The intentions and aesthetic aims of this are righteous and therein lies the problem.
The work is from a prose piece and it may be more successful in that medium, some of which was transferred in the overuse of the voice over narration.
As cinema it doesn't gel despite the pleasant landscapes and settings. It is as Scorsese said of most American cinema, a book with some pictures, and the sources of that weakness are in the script and the direction.
Other problems manifest in the acting which is reactive and somewhat inert, but also as in the script, which is very anachronistic. The ideas and use of speech is more akin to the present than of the mid nineteenth century in rural America.
Films are not documentaries but it strains credibility to set a story in one time and impose, perhaps unwittingly, contemporary mores. That aspect implies the righteousness, and even smugness, of the work, and as something that is implied in the title of the film.
Perhaps read the original story instead.
The work is from a prose piece and it may be more successful in that medium, some of which was transferred in the overuse of the voice over narration.
As cinema it doesn't gel despite the pleasant landscapes and settings. It is as Scorsese said of most American cinema, a book with some pictures, and the sources of that weakness are in the script and the direction.
Other problems manifest in the acting which is reactive and somewhat inert, but also as in the script, which is very anachronistic. The ideas and use of speech is more akin to the present than of the mid nineteenth century in rural America.
Films are not documentaries but it strains credibility to set a story in one time and impose, perhaps unwittingly, contemporary mores. That aspect implies the righteousness, and even smugness, of the work, and as something that is implied in the title of the film.
Perhaps read the original story instead.