Review of Orlando

Orlando (1992)
2/10
Really dull, long-winded adaptation of a wonderful, concise novel!
11 April 2006
This was always going to be a hard novel to adapt - the very qualities that make it a great read make a confusing film. The book has a mysterious, dream-like, languid quality - Woolf can slip over hundreds of years in a sentence and the reader admires her prose skill and absolute razor conciseness.

On the screen though a jump of that kind, with no explanation, is just confusing. We detect from early on in the book that it's more of a psychological fable set against a literary / historical background than a naturalistic, historical story with a real plot. But on film all the realistic period detail etc taken in by your eye makes you instinctively expect realistic events. Might have been a better film if done like a Greenaway, so clear to the viewer it's not a 'realistic' story etc. Or if completely re-interpreted, or turned into a feminist polemic - by just translating as closely as possible events from the book to screen it's just thin and pointless. Plus many long, silent, madness-inducing pauses in the film, which obviously you don't get in a book.

There's simply no 'story' in the film, no reason to care, and the only character seen long enough to register is Tilda Swinton's Orlando, who as a distant, expressionless, apparent immortal you just can't care about. We don't even get to know 'what it's like' to be Orlando, and there's no interest in the whys and wherefores of his/her immortality - so no 'threat', no 'learning', no story arc of any kind. All in all I can't recommend the book highly enough (plus it's really thin!) but don't bother with the film.
20 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed