How sad is this?

Great Film overall

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

Blistering performances.

I just watched "Birdsong" on PBS. Didn't know anything about it other than it had Eddie Redmayne in it. His work in "Savage Grace", "The Good Shepherd", and "Les Miserable" sets him apart from other actors of his generation. As does his work here. He pretty much carries "Birdsong" on his shoulders singlehandedly which saved this fairly flawed film. It is a "made for TV product" but on some levels; acting, art direction, and cinematography, it's Oscar material - and then at others like; screenplay, and... well, really just the screenplay, it's a mess. That being said, the essence of what the movie is trying to convey is more than vaulted into the viewers mind and senses. This three hour "thing" I just watched is more of a performance (Redmayne) than a film. Fortunately that worked because Redmayne's performance is a powerful sensory overload that is moving and overwhelming. He could do the whole film without ever uttering a word and you'd walk away knowing; that war is hell, how it ruins people, how it makes heroes of some and distant memories of others, and that the carnage of war can come in the form of a letter from home as lethally as from a bomb or a bullet. I, personally, believe that Eddie Redmayne is one of the most gifted actors working today. It's in his eyes. Every wonderful, horrible, moment. Stephen, the main character played by Eddie Redmayne, is in France on the front line during WWI. He is a harsh and aloof lieutenant. In one of the opening scenes, however, a soldier is fatally wounded and Stephen holds his hand as he is dying and asks him, "do you have a sweetheart", "what's her name", "hold on", "think of the last thing you said to her and the first thing you'll say when you see her again". He knows he'll never see his sweetheart again but maybe this soldier saw her beautiful face in his mind before he died instead of the hellscape he died in. The woman Stephen loved and lost scrolls through his mind constantly. His memory of her is what keeps him alive and believing there will be a tomorrow beyond the hell he is in now. Their story is told, you will see, in recollections and flashbacks during his worst times at war. Those memories are his only grasp on sanity in an insane place. So, this is a war story, and we've seen them before. Right? Right. However, having visited the very moving and sobering Viet Nam War Memorial in Washington, DC, and the American Cemetery in Normandy, France (three times - one of the saddest and most beautiful places on Earth), as effective as those experiences were, they don't, and aren't meant to, convey the terror and madness experienced by those soldiers when they died. This film and its stars, come about as close as one can to showing us what it is like to hold a dying soldiers hand, to be mortally wounded, to see in your mind the faces of the ones you love as your life slips away from you, or how random life and death on the battlefield can be. It's in their eyes. It's especially in the eyes of Eddie Redmayne. So, despite the fact that the script has real problems and the editing not much better (another reviewer mentioned that piano arpeggio "borrowed" from Avo Part's "Spiegle Im Spiegle"? Overdone does not come close to describing how much this plot device was overused), the film succeeds in many ways and on many levels. One of those is the acting from Eddie Redmayne, Joseph Mawle, and Richard Madden. They effectively establish the bond between men who share the life and death experiences of an ugly war. In particular, the storyline between Redmayne's character, Stephen Wraysford, and Joseph Mawle's character, Jack Firebrace, is powerful. It, more than the love story, in the fulcrum of this narrative. Their performances convey what a mind and body are put through when they're at war, and the inevitable carnage that will live in the memory forever of one of them and die with the other. Through their relationship, Stephen becomes a man. And while I don't like doing this, I am going to take issue with some of the reviews I've read here that attack the lead actor based on his looks and acting skill. As for the looks, since when is a soldier supposed to look like anything more than an average guy? Because that's who goes to war. Average, regular, guys. Though I would also take issue with describing Redmayne as "average". He has a compelling on screen handsomeness that is undeniable. As for the swipes at his acting skills, especially that he is "wooden" (?), everyone is entitled to an opinion, I just gave mine, but some of these comments read like they were written by someone using an alias who was up for the lead role and didn't get it. Seriously. Eddie Redmayne can find a perfect pitch in any role he does. His filmography has a varied scope of characters that he has played with a realness that is unparalleled. While others "act", he "lives" the characters he plays on screen. This film is very much worth consideration.

The scenery was very good and the acting of Jack Mawle as Firebrace was superb but that is the best that I can say about this film.After reading Faulks' amazing book it was a huge disappointment; Eddie Redmayne spent a lot of time staring, Clemency Poesy often looked to be in pain and their "love-making" lacked any sign of love; it was crudely portrayed.I am sorry to say that my husband and I have made two attempts to watch it and each time given up from boredom before the end. More than once we asked ourselves if we would have known what was going on had we not read the book.The flash backs were intrusive and the pace of the film slow; no wonder Sebastian Faulks expressed his misgivings about the making of a feature-length Hollywood movie.

*****Contains Spoilers***** Since this is currently available online, I spent my Saturday afternoon watching it. Masterpiece Classic has brought America many excellent British series. "Birdsong" was not one. It was slow and sad. I found it hard to believe that the leads were in love since they never had a conversation. A relationship based on physical attraction is LUST, not love. Also, a happy ending never gets old, so why drag us through a gruesome war and not give us one? In fact, by the end I disliked both leads. I never got a chance to like Stephen since he had very little dialogue. The writers couldn't seem to figure out who he was either. His choices were inconsistent with what they tried to tell us about his character. So I started out by feeling pretty ambivalent about him, and by the end I disliked him completely. He also wasn't very bright. I knew immediately why Isabelle left, and he didn't figure it out until Isabel's sister showed him! It's hard to believe he could be that dense. Many of the other soldiers were more interesting characters, but we didn't get to know them very well. Why did so many good men die, but Stephen had nine lives? It became completely unbelievable how many times he should have died but didn't. It seems like he was the ONLY English survivor at the end. My recollection of WWI history is a bit fuzzy, and this only made it worse. I should have given up on this and watched something else, but I kept thinking it would get better. I was wrong. I'm trying to think of something nice to say about this movie. I don't want to be that person who can only talk about the negative aspects. So after racking my brain, I will say that the sets were very real. I believed they were underground. I believed it was dark, dirty and very dangerous. The costumes were very good as far as I could tell. The lack of color overall, contributed to the bleak and hopeless feeling.This movie was poorly written, the story was hard to follow and most of the characters were lack luster and cold. If you like this time period watch "Downton Abbey." If you want to see an excellent British mini- series, watch "Cranford." There are many others, but these are the two that leap to mind for me. Don't waste your time with "Birdsong."

Birdsong provided realistic insight into the horror (and tedium) of WWI; much less "glamorous" than WWII, but clearly equal in the scale of human suffering. Add to that the frustration of a young man coming of age and there is little raw emotion left.Eddie Redmayne IS Stephen Wraysford! A marvelous WWI officer; young, idealistic, and devoted to his men, he understood what they were going through, the hopelessness of war, and that, in the final analysis, all that matters is loving and touching! Years of suffering had infused Stephen with wisdom beyond his years. His time as a young lover occupied an exaggerated place in his life because he was completely enamored with Isabelle, yet had such a short time with her! He was familiar with paid sex with prostitutes, but his heart belonged to Isabelle. Sadly, he did not understand that a woman who was weak enough to succumb to an affair was not a good candidate for depth of commitment. She was Stephen's entire "world," but her lack of self-esteem prevented her from understanding that her worth to him was enormous. The bunker scenes with Joseph Mawle (Firebrace) and Richard Madden (Weir) and Eddie Redmayne are absolute magic. It is easy to see why they are rated as up and coming stars! They hit just the right notes as young men who were stuck in the war effort and were trying to do the best they could, while wanting it to be over and to just "go home." Oddly, Stephen could actually "go home" when he had leave since he had lived close to this battle area of France before the war. Stephen Wraysford was irreparably changed by the war and was forced to compromise his remaining years. His physical needs were met, but his emotional needs were never addressed; they could not be. If the war had not happened, one can imagine a long and satisfactory (if more shallow) life for Stephen Wraysford, involved in the manufacture of fabric, and of finding love, and if his future was to be in France or back in England. But, the war did happen, and those four years of horror continued to run roughshod over the remainder of his days.