Touches You

Pretty Good

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

I read the book and then watched the 1999 film version of the book which stars Ralph Fiennes and Julianne Moore.The book is written in the 'first person', and is based on a Greene's love affair with a married woman that he had during the 2nd world war. I doubt whether this novel would sell many copies today as it contains too many pages devoted to an existential examination of the narrator's feelings and motives; and also of his lover and her husband. At the heart of the book is a philosophical debate over whether God exists and what part, if any, God plays in our everyday lives. Greene himself was an atheist who became a catholic in later life.I found the book a fascinating read, although I confess I was more into the characters and events surrounding the affair than the religious and existential elements. The 'affair' of the title is about a woman (Moore) who, after carrying on an illicit love affair for four years, suddenly breaks it off without any explanation. The man (Fiennes) discovers the truth when a private detective, who he hires to follow her, steals her diary. We learn about the affair and its break-up from two points of views – the man's and his lover's - via her stolen diary.The 1999 film of Greene's book is a bit of a gem and is well worth 102 minutes of your time. It is produced and directed by Neil Jordan, who also wrote the screenplay. For much of the film, Jordan didn't have a lot to do as far as the screenplay was concerned as Greene's original dialogue comes shining through in every scene. (It is said that so many of Greene's book were made into films because they were so 'cinematic' in their construction.)But towards the end of the film, Jordan strays from the original story. He didn't just cut out superfluous events and characters, which is what is usually done in film adaptations, but he actually changed part of the story. In the book, the cheating 'femme fatale' breaks up with the man and meets an atheistic street orator who has a badly pock- marked face. In the film, the atheistic orator becomes a catholic priest and the person with the badly scarred face is the son of the private detective who the narrator hires to follow her. The essential elements of the film remain more or less faithful to the book, but I do wonder why Jordan made these changes. He obviously didn't consider them to be 'fundamental' to the story and must have decided that his version was more cinematic than the book version. I have to say that the dialogue during these cinematic diversions from the book was pretty seamless and could have easily been Greene's own words. It was very cleverly done.Greene died some 8 years before this film version was made. Had he been alive, I doubt very much whether he would have agreed to the changes, as he was always personally involved in the screenplays of earlier films which were based on his books.Nevertheless, it is a fine film and captures the essence of Greene's classic novel for a new generation.

There are plenty of interesting, excellent and introspective cinematic explorations out there. This is *not* one of those movies. Neil Jordan' self-absorbed direction propels the plot into high melodrama, assisted by a score marred by unrelentingly saccharine strings and banal chords. The characters' inner conflicts are so straightforward it becomes ridiculous to watch them wallow in fake turmoil. I couldn't begin to start caring about their pathetic predicaments. Despite all this, the actors' performances are authentic and the love scenes are steamy, but nothing can save this film from being absurd, empty, nauseating drivel. I usually trust Finnes' and Moore's taste in scripts. Lesson learned. I assume the competition was thin on the ground the year this film won a BAFTA and an Oscar nomination.

There is much to like and admire in this: the script is well-turned, nuanced and may actually be better than the novel in many respects; the photography is perfect in detail and lighting and renders the characters ideally.The music is extremely effective and really underlines the film because it is elegiac; it echoes the past and because memory works in fragments it reminds strongly of those special moments which are gone.It is the direction and performance which give this film real depth and emotional engagement and for anyone who has ever had someone taken or lost, it will resonate.The three main characters are all solemn in their duty, in love, in pain and in regret. It is a technique that works powerfully and is in times with the war period and with the generation that saw life in dutiful and solemn terms. It gives a pitch of authenticity to the film and the casting has worked perfectly as Fiennes does solemn like no one else in the business, and he seems just right as a writer: introverted, analytical, abstract.It is a film,(a novel) and it offers the best of people and a connection to the mystical. The truth of the real affair that provided the basis to the story was not, however; that was debauched and narcissistic, but that fact is not important with this film.

Based on a Graham Green novel (which had been filmed previously with Van Johnson and Deborah Kerr in 1955), this story of tortured love is beautifully appointed and creatively directed, but also tends to be very one note and dour. In WWII England, Fiennes is a handsome author who is using statesman Rea as a research subject for an upcoming book. When Rea shows little interest and hasn't much available time, he suggests that Fiennes spend some time with his wife, Moore, in order to get her viewpoints of his life and career. Unfortunately, this leads to a hot and heavy affair as Fiennes awakens passions in Moore that Rea hasn't ever even tried to ignite. The couple enjoys a clandestine romance, meeting frequently in less-populated buildings during the Blitzkrieg and creating their own fireworks until one day, following a particularly nasty explosion, Moore refuses to see Fiennes again. The reasons why are shrouded in mystery as both Fiennes and the audience attempt to uncover what has changed and why. Fiennes is understated, but good, in his depressed role and doesn't shy away from the surprisingly vivid love scenes. Moore looks incredible throughout, her hair, face and figure melding beautifully with the period clothing and hairstyles. She also gives a varied and compelling performance, sporting a British accent that has few faults (one of them being her pronunciation of the word "God", for some reason.) She, like Fiennes, has no problem conveying the physical lust of her character. Rea is effective, but displays the same hangdog expression for virtually the entire movie. Hart enjoys a captivating and amusing role as a dogged private investigator with some interesting methods and conjecture. Isaacs, who would later play a vicious villain in "The Patriot", does what he can with the fairly colorless role of one of Moore's confidantes. The film has a lovely look to it, rain and all. The settings are attractive, the clothes are fine, the camera-work is creative, as is the editing and the atmosphere is, at times, palpable. However, the downbeat material is presented in a way that has very little variety or relief. This somewhat plodding approach (not helped by the overriding, insistent score by Michael Nyman) may be off-putting to viewers who aren't captivated by the stars or who aren't invested in the mystery. Ditto the religious angle, which makes its presence known eventually. Fans of tormented romance stories should find it enjoyable.