|Index||8 reviews in total|
Patrick White put Australia on the literary map by winning the Nobel
Prize for Literature in 1973, but his rich dense style did not make for
a best-selling author. This film, an adaptation of White's novel, marks
the first time anyone has succeeded in filming a White novel, though he
wrote the screenplay for a curious piece directed by Jim Sharman, "The
Night the Prowler" in 1977. Director Fred Schepisi said at the preview
I attended that it was a challenge to film the allegedly unfilmable; if
it had been easy it would have not been worth doing. Yet despite the
style White was rather a theatrical author, and Judy Morris's
screenplay accurately reflects White's mordant wit. His characters are
acting their way through life and there is drama in almost every scene.
Old Mrs Elizabeth Hunter, widow of a wealthy grazier, is nearing the end of her days in some splendour in her Centennial Park, Sydney, mansion, and her two children have been summoned to her bedside. Her son Basil, once a leading actor on the London stage whose career is now in decline and her daughter Dorothy, the ex-wife of a minor French aristocrat, are motivated more by their possible inheritance than affection for the old lady. In fact Elizabeth inspires more affection in her nurses, solicitor and housekeeper than she does in her children. Dorothy in particular has cause to hate her mother, yet it is she who gets closer to her as the film progresses.
Schepisi manages to blend in the dark humour of the situation with the downbeat storyline. The cinemaphotograhy is gorgeous and the cutting, often without the usual establishment shots, wonderfully done, given the extensive use made of flashbacks you instantly realise where the characters are. The book's interior monologues often appear as a single image in a single screen. The casting is such as Geoffrey Rush mentioned at the preview that he could not refuse the very best of the Australian acting profession, though the pivotal role of Elizabeth Hunter is played with great panache by Charlotte Rampling. Rush plays Basil as a man who takes himself seriously, but can't persuade anyone else to. Judy Davis simmers as the disillusioned Dorothy , and John Gaden as Wyburd the family solicitor with a skeleton or to in his own cupboard is pitch perfect. Flora the day nurse, played by Schepsi's daughter Alexandra, is vividly realised, and there are good performances in minor roles also, including Helen Morse, unrecognisable, as Lotte the tragic housekeeper, and Colin Friels as a Labor politician on the make rather reminiscent of one Robert James Lee Hawke. The only odd casting decision is casting Melbourne locations as Sydney. Mrs Hunter's mansion is definitely not in Sydney and only a couple of brief scenes are shot in Centennial Park.
It has been opined that "The Eye of the Storm" is Patrick White in drag, and it is true that there are some obvious personal aspects to the story - there is a lot of White's mother in Mrs Hunter. Set as it is in the early 1970s in the declining old money grazier milieu, this film could be written off as a period piece. Yet Schepisi has managed to capture both the theme and atmosphere of the novel. The difficulties of dying have rarely been so well depicted on film. This may not be a box office smash, but it will appeal to anyone who likes a solid piece of film-making.
It quite simply is a miracle of old money that this film exists. Not since the 'International cinema days' of the 80s has Australian film making produced such a splendid and intelligent film. If your cinema going has included such Australian quality films as CAREFUL HE MIGHT HEAR YOU or WE OF THE NEVER NEVER or PHAR LAP or MY BRILLIANT CAREER, or you yearn for the qualities of those, then EYE OF THE STORM is for you. The deep credits of 'extra thanks' detail who put money up for this, and every dollar of the $15m spent is on screen. Also reminiscent of great WB dramas of the 40s or even as literary as ALL ABOUT EVE, this new film from Fred Schepisi is prestige film making and a presentation of emotional intelligence of an era and a lifestyle that still exists in old moneyed mansions and bitter family brittleness. I live across the road from the avenue of Centennial Park mansions where the film is set, and I can vouch that there are streets of them in Sydney. Geoffrey Rush and Judy Davis are impeccable and with Charlotte Rampling as Mother/monster make a three headed hydra of drama. The art direction and set design is as much a feature of the film as is Patrick White's bitter pill dialogue and the acting and casting itself. A feast for stage drama and theatre lovers, EYE OF THE STORM is (hooray!) an Australian film that is intelligent bitter and absorbing.
Patrick White earned a Nobel Prize for literature. Having read only one
of his novels and found it 'heavy', I was keen to see what someone
could do to The Eye of the Storm. Given the director was Fred Schepisi,
I knew it would be 'different'. First find a screenwriter. Judy Morris
is an accomplished actor. I expected to see an 'actor's' film, with
great lines and self-evident visuals. Yes, Judy Morris can write, and
rather more clearly than Patrick White. Look for her in one of the
scenes! Next find a cast. "Storm' has brilliant people. To nominate
just one, Helen Morse proves that she can sing and dance, skills that
I'd not seen before. Rush and Rampling carry the action, with
Alexandra, Schepisi's daughter, a clever foil. Judy Davis has a face
that seems to accommodate any role.
No, I won't be reading this novel. What we see here is a great motion picture. We've become accustomed to Australian films depicting poverty, isolation, and mayhem. This has an air of opulence and connectedness.
THE EYE OF THE STORM has so much going for it that it seems a shame
that it likely will not draw audiences in the theaters now that it has
been released in this country. Thanks to Amazon's Video on Demand it
can be watched in the home without the usual distractions of the
theater audience more interested in texting and eating than in being
willing to follow a strong story for two hours. It is another jewel of
a film from Australia and perhaps in art houses it will be appreciated.
The story is adapted by Judy Morris from the Nobel Prize winning novel by Patrick White (1912 -1990), an Australian author who is widely regarded as one of the most important English-language novelists of the 20th century. White's fiction employs humor, florid prose, shifting narrative vantage points and a stream of consciousness technique. In 1973, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, the only Australian to have been awarded the prize. 'The Eye of the Storm' is the ninth published novel by Patrick White and it is regarded as one of his best novels.
The elderly Elizabeth Hunter (Charlotte Rampling), widow of a wealthy grazier, is nearing the end of her days in some splendor in her mansion in Sydney, Australia, and her two children have been summoned to her bedside. Her son Basil (Geoffrey Rush), once a leading actor on the London stage whose career is now in decline and her daughter Dorothy (Judy Davis), the ex-wife of a minor French aristocrat whose fractured marriage has ended with her only asset being the retention of her title of Princess, are motivated more by their possible inheritance than affection for the old lady. In fact Elizabeth inspires more affection in her nurses (Alexandra Schepisi, Maria Theodorakis), her solicitor (John Gaden) and her tragic cabaret- entertaining housekeeper (Helen Morse) than she does in her children. Dorothy in particular has cause to hate her mother for secrets not immediately revealed ('Dorothy was breathless with resentment for what she herself could no more than half-remember, had perhaps only half discovered - on the banks of the ocean'), yet it is she who gets closer to her mother as the film progresses. Elizabeth is a shrewishly controlling woman and her descent into dementia only reminds everyone involved with her of the damaged childhood, marriage and life she has led. The manner in which the story come sot an end is somewhat surprising and in many ways rewards the viewer for the attention it takes.
The film is laid out in flashback scenes to manage the histories of all involved and the interior monologues that slowly build the full images of each f the characters and their inherent flaws. The acting is excellent, the cinematography is gorgeous, and the story is fascinating. If it doesn't exactly match the density of the novel by White then the ones who seem to be responsible of that are the director Fred Schepisi and the screenwriter Judy Morris. It is a tough story and if the viewer can maintain the level of concentration the film demands, then this is a most satisfying experience.
I bought this DVD on a whim and last night sat down to watch it. I've long been a fan of the three main actors, so knew it would be worthwhile, and could be stunning. I was not disappointed. Charlotte Rampling has always excelled in playing the really nasty person you can't imagine ever meeting, and in this she does not disappoint. It's unfortunate that she is not in her eighties or even seventies, because as one reviewer has noted, she's only a few years older than her 'children' in this. Geoffrey Rush is like chocolate, smooth and irresistible, and he uses this charm, but also reveals himself as a loser (we're talking character here)and with vulnerabilities. Judy Davis tries to be a hard-bitten bitch but until the end wants her mother to love her. True, the carers of the old woman love her more than her children - as is so often the case - and the lawyer and his wife straddle the divide between the two attitudes. It's a fascinating human story, with the flashbacks being non-intrusive and essential to the story. I loved it, but I've not read the book or know any of the background aspects. I don't enjoy the cinema so much nowadays, so to watch a good quality drama on the appliance in the corner is a joy.
'The Eye of the Storm' has Geoffrey Rush and Judy Davis returning from overseas to visit their ailing mother (unprobably played by Charlotte Rampling) who lives in a big house where the staff are there for her entertainment as much as to care for her. I've mixed feelings about this; I like a good drama, but some parts of it are decidedly iffy (for instance, a flashback featuring Rampling and Davis has the latter looking older than the woman playing her mother!) Rush probably over-eggs the pudding in his role as an old thesp, but Davis is good as the dissatisfied wife of a French prince (? I thought they didn't have those anymore). Rampling is superb: I don't usually rate her as an actress - her performances are almost always so studied she can never convince me she's not acting - but here she really sinks her teeth into the role of an old woman who knows her children's main interest in her is when she's going to die.
Review: I found this movie to be really slow and pretty boring. The
storyline wasn't that amazing but the acting was quite good. I must
admit, I did struggle to find anything that interesting with the film
and I did struggle to stay awake. By the end of the film I was left
feeling quite empty and dissatisfied which is a shame because I usually
like Geoffrey Rush movies. I didn't really know what to expect from the
film so I wasn't that disappointed. At nearly 2 hours long, I was
expecting something amazing to happen, but nothing really did.
Round-Up: Judging by the money that this movie made, it's obvious that I am not the only person that found this film to drag. I was hoping that movie was going to take a different direction, but it stays uninteresting and in some ways, quite boring. Geoffrey Rush does make the movie slightly more watchable, but he wasn't able to save the film.
Budget:N/A Worldwide Gross: $84,000
I recommend this movie to people who are into there drama's about a lady whose on her death bed, surrounded by her son and daughter. 2/10
I can't see anyone under 50 even being remotely interested in this
"Patrick White In Drag" type film (to quote another IMDb user). The 2
hours reminded me of those hours spent in non air- conditioned portable
classrooms (for me, in the late 60's) wading through arcane English
literature classes wherein Patrick White was regarded as "worthy"...or
"Storm" has all the features we have come to expect from "quality" Australian film-making - a great cast, polished direction, impeccable production values etc etc ... but it's as dull and disconnected as the world White writes about. Who really gives a stuff about an imploding grazing family presided over by a a dying monster ... nominally set in the 1970s, but really (as in most of White's writing) set in the 1930s?
On a $15m budget ... it probably needs a world wide gross of $100m to break even. Ye Gods - who green-lit this? How much Government funding went into it? (Its $1.6m domestic gross should just about pay for the Prints and Advertising" budget & little more).
We have a bustling new generation - make that two generations - of film-makers pushing the envelope and making "Animal Kingdom", "Daybreakers", "Red Dog" etc who seem to be at least aware of their audience and their responsibility for getting a return for their investors. Film-making is an expensive business ... and "Storm" is just a sad old melodrama, outdated, over-priced and isolated from the real world, doomed to fail financially. I can understand why audiences congratulate themselves for having sat through it ("splendid and intelligent" - another IMDb post), but it's just an Anglo middle class statement from people who are longing for the days of "Careful He Might Hear You" or "The Devil's Playground".
At least the English Class in those old portables only lasted 50 minutes...
|Official site||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|