There is a moment, a third of the way into Dear John, where Sgt. John Tyree, having recently fallen in love while on shore leave and yearning for the end of his tour of duty, walks into a bar in the German town where he is stationed and watches the World Trade Centre collapse.
I thought that this would be a turning point for the film. Up until that point Dear John, based on the Nicholas Sparks novel, was a perfectly acceptable tale of two young people falling in love one summer. It wasn't changing my life but I wasn't longing for the credits. The film plods along in a formulaic fashion, happily throwing out clichés with gay abandon.
And then, out of nowhere, it decides to tackle 9/11, and for the briefest of time it does an admirable job of it. Immediately after the attack John returns to the base and without hesitation requests to extend his tour. His decision isn't rational or thought out and its not presented as a gung ho call to arms. It's born out of fear, doubt, confusion and at the same time a powerful need to do something. He finds the rest of his squad have done the same. Their Commander has no idea what will happen but accepts their wishes. Seeing these young men desperately trying to react to something utterly unthinkable is fascinating and, I am ashamed to admit, something I hadn't really thought about before. I know how I felt as an observer, I can't even begin to imagine what it must have been like in New York that day, but for the men and women in service the days following the attack must have been horrendous. Remarkably, Dear John does a very good job addressing these themes and for about fifteen minutes the film becomes very engaging.
But then the film reverts back to Romantic Drama 101 as if nothing happened. This would be fine if the effect of that day were felt for the rest of the film, but the attacks are literally never mentioned again. Sure, John is seen in Afghanistan but the political and social after effects of that day are completely absent. I wasn't expecting the film to suddenly become a commentary on the War on Terror but I did expect it to at least follow up on the very questions it raises. It's peculiar because, as I said, for the brief time its addressed the film deals with the subject with a degree of intelligence and respect. It doesn't come across as exploitative, it never feels like its using it to manipulate your emotions so why include it in the film at all?
The rest of the film is serviceable enough, kept mainly afloat by it's two leads. Channing Tatum does well enough as John. Tatum has, in the past, floundered in roles too big for him, here though he is likeable as the quiet, stoic young Sergeant. A subplot involving John and his Father develops into something quite touching and Tatum manages to sell a key scene successfully. The centre of the film though is Amanda Seyfried who I find myself liking more and more with each film. She has an effortless charm that makes her an instantly likeable leading woman. She is actually a lot better than the string of generic chick flicks she is popping up in recently. It would be interesting to see her try something a bit more challenging. The two of them have a great chemistry and manage to elevate above the standard "Star-crossed Lovers" film.
Dear John isn't a bad film by any means, in fact it ends up being a good film with 15 minutes of a potentially excellent film in the middle. For a moment the film wants to be more but then loses that confidence. A bit of a shame really.
I thought that this would be a turning point for the film. Up until that point Dear John, based on the Nicholas Sparks novel, was a perfectly acceptable tale of two young people falling in love one summer. It wasn't changing my life but I wasn't longing for the credits. The film plods along in a formulaic fashion, happily throwing out clichés with gay abandon.
And then, out of nowhere, it decides to tackle 9/11, and for the briefest of time it does an admirable job of it. Immediately after the attack John returns to the base and without hesitation requests to extend his tour. His decision isn't rational or thought out and its not presented as a gung ho call to arms. It's born out of fear, doubt, confusion and at the same time a powerful need to do something. He finds the rest of his squad have done the same. Their Commander has no idea what will happen but accepts their wishes. Seeing these young men desperately trying to react to something utterly unthinkable is fascinating and, I am ashamed to admit, something I hadn't really thought about before. I know how I felt as an observer, I can't even begin to imagine what it must have been like in New York that day, but for the men and women in service the days following the attack must have been horrendous. Remarkably, Dear John does a very good job addressing these themes and for about fifteen minutes the film becomes very engaging.
But then the film reverts back to Romantic Drama 101 as if nothing happened. This would be fine if the effect of that day were felt for the rest of the film, but the attacks are literally never mentioned again. Sure, John is seen in Afghanistan but the political and social after effects of that day are completely absent. I wasn't expecting the film to suddenly become a commentary on the War on Terror but I did expect it to at least follow up on the very questions it raises. It's peculiar because, as I said, for the brief time its addressed the film deals with the subject with a degree of intelligence and respect. It doesn't come across as exploitative, it never feels like its using it to manipulate your emotions so why include it in the film at all?
The rest of the film is serviceable enough, kept mainly afloat by it's two leads. Channing Tatum does well enough as John. Tatum has, in the past, floundered in roles too big for him, here though he is likeable as the quiet, stoic young Sergeant. A subplot involving John and his Father develops into something quite touching and Tatum manages to sell a key scene successfully. The centre of the film though is Amanda Seyfried who I find myself liking more and more with each film. She has an effortless charm that makes her an instantly likeable leading woman. She is actually a lot better than the string of generic chick flicks she is popping up in recently. It would be interesting to see her try something a bit more challenging. The two of them have a great chemistry and manage to elevate above the standard "Star-crossed Lovers" film.
Dear John isn't a bad film by any means, in fact it ends up being a good film with 15 minutes of a potentially excellent film in the middle. For a moment the film wants to be more but then loses that confidence. A bit of a shame really.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Do you think what I've said is load of old bollocks? Please let me know.