Was Will always this arrogant and patriarchal? Was his life truly charmed? That seems to be a better dramatic question, but the movie would still be about him. I'm also chafed because Will tries to pilot Lou's life from the start: telling her what movies to watch and how to wear a dress with confidence (I mean, really?! She's already smokin'!) and how to party like the grand adventurer he once was, and he continues to do so (*spoilers*) even beyond the grave, down to what Parisian perfume she should wear! He also obnoxiously calls her by her last name "Clark" all the time, which any girl who's had a middle school crush on that cool skater boi knows is a familiarizing but controlling tactic that makes us happy and hungry for his approval. It's never talked about, and she lacks the agency to leave or at least tell off her well-meaning but clueless boyfriend or to follow her dreams of fashion school. It's not even clear how and when she falls in love with Will. The central moral question of the film is Will's, and everything Lou does is in aid of that plotline. What's utterly stupid about this movie is that despite Lou being the ostensible protagonist, she is STILL merely a supporting character in her own story. The love story is quite predictable, but there's a second-act moral conundrum that provides some suspense. Usually daunting Emilia Clarke is adorably giddy, and Sam Claflin is Sam Claflin, the handsome asshole with a sensitive soul underneath. Free-spirited and quirky Louisa takes a job as companion to quadriplegic Will Traynor who is now surly and disheartened about losing his once charmed life.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |