Watching the film for a second time with a critic's eye did not do one thing to diminish the awe I felt the first time I saw it. I could not find a weakness. It's well-constructed, well-shot and well-acted. The story and characters are interesting. I care about the characters and their conflicts and I want to know what happens to them. What else is there? There's a moral, that's what.
So many people had a problem with the ending. Nobody likes an ending in which such a sympathetic character meets his end, but what other choice was there? Even if it hadn't been an adaptation, could one really imagine Oscar and Lucinda settling down, making a go of the glass factory, raising a flock of kids and sneaking-out on Saturday nights for some cards? No. We all want happy endings, but we all know too well that their existence is a blessing more than a given, and that has everything to do with why we crave them so much.
Oscar and Lucinda are misfits, pure and simple. They're ahead, or behind or beside or below their time. We know by now that people who are on the fringes of society are never treated well by it. I don't think the ending should have come as a surprise to anyone. That's how life was then and how it still is today. "Fit in or you're setting yourself up for sacrifice." We don't like to think of ourselves as the slaughterers of society's squirrely lambs, but if we aren't, who is? I think the ending's so disquieting to so many because nobody wants to think of him/herself as one of the wielders of the axe ... especially when such an innocent, like Oscar, is the victim. It's not a shock that such a misfit dies, the shock is that we killed him, under the guise of society.
The scene in which the husband-nabber, for all practical purposes, rapes Oscar, drives this home starkly and succinctly. One minute she's sympathetically lowing, "Look what they've done to you" and the next she's sealing his miserable fate for her own warped needs. Society's a self-serving hypocrite.
Unfortunately, that hasn't changed much for the better in 150 years. Anyone who calls this a "period piece" is so very wrong. The setting is merely a sly vehicle to slip into the front of our collective psyche those ills of which we already are aware, but which we daily choose to ignore. Any attempt, successful or not to accomplish this should be lauded.
This attempt was successful. I'm not going to go into any specifics about performances or camera angles. That would be an insult. I can think of so few films that teach so important a lesson. The obvious lack of ego shown by any participant is evidence that the perfect cast and crew was assembled and that they got the job done. They already know they did ... they've got the finished film as a beautiful reward for their hard work.
It should be required viewing for all as a beautiful lesson in tolerance. There are Oscars and Lucindas around us everyday. It's up to all of us to create the happy ending that we say we want to see so badly.
So many people had a problem with the ending. Nobody likes an ending in which such a sympathetic character meets his end, but what other choice was there? Even if it hadn't been an adaptation, could one really imagine Oscar and Lucinda settling down, making a go of the glass factory, raising a flock of kids and sneaking-out on Saturday nights for some cards? No. We all want happy endings, but we all know too well that their existence is a blessing more than a given, and that has everything to do with why we crave them so much.
Oscar and Lucinda are misfits, pure and simple. They're ahead, or behind or beside or below their time. We know by now that people who are on the fringes of society are never treated well by it. I don't think the ending should have come as a surprise to anyone. That's how life was then and how it still is today. "Fit in or you're setting yourself up for sacrifice." We don't like to think of ourselves as the slaughterers of society's squirrely lambs, but if we aren't, who is? I think the ending's so disquieting to so many because nobody wants to think of him/herself as one of the wielders of the axe ... especially when such an innocent, like Oscar, is the victim. It's not a shock that such a misfit dies, the shock is that we killed him, under the guise of society.
The scene in which the husband-nabber, for all practical purposes, rapes Oscar, drives this home starkly and succinctly. One minute she's sympathetically lowing, "Look what they've done to you" and the next she's sealing his miserable fate for her own warped needs. Society's a self-serving hypocrite.
Unfortunately, that hasn't changed much for the better in 150 years. Anyone who calls this a "period piece" is so very wrong. The setting is merely a sly vehicle to slip into the front of our collective psyche those ills of which we already are aware, but which we daily choose to ignore. Any attempt, successful or not to accomplish this should be lauded.
This attempt was successful. I'm not going to go into any specifics about performances or camera angles. That would be an insult. I can think of so few films that teach so important a lesson. The obvious lack of ego shown by any participant is evidence that the perfect cast and crew was assembled and that they got the job done. They already know they did ... they've got the finished film as a beautiful reward for their hard work.
It should be required viewing for all as a beautiful lesson in tolerance. There are Oscars and Lucindas around us everyday. It's up to all of us to create the happy ending that we say we want to see so badly.