Unlike the original, Warren is a developed character in his own right, and he ultimately gets the guy. Adaptational Sexuality / Gender Swap: Daisy Gamble is replaced with David Gamble, a "29-year old, single homosexual male." Melinda, however, stays Melinda.In the revival, she's a big band singer from the 1940s in New York. Adaptational Backstory Change: In the original musical, Melinda was an English noble woman from the 18th Century.Adaptational Alternate Ending: In this version, David ends back with Warren, not Mark.Unreliable Voiceover: Daisy's narration of her 18th-century flashbacks often contradicts the immediate happenings.Title Theme Tune: In a rare musical theatre example, the prelude features the title song sung by an offstage chorus.Talking to Plants: Daisy does this in the song "Hurry! It's Lovely Up Here.".Reincarnation: Mark probes into Daisy's unconscious memories of her past life in 18th-century England as Melinda Welles.Psychic Powers: Daisy's demonstrated psychic powers include knowing where other people's car keys are and making flowers grow really fast.Ooh, Me Accent's Slipping: Daisy's British accent starts to fade when she stops recalling memories of her previous life in 18th-century England. ![]() My Sister Is Off-Limits: Edward invokes this with the song "Don't Tamper with My Sister," though the complaint here is just that it's in public (and Edward is only pretending to be her brother anyway).Loving a Shadow: Mark falls in love with Melinda, though she only exists in Daisy's unconscious recollections.Funny Foreigner: Themistocles Kriakos, an eccentric Greek millionaire who speaks broken English and is more than eager to fund serious research on reincarnation.Distant Duet: In the film version, when Daisy is avoiding the psychiatrist and he tries to reach her telepathically, she begins hearing the words of the song "Come Back to Me" coming from the mouths of her cooking class teacher, police officers, and other random strangers.Go see it anyway- support the growth of these folks! I gave this an encouraging 8 out of 10. The ill-fitting chunks weren't their fault- they were just an artifact of the awkward and 'green' directorial efforts. Oh, the cast was great, and they obviously did everything they were asked to do, and they did it very well. That's what 'Clear Day' is like- a quilt whose individual pieces are great, showing bright and future success, but not put together very well, showing immaturity and a student just beginning to blossom. This student work shows genius and promise, both undelivered as of now. And then imagine this future master's last 'student' project, when she was 17 years old or so, before the magic clicked and she got great. Imagine a master-to-be quilt maker a quilt making artist whose work will be celebrated in the UK and America, and featured on PBS and BBC documentaries and featured in museums, etc. ![]() 'On A Clear Day' made me think of quilt makers. Young, in their careers anyway, regardless of their actual calendar year age, but very talented. That is, this movie resembled a good student-like product from young and promising film makers. If they are young, or young-ish, this effort might bode well. I looked up the director and the writer online, and didn't find much. Overall, this is a pleasant movie- but it isn't a great one. These had neither a start, nor a finish- we simply saw one brief middle, as it were. Without discussing plot details, let me breezily mention the parts with Chan, the Chinese chippy guy, for example. Worse, those orphaned parts were never really stitched up as themselves- i.e., they never really completed themselves, nor made any real sense in and of themselves. Sure, we could accept a bit of non-convention, and even artiness, but some of the elements of this story never were stitched together with any other parts of the movie. But we do need some sense, anyway, of what various expositions mean. ![]() Many of the threads of the story simply go nowhere- not that we necessarily need a big plot-ish conclusion to everything. Some of the weaknesses, however, are how all of the individual components of the writer and director's vision are executed. It may be said this is a character driven movie, perhaps? And, all of the cast do a commendable job of providing us with the characters' humanity and depth. The camera lingers, the dialogue is written to enlighten us about the emotions (pleasant as well as despairing) of the characters. Another strength is the reliance on the humans, and their real-world behaviors, fears, and hopes (etc.) for the 'current' flow of the movie. It seems obvious that the writer and director had visions of something deep, meaningful, as well as entertaining. Some of the strengths are its attempt to tell a 'real' story, without recourse to shtick, cliché, or pop-star trickery so common on TV and in movies these days.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |