the movie.

The music is BEYOND gorgeous, I'm so glad that the score is getting the accolades it deserves. And I actually read a really long technical article about the lighting in the movie. Everything about this movie is so dead-on and perfect.

I totally don't get why it's so in vogue to hate Keira Knightley, but aside from loving her, I think she was absolutely perfect as Cecilia. I love her.

Heh, oh, the conversation above. Woo.

Also, too bad you wouldn't see it when I was there. :-p

[xenaamber.livejournal.com]

I will reread the book at some point. I reserve the right to dislike it, though. :-) But I will give it a fair chance.

People don't like Keira? Really? Everyone I know loves her... I'm all alone in not caring for her. Although it's not that I dislike her, especially -- she's been good in most stuff of hers I've seen. It's just that she appears to be the only British actress Hollywood recognises. The only others that come to mind are Kate Winslet and Helena Bonham-Carter, both of whom are just a little too old for roles like Cecelia or Lizzie in "Pride and Prejudice." Surely we can produce at least one more young star? :D As I said, I liked her in "Atonement" -- I just resent that she's in everything requiring a British female.

I wanted to see "Love in the Time of Cholera" with you more, and I'm bitter I still haven't seen that. Besides, I took a picture of you with Jen, so you should forgive me. :P

I love all your icons, too, btw -- my favourite is the "White Cliffs of Dover" one in the comment I'm replying to now.

[sunshine-queen.livejournal.com]

You can't dislike it! It's the same story!

OMG, all I ever hear is how people dislike Keira Knightley, which I totally don't get. She's even delightful in interviews, and like, legitimately delightful, not fake show delightful. But it's the same deal with American actresses- why is it always Jessica Alba and Biel and other no-talent girls? At least Keira is good.

But "Love in the Time of Cholera" wasn't playing in CT, Atonement was! I am bitter we didn't see it, though.

I love my icons. I have a gajillion more, too. It's so pretty.

[xenaamber.livejournal.com]

The same plot doesn't mean it's the same THING, though... how else do you explain how Hollywood generally manages to screw up movie adaptations of books? You can preserve the basic story but lose out on a lot of the magic. I have yet to experience this in reverse, but there's a first time for everything... I may still hate the book.

I like Jessica Alba, actually. And not just because she has my name. :D

I like your icons too.

[sunshine-queen.livejournal.com]

Then you will have to accept that that makes you broken, not the book.

[xenaamber.livejournal.com]

Very possibly. But I don't much care. :P