From /tmp/sf.4971 Mon Nov 9 00:16:03 1992 From rec.arts.sf-lovers Sun Jul 21 14:40:16 1991 Xref: herkules.sssab.se rec.arts.movies:28854 rec.arts.sf-lovers:31843 Path: herkules.sssab.se!isy!liuida!sunic!ugle.unit.no!nuug!ifi.uio.no!sics.se!fuug!mcsun!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewsj!leeper From: leeper@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (mark.r.leeper) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies,rec.arts.sf-lovers Subject: TRULY, MADLY, DEEPLY Message-ID: <1991Jul18.123917.23029@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> Date: 18 Jul 91 12:39:17 GMT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 52 TRULY, MADLY, DEEPLY A film review by Mark R. Leeper Capsule review: Nina is slowly disintegrating after the death of her lover. Then he returns as a ghost, and she must decide what her new relationship will be with him. Slow and overly drawn-out at times but watchable. Rating: 0 (-4 to +4). (Contains minor spoilers important to explaining the premise.) A perennial fantasy film subject is that of ghosts coming back to affect the lives of the living. I don't mean the horrific approach of THE UNINVITED, THE HAUNTING, or THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE. The films I am talking about have spirits walking among us relatively benignly. TOPPER is a good example; so is BEETLEJUICE and DONA FLOR'S TWO HUSBANDS. The success of GHOST will probably spawn several more examples in the next year or two. However, because of timing it seems likely we can ascribe to coincidence the similarities between GHOST and the BBC film TRULY, MADLY, DEEPLY, though in some ways the two are quite similar. Jamie (played by Alan Rickman) has been dead for a while now, but Nina (played by Juliet Stevenson) refuses to close that chapter in her life and get on with the business of living. She imagines Jamie is still around giving her advice. Nina sleepwalks through a life that is shattered and crumbles more day by day. Then a spectral Jamie does return and takes up residence as Nina's secret live-in (if "live" is the right word) lover. He explains his presence by quoting Dylan Thomas saying, "And death shall have no dominion." If the plot of TRULY, MADLY, DEEPLY resembles that of GHOST, in style the two are very different. There is a lot that GHOST tries to do that TRULY, MADLY, DEEPLY does not. The British film is far more sad, slow, and introspective. GHOST throws in a major sub-plot of a crime story; it has a comedy sub-plot with Whoopi Goldberg; it stops and closely examines just what powers a ghost would and would not have. It also has its sad and introspective moments, but they do not last too long. To pack so much into a film may be of dubious value, but it is all there. TRULY, MADLY, DEEPLY clearly has different priorities and very different pacing. It takes its time to build Nina's character, but it glosses over the metaphysics and there seem to be notable inconsistencies in the nature of ghosts (e.g., at times the ghosts seem to take care that they cannot be overheard; at other times it does not seem to bother them). There is some whimsy, some warm comedy, and one character who is well-observed, but overall this is a rather slight film and a disappointment. I would give it a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale. Mark R. Leeper att!mtgzy!leeper leeper@mtgzy.att.com Copyright 1991 Mark R. Leeper From /tmp/sf.6021 Mon Nov 9 02:38:52 1992 From rec.arts.sf-reviews Mon Jul 22 13:30:43 1991 Xref: herkules.sssab.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:390 rec.arts.sf-reviews:37 Path: herkules.sssab.se!isy!liuida!sunic!mcsun!uunet!wupost!uwm.edu!linac!att!cbnewsj!ecl From: leeper@mtgzy.att.com (Mark R. Leeper) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf-reviews Subject: REVIEW: TRULY, MADLY, DEEPLY Summary: r.a.m.r. #01080 Keywords: author=Leeper Message-ID: <1991Jul18.144026.27293@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> Date: 18 Jul 91 14:40:26 GMT Expires: Thu, 15 Aug 1991 13:00:00 GMT Sender: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) Reply-To: leeper@mtgzy.att.com Followup-To: rec.arts.movies Organization: AT&T, Middletown NJ Lines: 53 Approved: ecl@cbnewsj.att.com [Followups directed to rec.arts.movies.] TRULY, MADLY, DEEPLY A film review by Mark R. Leeper Copyright 1991 Mark R. Leeper Capsule review: Nina is slowly disintegrating after the death of her lover. Then he returns as a ghost, and she must decide what her new relationship will be with him. Slow and overly drawn-out at times but watchable. Rating: 0 (-4 to +4). (Contains minor spoilers important to explaining the premise.) A perennial fantasy film subject is that of ghosts coming back to affect the lives of the living. I don't mean the horrific approach of THE UNINVITED, THE HAUNTING, or THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE. The films I am talking about have spirits walking among us relatively benignly. TOPPER is a good example; so is BEETLEJUICE and DONA FLOR'S TWO HUSBANDS. The success of GHOST will probably spawn several more examples in the next year or two. However, because of timing it seems likely we can ascribe to coincidence the similarities between GHOST and the BBC film TRULY, MADLY, DEEPLY, though in some ways the two are quite similar. Jamie (played by Alan Rickman) has been dead for a while now, but Nina (played by Juliet Stevenson) refuses to close that chapter in her life and get on with the business of living. She imagines Jamie is still around giving her advice. Nina sleepwalks through a life that is shattered and crumbles more day by day. Then a spectral Jamie does return and takes up residence as Nina's secret live-in (if "live" is the right word) lover. He explains his presence by quoting Dylan Thomas saying, "And death shall have no dominion." If the plot of TRULY, MADLY, DEEPLY resembles that of GHOST, in style the two are very different. There is a lot that GHOST tries to do that TRULY, MADLY, DEEPLY does not. The British film is far more sad, slow, and introspective. GHOST throws in a major sub-plot of a crime story; it has a comedy sub-plot with Whoopi Goldberg; it stops and closely examines just what powers a ghost would and would not have. It also has its sad and introspective moments, but they do not last too long. To pack so much into a film may be of dubious value, but it is all there. TRULY, MADLY, DEEPLY clearly has different priorities and very different pacing. It takes its time to build Nina's character, but it glosses over the metaphysics and there seem to be notable inconsistencies in the nature of ghosts (e.g., at times the ghosts seem to take care that they cannot be overheard; at other times it does not seem to bother them). There is some whimsy, some warm comedy, and one character who is well-observed, but overall this is a rather slight film and a disappointment. I would give it a 0 on the -4 to +4 scale. Mark R. Leeper att!mtgzy!leeper leeper@mtgzy.att.com From /tmp/sf.6021 Mon Nov 9 02:38:59 1992 From rec.arts.sf-reviews Sun Aug 11 11:27:57 1991 Xref: herkules.sssab.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:406 rec.arts.sf-reviews:52 Path: herkules.sssab.se!isy!liuida!sunic!mcsun!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!cbnewsj!ecl From: Robert.Biddle@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Robert Biddle) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf-reviews Subject: REVIEW: TRULY, MADLY, DEEPLY Summary: r.a.m.r. #01096 Keywords: author=Biddle Message-ID: <1991Aug9.170330.28451@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> Date: 9 Aug 91 17:03:30 GMT Sender: ecl@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (Evelyn C. Leeper) Reply-To: Robert.Biddle@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Robert Biddle) Followup-To: rec.arts.movies Organization: ? Lines: 78 Approved: ecl@cbnewsj.att.com [Followups directed to rec.arts.movies.] TRULY, MADLY, DEEPLY A film review by Robert Biddle This review is in the public domain Screenplay and Direction by Anthony Minghella, United Kingdom 1990 Jamie is dead, and Nina is devastated. She keeps up, just, with everyday life -- her job, her house, her sister -- but inside her heart has stopped; she feels abandoned, lonely, miserable, angry. She recounts to a psychologist that sometimes she feels Jamie's presence, watching over her, looking out for her. Then one day at home -- in between visits of her acquisitive sister, an amorous neighbour, and the rat exterminator -- Jamie is back. There are few explanations, and Nina is hesitant to believe, but soon the funny silly domestic happiness of life together has warmed the whole house. Again they play silly word games, again he plays the cello and she the piano. It's not quite real, but it is perfect. But does reality have an edge even perfection cannot match? The true concern of the film is the connection between love and magic, and it is very successful at evoking empathy for this experience. The sincerity touched me, and I was not alone in the audience in this respect. People cried. I am writing this review a few weeks after seeing the film, and am now more detached. But memory has a problem with emotional intensity, too easily recalled and it derails normal life: another point of the film. The greatest strength of the film is the acting. Nina is played by Juliet Stevenson with disarmingly real feeling. The setting also works well, I thought. Nina lives in a collapsing house in the suburbs of London, and works as a linguist for a half-baked private translations agency. The film is very reminiscent of the British "television play" genre: unpretentious but honest -- so very different from the American "made-for-tv movie" genre. My review would probably conclude about here if it weren't for the comparisons that cry out to be made with some other recent films. In the past year I have seen three films that centre about the a lover's death, and subsequent return as a ghost: the British TRULY, MADLY, DEEPLY, and American GHOST, and the New Zealand LINDA'S BODY, by performance group "The Front Lawn." These are all successful films, but each is very different from the others. LINDA'S BODY is a surreal story of everyday life in slow motion turned upside down, inside out, and set to music. Typical Front Lawn, it's main concern is the way in which the everyday and the magic world are interwoven. GHOST is a romantic-comedy-thriller, reminiscent of French cinema success at that mix. The main concern with the magical in GHOST is the exploration of newly discovered state's mechanics and logic. TRULY, MADLY, DEEPLY is about love, not romance. About magic, not logic. It is about the *real* world, and has something to say. Another important difference is in the role of the people in each of the films. LINDA'S BODY is like an extended music video: the story, music, and characters are all connected, but somehow detached, and there is a clear addressing of the audience. As I've mentioned, I thought highly of the acting in TRULY, MADLY, DEEPLY. While watching the film, I recall wondering what would happen should Demi Moore and Patrick Swayze see this film: would they suddenly wonder why *they* were paid so well? Since then, it has occurred to me that Moore and Swayze in fact perform very well in GHOST, but that their performance is less like acting, and more like modelling. TRULY, MADLY, DEEPLY has flaws, mostly in the form of loose ends. However, it concerns some important subjects -- love, death, and magic -- and does so with humour, warmth, and great sincerity. I think it's well worth seeing. Footnote: The last role I saw Juliet Stevenson in was that of Rosalind Franklin in LIFE STORY (discovery of structure of DNA). I've often wondered why this film isn't better known. Did it have a different title in North America? Acting by Stevenson and by Jeff Goldblum is very good, direction is acute and fast-paced, and the result is one of the best films I know about real Science. The film seems to have been made for the BBC television series HORIZON, "in association with the Arts and Entertainment Network."