The English Patient (continued)

I have also heard similar critcism of TEP: the movie is too long, the flashbacks are annoying and disjointed, they wanted more Hannah and Kip, and it's just an "artsy chick flick". I have even heard the reverse, it's a Man's love story-the hero rescues his beloved from the plane wreckage and jumps out of a train to get back to her. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. It seems to me you either love or hate TEP, there are no in betweens. (As I'm in the "love" camp)What bothers me the most about the "backlash", however, is this attempt to moralize TEP. Some people are offended by Ondaajte's choice of a hero, a Nazi spy. I think they are really missing the point of the book-its not about politics or boundaries. Almasy had to get back to keep his promise to K. Even Caravaggio, after his long search, can't kill TEP. As Almast says "well, hundreds of people died anyways." TEP is not Casablanca-"the way we wanted to be" where right and wrong is easily and clearly distinguishable: Ingrid Bergman tearfully leaving Bogie behind in the fog and the white hatted and suited freedom fighter, Paul Henreid/Lazlo, leading everyone in the Marseillaise. TEP is an epic love story about two flawed, passionate people caught up in circumstances, history way beyond their control. I posed a question over in the RF's topic-why does Katherine love Almasy? Obviously it would have made her life simpler, happier(as well as Almasy's life) if she didn't. And as for "the hormonal rush" argument, I completely disagree. The relationship is a highle charged physical one, but when Almasy promises to come back for her, she believes him and so do we! (WEll, at least, I did, along with my teary-eyed compatriots in the theatre) I believe that Katherine could not help loving Almasy because they were two halves of the same soul-these two tightly-closed, intense individuals with a cold exterior belying the passionate interior. Great move on Minghella's part by having RF refer to K as his wife. That's the way I have always seen their relationship. I'm not upholding or promoting infidelity, but I don't think that's the message of the film, if it even has a message. Criticizing the film, then, on the basis of "moral bankruptcy" is pretty futile. TEP is not about preaching or giving easy answers-it is in many ways a mystery story. I think Ondaajte and Minghella wanted to present this passionate, doomed relationship, admist the exotic backdrop of the desert and the turmoil of WW2, with all of its pain and wistful beauty.

Here, here Cass! I totally agree. TEP wasn't one of my all time favorite films (sorry Cass!) but it was well worth seeing and would be worthy of the Academy Award...especially considering some of the past recipients...I loved the cinematography and I definitely do not think that it was a chick movie.

The book and the film, in part, take the view that war is morally bankrupt, and that is part of what they are showing by analogy in the failed love story. The boundaries that we place on eachother and on the map of the world are artificial, and some things trancend such boundaries. Now I happen to feel that the Kip/Hana relationship, as written in the book, makes this point much better than the Almasy/Katherine one.

I have kept out of this topic so far because I hadn't seen the movie. However, my better half and I, yesterday, drove 120 miles to Ottawa, watched the movie, and drove 120 miles home again.It's the first time in five years that the two of us have gone to the movie theatre, together , and without kids.End result- We liked the movie. It was everything I had expected to be, and not much more.A couple of surprises- Kevin Whatley, I never knew he was in it, he's always a delight, and the fact that one of the scenes which was touted so much on Canadian T.V. seemed to be cut right out.We both agreed that it was very good, not wonderful, and that neither of us has the remotest interest in seeing it again.Or of reading the book again.Susan's comment about moral banruptcy makes a lot of sense to me.

Cass, well put. I read the novel before seeing the movie and was amazed that I was not offended by the changes. They all worked for me (especially when Kip took Hana to the church). When I was reading the end of the book when Kip runs off and (I thought ) dies off the bridge, I remember thinking: The only redeeming character in the book is going to die!!! Wrong, it was just his baptism (metaphorically speaking). I also don't care for immorality and hope that watching these sorts of films will not m ke me immune to it to the point of acceptance. But, for now, I feel I can appreciate this type of film (as well as Sling Blade and Fargo)for what they are (art) and enjoy them for their beauty, voice, and sometimes, humor. I know where I can draw my personal line of art for arts sake and try to stick with it. No, I will not see The People vs. Larry Flint. Pornography and the first ammendment does not translate to art to me. The emotions in TEP are so incredible. That and the cinematog aphy are what compel me to say this is a good movie.

]The emotions in TEP are so incredible. That and the cinematography are what compel me to say this is a good movie. Me too. It is very beautifu to look at. And I think its exploration of love is very powerful. I did regret, on reading the book after seeing the movie, that there wasn't more of the Kip/Hana relationship. I thought it was a very positive (anti-morally bankrupt) perspective that too people who are so very different could love each other and gain so much from their relationship.

oops. that should be two people

Have you guys seen Seinfeld last week? One of the topics was TEP. Elaine was the only one who thought 'it sucked'. I thought, finally, even if it's fictional, somebody thinks exactly like me. However, she also got interested in this other movie, which anybody with slightest taste wouldn't be caught dead watching it. I guess the point is anybody who has taste should like TEP. Well, I disagree. I am sorry to say I didn't like anything about the movie but was ashamed to express it out loud especially after all those nominations. (except to my husband who didn't like it at all either) The thing that bothered me the most is that I didn't get warm to any of the characters, and didn't find the story interesting enough. From the first moment where they talk about his name and nationality being unknown, I thought this is what the whole movie is going to be about and I am supposed to wonder what it is. But, I didn't get even remotely curious about what his name was. I absolutely hated the scene where he says his name the first time and thought, 'here I was supposed to hold my breath and wait for his answer, but it didn't happen'. I also didn't care the least bit when she died in that cave. I was not touched when he kept his promise and came back. The whole time I kept thinking, they meant the audience to be touched by this and that but I am not. In other words, I couldn't get into the story or the story or the characters didn't capture me. I also thought that some of the lines in the movie was absolutely out of place and, ridiculous (there, I said it!). The concept of love in this movie is very strange to me. I admit, I don't understand it. I don't know if anybody here has seen any interviews with Ondatje regarding his novel/the movie. I came across one the other day and he was asked "Why does he love Catherine?". After a pause of considerable length, he simply said: "I don't know". Is this supposed to be meaningful? I guess what I am trying to say is: Overall, it seemed to me that the movie was a pathetically failed attempt to create drama and suspense. It is as if somebody sat down to put all the elements in a book/movie that sells the outcoming product (such as sex, heroism, infidelity, danger, love(?), loyalty, romance, tragedy, drama, suspense, history, war, ...etc.) and tried to form a story around it, without having anything powerful to tell, really. These days, people are proud to say this movie/book has everything in it. (like the above listed elements). The more the better, is the general understanding I am afraid. The problem is when there are so many elements, there is not enough time to portray the characters properly. And when that fails, everything else fails.(except in science fiction maybe). I hope I didn't offend anyone. I dare say I didn't even like CF in it :( Sorry.

Megan, like Elaine, you're fired!! :-) There is no need to apologize that you didn't "feel" anything from this. I am sorry it didn't touch you. One of the things I liked about the book (and subsequently the film) was that it didn't answer every question. You had to think for yourself: What is he trying to say here? This is what I think he/she is feeling. I also read a interview where Ondatje described how he writes, not knowing how a story is going to go. Almost like Michaelangelo described his sculpting: The story is already there, he ust chips away at it until it is complete/exposed.

I'm not so sure that we were supposed to care about the EP's name or nationality at the end, nor am I sure that it was supposed to be a mystery. I thought it was pretty clear who he was from the beginning (but then I had already read the book). Wasn't part of the point of the movie that such ideas of identity and nationality are not necissarily important? We define ourselves differently. For the EP, his life was more about his love for KC, than about being a Hungarian count, being called Almasy, or having helped the Germans. He didn't care about the war, about the actions of those around him, or even of the repercussions of his own actions. He was narrowly focused on his adventures in the dessert and on KC. Nothing else really mattered to him, and by the end of the movie, they don't matter so much to us. This is shown through Carravagio, who, after learning that the EP is Almasy, no longer really cares. His desire to kill Almasy disappears after hearing the EP's story. Caravagio reevaluates his need to kill Almasy, and spares the EP, almost as if he recognises that the Almasy he wanted to kill and the EP are no longer the same person--thus the identity of the EP no longer matters, he is only what he is, not what he was. I've been rambling a bit, I hope some of that made sense. For the record, I didn't really get into the film either. I would have prefered a Kip/Hana centered story.

Spot on, Ann

I am so glad to see your opinions. Although I enjoyed the movies, I thought maybe I spent too much time watching for CF that I missed something. I also wanted to know more about Hana and Kip.

Laura, I see you feel strongly about this film, but I'm sure you really didn't intend to express yourself exactly the way you did in your post. Perhaps you would like to re-post your opinion, bearing in mind that we have very young readers, here.

I had read the book before I saw the movie, and didn't have to wonder who the EP was or what his name was. I think the entire story is not meant to be about the love between Almasy and Katherine, or even the love between Kip and Hannah, but more about the international bonds of the prewar desert group, then its torn apart by the war, and finally the healing after the war, each in their own way. One of the most significant conversations is between Maddox and Almasy when they are talking about "boundaries - how national boundaries are fiercely and somewhat artifically drawn during war that should not be there at all. The Kip/Hannah relationship shows perfectly that boundaries or international differences don't matter - an allegory for postwar healing. I think I'm rambling - but I'm trying to get my thoughts together while I'm typing!

Inko you hit it right on. Almasy says over and over that he didn't have any allegiance to any country, just to his maps (and Katherine). His maps were topographal and not for boundries. Can we draw a simile between his maps and Katherine?

Dina - Can we draw a simile between his maps and Katherine? I'm afraid the only one I can think of is the "supersternal (sp?) notch" but that doesn't really work! Maybe the boundaries of her marriage also did not register with Almasy - which is probably more to the point!

Dina, that's exactly how I feel: fired and quite lonely in this subject :) Anybody out there like me?

i have to say, I LOVED TEP. there's a lot of personal interests behind the story, and so it was easier for me to relate to, and therefore enjoy. i'm writing my master's thesis on the construction of nationalist identities, and what consequently happens with ethnic minorities in the process. (also, my mom was a cartographer for many years, and i've grown up with maps my whole life) as for the relation between almasy's maps and katherine, there's a lot to be said about that. in essence, almasy approaches life in terms of human, natural, insitnctive feelings. he is, however, living in a world where conventional rules and regulations, boundaries and socially-constructed norms exist. looking at a map topogrpahically, as opposed to politically, is how he approaches his relationship with katherine: it's the most natural thing for him to wander about the world and do as he pleases, just a he finds that he loves katherine, and desires her. however, some form of authority always manages to stop him and say, "no, wait a miniute, you're breaking some of our rules here. back off.." this happens on many occasions: getting involved with a married woman (as opposed to love conquerng all), trying to get transport back to the cave but not having the right papers (helping humans in need is defeated by not having the right documents) and of course,, not flying the appropriate plane in the appropriat part of sky gets him killed (so sky even has boundaries). it's a commentary which applied then and still does now. we live in a world where boundaries overrule our most natural instincts, desires and actions. we see movies in which 'the law' is protected and is victoriously fought for, but it was really neat to see another perspective: where the law only serves as an instrument of oppression and tragedy.

Megan, don't feel lonely. Despite its beauty, the movie left me quite cold. This may be my own experiences of war situations talking, I don't know. I spent a lot of the time looking for interesting minor characters(I did see Raymond Coultherd in it , didn't I? Mr Darcy discussing wedding anniversaries with Frank Churchill- astonishing!) My main feeling right now is only that it was a shocking waste of Colin's talent.He was really good, really believable as a sensible man pretending to be an idiot.And he deserves recognition for it.

I don't think I need to censore my thoughts. Although there are young people who post to this board, I should be able to state my thoughts. I did not state anything that was wrong. And to be censored, I cannot tell you how that disappoints me. I don't feel strongly about the movie, but I do feel strongly when people who say they won't see a movie because someone ignorant person automatically says that it is a chic flick. I hope in the future I will not be censored.