New Yorker - June 14, 1993

by Terrence Rafferty


Most movies, of course, never so much as threaten to be about anything. Sally Potter's Orlando belongs to that ignominious majority, and it doesn't even give us lively performers to distract us from its vacuity; if it weren't for bad acting, this movie wouldn't have any acting at all. The picture is based on Virginia Woolf's 1928 novel, Orlando: A Biography, which is not one of the author's major works; it was conceived, she wrote in her diary, "as a joke," and when it was finished she was concerned that it had become "rather too long." She was right to worry. The book is a fragile, fitfully amusing piece of whimsy about an English nobleman born in the Elizabethan era who does not grow old or die and this becomes the central figure in a series of historical tableaux that take the reader right into the twentieth century; at a certain point-- near the end of the seventeenth century, it appears-- the title character discovers that he has turned into a woman. In fact, Orlando: A Biography is a sort of music-hall version of the life of Vita Sackville-West, with whom Woolf was madly in love, and perhaps the only way to enjoy it fully is to chase down all the personal references and then to fantasize that you're a member of Woolf's circle, chuckling at how cleverly she has captured dear Vita. Woolf's insights into English history and the mysteries of human sexuality aren't really penetrating enough to give the book much of an independent life as a work of fiction.

Although the book is a little tedious, it's not difficult to imagine a good film of Orlando: something brisk, lighthearted, and exuberantly silly, with one of Britain's many cross-dressing comedians (Eric Idle, say) in the title role. Potter, however, takes Woolf's exercise in frivolity awfully seriously. This picture (for which Potter also wrote the screenplay) is like a Benny Hill sketch performed with fringe-theatre solemnity. It's designed to the teeth-- by Ben van Os and Jan Roelfs, who are veterans of Peter Greenaway's fussy, ornate pictures-- and the predominant acting is an unpalatable mixture of earnestness and gross, heavy-spirited caricature. The actress who plays Orlando, Tilda Swinton, has previously appeared in several of Derek Jarman's movies-- notably Caravaggio and Edward II-- which are not the sort of productions that instill good habits in a young performer. (Jarman's actors spend most of their time screaming, leering, glaring, and posing "sculpturally" in stylized settings.) Swinton may not actually wink at the audience, but she always looks as if she were about to. And surely it wouldn't have killed her (or Potter) to try a bit harder to persuade us that Orlando is male in the early sequences. When the actress remembers to, she swaggers, rather halfheartedly, or lowers her voice slightly; the sketchiness of her effects makes her performance feel smug and sarcastic rather than truly ironic. The whole picture has an arch, knowing tone that grows more puzzling-- and more irritating-- as the narrative lumbers to its present-day conclusion. What is it, exactly, that the filmmakers think they know? When Orlando is over, all the audience has learned is that androgyny can be as dull as conventional sexuality, and that the cutting edge of British filmmaking-- the haughty aestheticism of directors like Greenaway, Jarman, and Sally Potter-- is duller still.


email

GeoCities



1