A Handful of Dust

Rating:
Summary: Beautifully Filmed But For Me A Waste of Time
Review: I recently saw Brideshead Revisted which I found completely wonderful. It was perhaps one of the most enjoyable and captivating films I've ever immersed myself in.

So, hungry for more Evenlyn Waugh (whose books I read in a college course that was based exclusively on his work), I found "A Handful Of Dust" at my library and figured I'd give it a try. Since the same author wrote it and the film was made by the same film people as Brideshead I was filled with anticipation.

My wife and I watched the first hour or so one night and while it had some good moments, and was certainly beautifully filmed, we were left cold by it. But we figured maybe after that the movie would develop.

So we decided to continue it the following night. Big mistake!

I only wish I could get back the time I wasted on it. While I don't expect "Happy endings" in a film (Brideshead certainly didn't have a "Happy ending") the ending in this story left me in disbelief.

Since I didn't read this particular book by Waugh and didn't know its ending, I was completely unprepared when the credits started rolling that the movie ended as it did. I was amazed by the stupidity of all I had just witnessed.

I thought the story would have been much more interesting to see if Tony would "toughen up" a little, transform and grow from the circumstances of his "captivity" rather than just look like a pathetic fool.

Perhaps the only redeeming aspect of the movie was watching Brenda get what she deserved, still it wasn't enough to justify watching this film.

This film was basically a "series of unfortunate events", with myself feeling most unfortunate of all.

My wife to her credit fell asleep during the last part of the film and used the time more wisely than I did.

Compared with a film like Brideshead Revisited, where the characters really developed throughout the story and took on a tremendous amount of depth, This story, was full of one dimensional characters. Dressing these characters up with beautiful costumes and scenery, well written music and excellent cinematography still didn't save the story from being like a bad "twilight zone" episode.

If you look up my reviews, you will see that I don't go out of my way to give bad reviews, but I was so annoyed by the time I wasted I felt I need to share this. Of course I have just wasted more time in connection with this film by now writing this review, but I felt maybe I could spare someone else the wasted time.





Rating:
Summary: "So much for infidelity."
Review: Brenda (Kristin Scott Thomas) and Tony Last (James Wilby) live at Hetton--the magnificent ancestral home of the Last family. Tony dotes on their only child--a son--James Andrew. Life at Hetton is fairly predictable, and Brenda is clearly bored by it all, and yet she doesn't display her boredom except to bemoan the demands of another hideous local event and the tedious rounds of weekend guests who descend upon them regularly. One weekend, Tony invites a young man named John Beaver (Rupert Graves). Beaver's arrival is so innocuous that Tony even forgets that he's been invited, and so the task of entertaining Beaver falls to Brenda.

Brenda, up to this point, has acted like the perfect wife and mother, moving automatically from one role to another, but the arrival of Beaver sparks some dormant desire. With a cold deliberation, Brenda manipulates Tony into allowing her to take a flat in London. Under the pretense that she's studying economics, Brenda begins to indulge in an affair with the shallow Mr. Beaver. Everyone knows about it, but Tony remains blissfully unaware until a tragedy forces Brenda's affair to the surface.

Tony Last is indeed the 'last' of his kind. He represents tradition and gentility that will be swept away by up and coming demands of the more avaricious aspects of society. Beaver is a hanger-on. His mother owns a shop, and supports her darling, precious Beaver, and now he's grown accustomed to a certain lifestyle. Beaver couldn't possibly work hard enough to earn adequate money to enable him to live as the Lasts do, so he contents himself with becoming an eternal guest--staying at other people's splendid mansions. The affair with Brenda is all fun and games--until he is faced with the possibility of actually supporting her in the manner to which they have both grown accustomed. With supreme selfishness, Brenda and Beaver--two unpleasant characters--decide they 'deserve' a large share of Tony Last's money. When faced with being stripped of everything, Last finally refuses to comply, but this action sends him spiraling off into the jungles of Brazil.

Tony Last is an incredibly nice man, but that doesn't save him from becoming the victim of several extremely selfish and self-indulgent people. There's Brenda--she hopes that Tony hands over the money without a big fuss--after all, she doesn't want anything to cloud her happiness. Then there's Beaver--he's perfectly content to live off another man's bounty, but finally, there's Mr. Todd (Alec Guinness) who sees Tony as some sort of living, breathing entertainment deal. The film is based on Evelyn Waugh's brilliantly dark satiric novel, "A Handful of Dust", and the story is marvelously and expertly transferred to the screen. The acting is superb--Kristen Scott Thomas acts her role with deliciously cold detachment, and James Wilby as Tony Last seems mildly bewildered by the demands of the world outside Hetton. Stephen Fry stars in a small (but very funny) role as Brenda's callous brother. The sets and scenery are breathtaking, and fans of Evelyn Waugh should find themselves well pleased with this adaptation--displacedhuman

Rating:
Summary: brilliantly acted and visually stunning
Review: Evelyn Waugh's novel gets more than your average "period piece" treatment here. Art direction is a plus, as are costumes, set design, and score. But there's also a consistent (and coherent) effort to convey the sense of inevitability present in the novel. Thanks to superb acting (particularly by James Wilby and Kristin Scott-Thomas) that effort pays off. You feel the main cahracters spiralling down - but there seems to be no way to guess their end. Rupert Graves is also very good, but Judi Dench and Alec Guiness in comparatively smaller roles give us performances that are as luminous as ever. Intriguing score. Why not 5 stars? Tempo. Pace. A few minuts less wouldn't hurt it - they're not essential to plot or characterization, they just let the camera take in the beautiful sets languidly... Maybe for some people that would be deserving of a 5th star. Maybe. I still think it's a beautiful music, the acting is superior and it's something of an unknown gem.

Rating:
Summary: A film in a place of its own.
Review: Films haven't got much better than this recently. The jewel in inception and the making of this film which makes it is that the producers know the limitations of the "great" film and just how many ingredients of a great film, and also then elements of the stage, go into making this world-beating drama.

This is one of the most distinctive films which has been made therefore: a film which knows the entertainment context of film, drama, literature, the stage and then the television or movie-house film today. This is supreme entertainment.

In the same tradition and indeed category, without qualification or doubt, as the great pieces of cinema of old - "as Lawrence of Arabia" - this is a modern piece of dramatic art for the nineties and remains remarkably unchallenged in this decade. There are few films of the the last few decades which see so far ahead. Neither an enfant savage nor an enfant terrible - rather this film is as it knows these have been high or prevalent in the cultural climate, in the general cultural prescription. And these notions or identities are and have long been lurking in a culturally bound class (and country). This is embedded within the dramatisation of the tale. The compass of the film and of the story are great but limited.

I give it five stars because of the supreme, engaging and limited but total cinematic nature of this piece, which unexpectedly touches but also inspires the intellect with the emotions in making the story true by successfully refusing to explicate this human fantasy story in anyway; by its actual subtlety of treatment of the book; by giving the audience a direct light to see this literary tale.

And so also a more intellectual fable is given to the viewer on a silver platter, to indulge in without even a semblance of exertion.

Actually I would think it was a true story because of the devious, contextually ambiguous ending - which is not quite cunning. Should be seen and seen again and kept precious.

Rating:
Summary: A film in a place of its own.
Review: Films haven't got much better than this recently. The jewel in inception and the making of this film which makes it is that the producers know the limitations of the "great" film and just how many ingredients of a great film, and also then elements of the stage, go into making this world-beating drama.

This is one of the most distinctive films which has been made therefore: a film which knows the entertainment context of film, drama, literature, the stage and then the television or movie-house film today. This is supreme entertainment.

In the same tradition and indeed category, without qualification or doubt, as the great pieces of cinema of old - "as Lawrence of Arabia" - this is a modern piece of dramatic art for the nineties and remains remarkably unchallenged in this decade. There are few films of the the last few decades which see so far ahead. Neither an enfant savage nor an enfant terrible - rather this film is as it knows these have been high or prevalent in the cultural climate, in the general cultural prescription. And these notions or identities are and have long been lurking in a culturally bound class (and country). This is embedded within the dramatisation of the tale. The compass of the film and of the story are great but limited.

I give it five stars because of the supreme, engaging and limited but total cinematic nature of this piece, which unexpectedly touches but also inspires the intellect with the emotions in making the story true by successfully refusing to explicate this human fantasy story in anyway; by its actual subtlety of treatment of the book; by giving the audience a direct light to see this literary tale.

And so also a more intellectual fable is given to the viewer on a silver platter, to indulge in without even a semblance of exertion.

Actually I would think it was a true story because of the devious, contextually ambiguous ending - which is not quite cunning. Should be seen and seen again and kept precious.

Rating:
Summary: If "Requiem for a Dream" were a period peice film ...
Review: I will admit, I was not a fan of this film during the first fifteen minutes when it nearly went into the "Period Film Sleeping Bag" category, but after you get through this first hump (which is to wean out the naysayers) this is a very disturbing and thoughtful film. In fact, I loved it. It took me awhile to think about it after the first viewing, but I was very impressed. Not only did this film break the boundaries of the dreaded "Period Piece Snore-fest", but also the standard of some films dating after 1988. When I watch films from the 80s, I normally do not see this caliber of writing and intensity. While it may have been around, most films were not ready to dive headfirst into it yet, but apparently Charles Sturridge has no fear. Instead, he gives us a biting story about social decline and satire, while all the while luring us deeper into this very depressive world. Amazing actors, an extremely powerful story, and an ending that will knock your socks off, A Handful of Dust was an unexpected, yet much needed, surprise.

Feeling like a combination of Requiem for a Dream and Angels & Insects, this period piece film offers more than just torrid love affairs and snobbery, it gives us this brief, yet powerful, glimpse into a world turned upside down by the squandering of a woman. I don't mean to sound sexist, but Sturridge does paint a picture where Kristin Scott Thomas' portrayal of Brenda does not paint a pretty picture of the perfect marriage. When Tony is left time and time again with John Andrew while Brenda is off gallivanting around London with John Beaver, our emotions are not placed within Brenda's arms, we care about Tony and his reaction if he were to ever discover the truth. Unlike other period piece films, we sympathize with the husband in this case, and ultimately open so wide to him that when the dramatic, and bizarre, ending occurs, we are left flabbergasted. It almost doesn't compute, but then you think about it and realize that Sturridge is a brilliant director using techniques well beyond his time.

Kristin Scott Thomas does a great job with the material that she is given. Her puppy-dog eyes seem to flutter and keep James Wilby's Tony at bay. I think that is what fascinated me about her character was that she portrayed this feeling of innocence, yet she was in complete control of the situation. That is why I think Rupert Graves' character was the most underappreciated of them all. While some will see him as the villain of his film, I saw him as just a random person that happened to fall in love with a woman that reciprocated back, and happened to see the advantages of falling in love with her. He wanted to get rich quick, and this was his answer. Thomas could have stopped at any time and went back into the arms of Tony, but she chose not to, even with all of her innocence. Guinness surprised the daylights out of me with his role in this film, well, I guess he always does. Then there was Wilby, the most multi-layered character of the film. He showed us all the true love does exist, and that good husbands do as well. He did nothing wrong during the course of this film, yet somehow felt life hit him the most. The events that happen during this film continually to the ending happened directly to him, not really to anyone else. That surprised me. Here was a man that had all the money in the world, a gorgeous house, and a family, but found that luck was never on his side. Together, these three powerful plays hurdle through a tough film to give some genuine thought-provoking performances.

Then there was Sturridge who did his homework secretly in the darkness of his own basement to help bring this film to the silver screen. Most of Hollywood would have probably changed the story to bring about some final satisfaction. This is not the case with Sturridge who keeps the mood and themes of the film in constant view of us. We consider these people high society, with their hunting moments and huge houses, but the reality of it is that they face the same troubles that we, the normal person, do daily. They may have money, but they are human, and that is what Sturridge keeps with us during the course of the 118 minutes. He captures your attention with the characters, throws in some Twilight Zone scenes, and allows your imagination to work overtime. Anytime that a director pulls your mind into a film, the battle is already half won. This was my kind of film.

Overall, I was very impressed. This film broke me of my feeling that all period piece films were bad and dull, and had me drooling for more. While I know that not all will be like this, I cannot wait to see what other directors will dive headfirst into this untapped pool. The cinematography was pure 80s, the actors did their parts, and Sturridge brilliantly colored the themes and satires. I was surprised (and still shocked) by this film and cannot wait to show it to others ... now that is the true test of a great film.

Grade: ***** out of *****

Rating:
Summary: Understated and beautiful
Review: This dramatization of Evelyn Waugh's novel is nicely done. The story concerns the marriage of Tony and Brenda Last, members of Britain's upper crust. From all outward appearances and, as far as the oblivious Tony is concerned the marriage is perfect. Brenda is bored and proceeds headlong into a destructive relationship with John Beaver, a man without personality or resources. Tony watches in denial and Brenda watches in self-absorption as their "perfect" world crumbles.

The dialogue in the film is remarkably faithful to the novel. With one notable exception, the actors quietly underplay the scenes, almost all of which involve tense and emotionally-wringing scenarios. This serves to underscore the absurdity of the "stiff upper lip" social mores of the time. The film stars James Wilby as Tony Last. Wilby is a dead ringer for the young Evelyn Waugh -- a nice touch given the story's autobiographical origins. Kristen Scott Thomas stars as Brenda.

About three-fourths of the film is set in London and rural Great Britain during the years between WWI and WWII. The remainder is set in the Amazon jungles. The film's score features native South American musical instruments throughout the scenes set in Great Britain which, again, serves to underscore the film's social themes.

Sir Alec Guinness dominates the jungle scenes as the amoral Mr. Todd. He's the one actor in this film who doesn't underplay his role. In this film, Guinness is unwashed, unshaven, scheming, hateful and maniacal. In short, he becomes "The Man Who Liked Dickens". I felt that his performance here was one of the best I've seen.

I rated this film 4 stars rather than 5 because there are one or two scenes which are so underplayed I would have missed them entirely had I not read the novel beforehand and been on the lookout for them.

Overall, this is definitely worth watching.

Rating:
Summary: Understated and beautiful
Review: This dramatization of Evelyn Waugh's novel is nicely done. The story concerns the marriage of Tony and Brenda Last, members of Britain's upper crust. From all outward appearances and, as far as the oblivious Tony is concerned the marriage is perfect. Brenda is bored and proceeds headlong into a destructive relationship with John Beaver, a man without personality or resources. Tony watches in denial and Brenda watches in self-absorption as their "perfect" world crumbles.

The dialogue in the film is remarkably faithful to the novel. With one notable exception, the actors quietly underplay the scenes, almost all of which involve tense and emotionally-wringing scenarios. This serves to underscore the absurdity of the "stiff upper lip" social mores of the time. The film stars James Wilby as Tony Last. Wilby is a dead ringer for the young Evelyn Waugh -- a nice touch given the story's autobiographical origins. Kristen Scott Thomas stars as Brenda.

About three-fourths of the film is set in London and rural Great Britain during the years between WWI and WWII. The remainder is set in the Amazon jungles. The film's score features native South American musical instruments throughout the scenes set in Great Britain which, again, serves to underscore the film's social themes.

Sir Alec Guinness dominates the jungle scenes as the amoral Mr. Todd. He's the one actor in this film who doesn't underplay his role. In this film, Guinness is unwashed, unshaven, scheming, hateful and maniacal. In short, he becomes "The Man Who Liked Dickens". I felt that his performance here was one of the best I've seen.

I rated this film 4 stars rather than 5 because there are one or two scenes which are so underplayed I would have missed them entirely had I not read the novel beforehand and been on the lookout for them.

Overall, this is definitely worth watching.

Rating:
Summary: Marvellous
Review: This is a brilliant adaptation of Waugh's sharply satirical novel "A Handful of Dust" (also worth reading). The pace is beautiful and I thought the casting was perfect. Kristin Scott Thomas is remote and succinct as Lady Brenda, James Wilby as her husband Tony is restrained panic. Giving Rupert Graves the part of near-sociopathic Mr Beaver was a stroke of genius. He is good-looking without being overly unctuous.

The story is set in England of the 1930's. Tony and Lady Brenda, and upper class couple who live mostly in the country, have been married for seven years when Tony invites a man from his club to come and stay, Mr Beaver. Brenda gets an odd hankering for their guest, even though Mr Beaver proves himself to have feet of clay over and over again - but then so does she. There is a slow decline in Tony and Brenda's relationship, the deterioration filtering through layers of genteel gossip and impeccably good manners. The ending has a marvellous twist to it also. The script retains some of the sharpness of the Waughs novel, and much of the humour.