The Beguiled reviewed by Mark Kermode

[@malvanlondon8683]

I think both versions are good. The 1970s one disturbed me due to its sexual content. This one disturbs me for how easily a situation can spiral out of control. Both are worth a look.

[@DRush76]

I am at a loss on how Sofia Coppola thought she could improve both Thomas Cullinan's novel and Don Siegel's 1971 adaptation. Granted, the cast - including Nicole Kidman, Colin Farrell and Kirsten Dunst - gave competent performances. But Coppola stripped away so much from this story. She stripped away a lot of the characters' ambiguity. She stripped away an important character who had the misfortune - at least in the director's eyes - to be an African-American. Which meant that she stripped away the topic of slavery and to a certain extent, even the war itself. In the end, "THE BEGUILED" seemed like a Southern Gothic tale with barely any life. It struck me as a shell of Cullinan's novel and Siegel's own adaptation. After watching this film, I found myself asking why Coppola felt she could adapt the 1966 novel in the first place, considering that she seemed incapable of exploring it with any semblance of real honesty.

[@adamarens3520]

Well said.

[@margaritaramos3393]

A year post, but I totally agree with you.

[@redgravemirren]

I was looking forward to Mark's review of this movie. I was a bit disappointed by how much of the review is focused on comparison with Siegel's version.

[@dravenuk]

I love the Don Siegel film. Saw it first as a kid and it creeped me the hell out. Great movie. Can't wait to see this too.

[@sanyrub]

I liked it a lot. Not in my top10 of the year but very well made and it had the necessary tension (to my surprise). It is also short, which is welcome these days. The cast was perfect too.

[@DRush76]

I realized that I had four major problems with this film. One, it was too subtle. It was subtle to the point that it nearly drained the life out of this story - especially in the first half. I think "The Beguiled" is one of those tales that literally cry for real melodrama. Two, I found the cinematography too dark. Actually, one of my complaints about period dramas - especially in the past two decades - is this unnecessary need for "natural" lighting, especially indoors. Well . . . great, except I could barely see anything at times. Three, what happened to Hallie/Mattie? Why did Sofia Coppola felt the need to completely whitewash this story? Don Siegel didn't. And the 1971 movie featured a superb performance by actress Mae Mercer. And four, I wish thi s movie had been a bit longer than 94 minutes. I think it could have used a slightly longer running time. I never understood Sofia Coppola's claim that this movie is from the women's view, in compare to the male character, Corporal McBurney. Especially since the 1971 version told the story from the women and McBurney's point-of-views.

[@keitheldershaw9428]

Coppola's remake, which I am currently watching, is good with the lighting, it encapsulates (no pun intended) the closeness of both the women, and the girls. I've noticed that the imagery of the little girl in nature picking wild mushrooms accords with the concept of innocence in her activity, but also the difference between the biblical story of Eve, and the tree ; Eve's temptation is an apple tree, and a serpent above, in the tree. The support for this is the punishment afforded to the serpent , to spend the rest of its life on the ground. Further, the etymology of the term Paradise, refers to a walled garden! And the women are "enclosed", they're living together without men, and notice the gate in the early scenes; the decision to not hang a blue fabric, to announce a Union soldier's presence. And the fact that Kidman's character doesn't open the gate. The cloth metaphorically refers to the fig leaves, worn to clothe Adam and Eve, as they hide from God, walking through the Garden, until God asks why they are hiding ( the women in the film hide the man), and Adam and Eve together state that they were ashamed. God asks why? Because we are naked, they reply ; Who told you that you were naked, asks God? Because they're awakened to self consciousness, and that they have sinned...by partaking of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. So back to the film... I like the way that Coppola inverts the theme of the snake when Kidman's character is washing the soldier's body, ; Kidman hesitates at revealing the sight of his penis to the camera ; her sight of his penis ( symbolically, the snake, which arouses her desire, for her absent husband, and her sexual longing for his penis within her) is left undisclosed, and is skillfully used to heighten the sexual tension . Kidman's woman, is the only female there who understands the pleasure that a man's penis can give to a woman, as all the others are innocent. They don't know the power of their desires. I was disappointed in the fact that Coppol has whitewashed ( this pun is intended) from the original novel ; there is both a black woman, and a half-cast woman in the novel that intensifies the historical, and sexual components to the story. What...Black women don't have sexual desires? Which type of man would be sexually involved with a woman, with a Black mother, White father, or, vice versa? This is where the authenticity of so many films emanating from either, Hollywood, or, the East coast elites panders to a revisionist view of history, where the lens of both men's and women's sexuality has to "fit" a specific ideological, normative prescription. And that looks overworked, laden with dross and, ultimately, condescending to the audience. Its dishonest, dumb and dull. It's so bloody predictable. Coppola is a very good filmmaker, but I feel that her laboured third wave feminista posturing, coming from an arch crypto-patriarchal fascist conspiratorial family of Francis Ford -Coppola aside, might strike some as utterly banal.

[@andyg9835]

I thought that 'The Beguiled' worked very well and stood up to the Siegel version in a modern sanitised \ less gritty kind of way. It is a film seen from the female view point, so the war is something that we are being mostly sheltered from, like the characters. The question of who is beguiling who takes centre stage, as it should really, and capably carries the movie through to the end. Perfectly good performances and an entertaining hour and a half. 3/5

[@juanitajones6900]

The 1971 movie is also seen from the women characters' POV.

[@BrotherJosephus]

Someone try taking a shot every time Mark says "the Siegel version".

[@92ninersboy]

Sophia Coppola does arthouse-Lite - great style and pretty images but, more often than not, not much depth. Sophia Coppola is a marketable brand (thanks, in part, to her last name), and we do need female directors with high visibility, but when compared to a director like Mia Hanson-Love (French), who is far less well known, I don't feel Coppola holds up well as an artist with real substance. The Siegel version had so much edge and wonderful performances, and the slave character was definitely one of its strongest and most interesting elements - it seems way to cautious to cut her out of the film.

[@sunnygirly2k4]

"The Siegel version had so much edge and wonderful performances, and the slave character was definitely one of its strongest and most interesting elements - it seems way to cautious to cut her out of the film." MTE! I don't know what it is exactly, nor can I properly articulate it, but certain aspects of seventies cinema had this provocative edge that most recent film remakes etc can't recapture without coming across as as poorer reatread. Perhaps things are just better in the first instance?

[@92ninersboy]

Well, those were edgy, revolutionary times. In many ways people tend to be more conservative theses days - there's definitely more formula and people seem more constrained and fearful of criticism.

[@sunnygirly2k4]

Yep, that seems to be it! Agreed.

[@barbwireboy2]

Just saw it today and after hearing this review, I feel like I would like the original a lot more. Great performances and cinematography, but boy oh boy was it boring. Just when it finally hits a point where you feel like some interesting dilemmas might occur, the film ends about 10 minutes later...

[@Acme633]

I don't get how Coppola was remaking the film by looking from the woman's side or feminist angle. All that I noticed is that most of the parts from the original film that would be considered controversial or unpleasant nowadays are gone. As examples: (1) the black slave girl (with whom the soldier tried to play the race card to get her help to escape but she saw through his character), (2) the soldier trying to play lover to the 12-year old girl who found him (and she was devastated when he instead seduced other women), (3) the headmistress who had a history of incest with her own brother, and (4) many other examples. As a result understanding of characters and their motivations suffers. I prefer the previous film.

[@SidV101]

Very pretty movie that artfully lays the groundwork for its plot developments, with great performances and solid characters (that weren't cardboard cutouts). 6/10 because I could tell where the story was headed very early on which deadened the dramatic impact as the story unfolded.

[@angelaakuffo8145]

I guess she left out the black female slave as it would bring attention to the power dynamics between the white women and the black woman who is a slave. It complicates her feminist angle?

[@ryanaldworth1398]

Because it sounds like he's saying "the seagull version" every time, I'm sitting here imagining incestual seagulls giggling to myself 😂

[@garyabbot4659]

trexpaddock He would actually be good for it if he was younger.

[@samielromero1052]

Ryan Aldworth I love the Antichrist profile picture. Von Trier is genius

[@GoldenGyroBalls]

Finally going on Sunday to see this after many delays.

[@mroctober2978]

If I come out of this movie without feeling a sense of 'beguilement' then I would consider the movie a failure.

[@alexw6105]

I was going to watch this until I saw the trailer that completely spoiled the entire plot. Cannot believe that they would commit such a massive act of commercial self-harm.

[@alexw6105]

For anyone thinking of watching the film, DO NOT watch the trailer if you don't want to know the entire plot.

[@ramonecricket5183]

What a strange review. It seems as though he' dancing around saying what he really thinks, for fear of causing offence.

[@saltech3444]

The benefit of a comment like this is that you can apply it no matter what is actually said. Bravo.

[@smurfswine7463]

"It's my professional look" :D

[@suzannelaforce6988]

I like this one, but I th ink the 1971 version is better.

[@12081991Andrew]

Just come back from seeing this 7/10

[@65g4]

I just rewatched Coppolas version recently i think its a masterpiece. I have no desire to see the Clint Eastwood version.

[@notabot835]

I can't fault Sofia Coppola's presentation of the material-there's beautiful cinematography and great direction. But I feel by converting the material into a straightforward feminist revenge picture, she's dulled the film dramatically and drained it of any ambiguity.

[@anthonymartensen3164]

Benish Ben I didn't like the movie overall and it had nothing to do with it being "feminist"

[@notabot835]

It is very much a feminist film. It's about women during wartime, and the lengths they will go to defend themselves. They eventually feel endangered by McBurney, and they only enact their "revenge" as a means of self-preservation, not out of wanton cruelty. There is zero ambiguity.

[@BenFrewgoogle]

doody magoob couldn't disagree more. I don't think the "revenge" was revenge at all, it was a dispationate, rational decision. At least, I think that's how it appeared, essentially because it was badly made. I thought it was a stinker, a sixth form exploration of sexual politics, all veneer and no depth. so when it came to that point there really didn't seem any big decision - whether of sympathy or revenge - at all

[@bltr2507]

The only film by Coppola that I at least relatively enjoyed, probably thanks to Kidman and Farell. Definitely less self-indulgent and monotonous than her previous work...

[@MLouah-gp9ef]

Finally an intelligent review

[@garyabbot4659]

I like the original too much to watch this and be dissapointed.

[@eustacequinlank7418]

I like Simon's shirt.

[@mroctober2978]

No you don't. This is a lie you have told yourself to cope with the unfortunate truth of you puking up all over Simon's previous shirt.

[@eustacequinlank7418]

It's probably Robbie Collin's jumper if I think back.

[@mroctober2978]

In fairness, that jumper deserved being puked on. That was a public good you did there.

[@conmannoble]

is it just me or much of the apeal of this podcast comes from the od couple mayo and kermode make? they are like tha fat and the thin.

[@juanitajones6900]

I don't think this is a very good movie. We're talking about "The Beguiled". It is not a subtle story. It felt as if Coppola tried to transform what was basically a Southern Gothic melodrama and transform it into a subtle indie flick. It just DID NOT work for me. If Coppola was incapable to filming an obvious Gothic melodrama, she should have stayed away from this film. And her excuse for excluding any black characters in this movie made no sense to me. After all, Hattie or Mattie was a woman. She was as much a female as the other inhabitants in the school. Was Coppola truly that afraid of delving into the mindset of a black woman?

[@taliaprice1909]

I'm going to pass on this one.

[@garyabbot4659]

Yeah why?

[@greytoeimp]

No I don't actually care

[@samellerton]

Stop commenting that, nobody cares.

[@taliaprice1909]

Sam Jamie if you are replying to me then you stop commenting!

[@samellerton]

Talia Price Well I've seen you comment that on a few different videos, why not give the film a chance before saying you'll pass on it? You could actually try giving a valid reason

[@davidlawrencegraham6722]

when I here colin farrell is in anything other than a comedy I give it a miss he was perfect in the likes of in brugge but when its a serious role more often then not hes terrible

[@zfbananas]

He didn't play In Bruges like it was a comedy, though, and his character had so much depth and trauma that the genre of the film is sort of irrelevant.

[@TheJuzi]

First

[@spaceodds3174]

Not a fan of Mary Corleone. She hasn't done a good movie since The Virgin Suicides in 1997. Hope this changed this.

[@Salman-Zaki]

spaceodds The Virgin Suicides came out in 1999.