I added this film to IMDb before I actually watched it and, in adding the near 2 minutes worth of credits, I assumed this must be some epic work since it involved several camera units, no less than 8 different producers of one sort or another, and a long list of people getting special thanks. Watching the film with this in mind, I must say that it is much more 'ordinary' than this suggests – and I really have no idea why the credits sequence runs longer than the actual film. This is by the by though, because actually the film itself is pretty good in how it adds to the sonnet.
Reading sonnet 85 is odd because the writer actually puts down other writers for putting their thoughts in prose whereas he has good thoughts instead – which is a claim rather canceled by the fact this is a written work. As a performance it makes more sense, and I also really liked the way that the subject of the sonnet was also the location of the film. This is the Trestle structure – one known to those who have never seen it in real life since it is often in films as a landmark. In keeping with the words of the sonnet, we see people photographing the Trestle, tagging it, speaking to TV crews about it and generally praising it, all the while the sonneteer keeps quiet and goes about his own business.
This business is cleaning up around the structure itself – in other words putting in good thoughts (intentions, plans) rather than just adding more words without value. It is a clever reading of the text and the film added value to the words in this way. As a film I think it has scope to be better in a couple of areas. I found the performance from Jones to be too serene; he came over like an angel in the wings and didn't really have much of a presence. This is a feeling not helped by the fact that the sound quality is almost too good – his voice is clear, measured and consistently sounds like he is in a studio speaking very deliberately into a microphone. I loved the idea, but I would have preferred it be delivered with a bit more grit and character than what they actually did.
Some of the shots are cool though, and generally I liked what it did with the text, aside from some reservations over the tone generally and the performance of Jones specifically.
Reading sonnet 85 is odd because the writer actually puts down other writers for putting their thoughts in prose whereas he has good thoughts instead – which is a claim rather canceled by the fact this is a written work. As a performance it makes more sense, and I also really liked the way that the subject of the sonnet was also the location of the film. This is the Trestle structure – one known to those who have never seen it in real life since it is often in films as a landmark. In keeping with the words of the sonnet, we see people photographing the Trestle, tagging it, speaking to TV crews about it and generally praising it, all the while the sonneteer keeps quiet and goes about his own business.
This business is cleaning up around the structure itself – in other words putting in good thoughts (intentions, plans) rather than just adding more words without value. It is a clever reading of the text and the film added value to the words in this way. As a film I think it has scope to be better in a couple of areas. I found the performance from Jones to be too serene; he came over like an angel in the wings and didn't really have much of a presence. This is a feeling not helped by the fact that the sound quality is almost too good – his voice is clear, measured and consistently sounds like he is in a studio speaking very deliberately into a microphone. I loved the idea, but I would have preferred it be delivered with a bit more grit and character than what they actually did.
Some of the shots are cool though, and generally I liked what it did with the text, aside from some reservations over the tone generally and the performance of Jones specifically.