All right, let's get down to my major objections to the film. I've not read the book, so can't comment on that. I'll list them from least severe at the top down to the anathema.
One of the purposes of the film was to create an outpouring of support among the caring - against death vaxxes, exploitation of the unfortunates in the third world, stopping Globo depopulating through Big Pharma ... which I'm thinking was fine to that point.
However, what the producers then did was to ride this wave, to harness this outpouring of sympathy and bundle in a few other issues as well to enjoy the sympathy whilst it was ongoing.
One of the most cynical things upon which the plot turns is that the black man who accompanies the white consular man's new wife, Tessa [Rachel Weisz] to Kenya, his land, a hunk by the way, was always going to be accused of seducing and/or raping her, then killing her.
So they've set the audience up for this 'no, no, it can't be so, black people would never rape a lone white woman in Kenya' guff. Look, wherever she was ... put her in Poland for example and expect no Poles whatever would try it on ... it's so naive, only a Woke leftist would buy the nobility of a black man over a white to that extent. There are good whites, good blacks, bad whites, bad blacks.
That's my first objection. My second is tied in with it. To help the 'nobility' along a bit, to ensure the black man never does anything ignoble to her, they make him gay, which is illegal in that country apparently ... one more issue to exploit in the film. So that's all right then, innit, she's as safe as houses. To gild the lily, the patriarchal white hubby strongly suspects the black man - what a hate merchant is a white supremacist, eh?
Naturally, the noble black didn't do it, it was an ignoble black, a local or some baddy sent for political reasons. Phew. How stupid was our overconcerned white consular hubby, what prejudice. Sigh.
As if that weren't bad enough, I read the Wiki section on plot and there was this:
"Tessa promises she will have sex with him if he shows her the letter. Sandy hands her the letter and tells her to lock it in his drawer after she's read it."
Whoa, hold on. Whaaaat?! The newly wedded female activist says to a consular official [white], before she leaves for the dark continent that she will happily break her vow to her new hubby who adores her and who trusts her, in order to go to darkest Africa with this hunk, alone ... which is fine because the exposure of these vaxxes is so important, it trumps any silly old vows to her marriage.
I'm glad I never got that far in the film. In fact, I got to the two minute mark and refused to watch any more. Why?
It was because I saw Weisz doing something to hubby right at the point of saying goodbye and boarding the plane. To be fair to Rachel Weisz, this was a film with a director, she's an actress, it was therefore her character in the film doing this, not her in RL. Ok?
What she did was smother him with love, way OTT, and every line about how much she loved him rang as hollow as hell, the pitch of her voice even rising while she did it. Anyone, let alone someone who's been burnt, would see that. And she then gets on this plane to go for months with this great hunk? Gimme a break.
Of course, only white creeps like Weisz and Sandy would stoop to such cuckery, the noble black would never.
But that's not my greatest objection. The worst is that ... were I Globo myself ... what outcome could I best hope for? Yes, questions about vaxxes ... but put by moral reprobates ... thereby damaging the credibility of the cause itself.
The whole thing stinks.
Just one small point - hubby knows black man accompanying wife is gay which is more confirmation to hubby that Sandy (?) the one who betrays her to the Foreign Office and is allegedly his friend, is an even bigger duplicitous piece of work.
ReplyDeleteHe was gay in the book too so that was Le Carre's doing along with shades of the Happy Valley partner swapping because there's nothing else to do.
Feinnes comes across as a bit of a wimp and RW is over-acting. Don't like either of them. Nude scene was unnecessary and didn't add anything to the story, imo. Just an excuse for somebody to get their kit off and titivate the cinema audience.
Didn't like the production much which is why I tend to not watch films made this century. Also knowing what I know about the film industry is a big turn off. The theme of TCG was on the money - look where we are today - we are now considered lab rats too.
The book is better than the film.
ReplyDeleteBut then that would not be hard.