Great films vs. small films

Little Children, the pervert

The pervert in Little Children

“Sarah reminded herself to think like an anthropologist”

I watched Little Children yesterday evening. Little Children = Madame Bovary + suburban postmodernism, it is an attempt to create the “Great American Film” (see Great American Novel) in a tradition which started with American Beauty and Magnolia; ultimately the film is pretentious but proficient.

Kate Winslet shines as Emma Bovary and the “new Paul Newman” is as useless as the worst of Emma’s lovers. Given the choice between the Great American Film and the “Small American Film” (think Fast Food, Fast Women and Denise Calls Up), I’ll choose the latter.

Nonetheless, this is the best film adaptation of Madame Bovary since Chabrol‘s literal interpretation starring Isabelle Huppert, and I was amused with the book clubbers debating the sexual practices described in Madame Bovary (specifically, whether a vague reference to a “shameful” sexual act implies that she has anal sex). The sex scenes are as hot and steamy as The Postman Always Rings Twice. The film is recommended but I’m not going to count it as a World Cinema Classic.

3 thoughts on “Great films vs. small films

  1. nursemyra

    oh I really wanted to see Little Children when it was on here, I hardly ever have the discipline to sit down and watch a dvd, prefer the experience of going to the cinema.

    the chabrol interpretation of madame bovary (one of my favourite films) was great

  2. Pingback: World cinema classis #31 « Jahsonic

  3. lichanos

    I wasn’t aware of this film. I should check it out since Flaubert is one of my cultural heroes. Personally, I found the Chabrol film too literal to be enjoyable. I know this is extreme, but it reminded me of Harry Potter movies where you sit and watch a reenactment of the novel, page by page. Except, Flaubert is Flaubert, and Harry Potter is just Harry Potter…

Comments are closed.