Last login: Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Apologies for saying "neutral" without an explanation. What I meant was that it seemed, from my perspective, that you went in expecting not to like it, and were fine critiquing any flaw that may have been even remotely present. However, once you admitted to not particularly a fan of the genre, I could see myself in the same position having to review Sci-Fi. I actually saw this a second time yesterday, hoping to enjoy "Love" more than the first go around. It didn't happen. However, I tried focusing on the Indian girl in the ashram, to see your perspective and I'm still at a loss. Liz finally finds her ability to pray and communicate with god when it isn't about herself anymore (she dedicates her daily prayer to the girl). And the last scene with the girl is her and Liz holding hands in silence. Which was more poetic, in my eyes, than if a Western woman visiting India tried to force her Western belief system on a child. In the end of the film, Liz speaks of how life is a journey and when you treat everyone you meet as a teacher, then things have a way of working out- something perhaps directed toward the girl from the ashram as well. (Gilberts' words are more poetic than mine, forgive me.)I guess I just don't understand certain criticisms you had. Such as stating that certain scenes in the section titled "Eat" were essentially Chef Boyardee commercials. I perhaps take the section literally, at face value, and expect her to simply marvel at food and language. I will check out the movies you suggested, though. I love this theme in film, and look forward to re-reading this after seeing them.
August 26, 2010 at 2:27 p.m.
( permalink | suggest removal )
Beth, I have to say that I am slightly appalled at your review here. As a film reviewer, I would expect a more neutral approach rather than just spewing hatred for a project that is SUPPOSED to be as narcissistic as it is (and as you seemingly mock).
First, she is an author, and she gets an advance deal on the book she is going to write about the journey she takes. That's how she lives/eats/doesn't worry about finances. Second, this isn't "every woman's journey," nor is it supposed to be. It is the story of one woman and her struggle to step out of the complacent life she knows wasn't meant for her. Third, as an individual on her own journey, she wasn't taking a year to help anyone else. It was a year to focus on her own life and soul. That's why she didn't tell the young girl that she shouldn't have a pre-arranged marriage, and why she tried very hard to not fall in love with the Javier Bardem of the book (the man who she, Liz Gilbert, ultimately married).
I'm not championing the movie at all. It was decent, but not great. One problem that I agree with is that it was difficult to see the mega-star Julia Roberts playing this character. I couldn't see it when reading the book, and I still don't see it. I'm also not championing the book at all. It was annoying and self-absorbed.
My point is that... well, the movie IS pretty close to the book. It's SUPPOSED to be annoying and self-absorbed and narcissistic. That's how everyone lives their lives (especially single people without spouse or children attachments). There is no one greater than "I," and you have to take care of yourself first. You must love yourself before you can love somebody else.
August 24, 2010 at 8:49 a.m.
( permalink | suggest removal )
© 2016 KPBS Public Broadcasting