Although I haven't read the book yet. I had a thought that the book must be a masterpiece. Some people said that ORLANDO is feminist movie or a little bit about LGBT. But I didn't think so. I think ORLANDO is about someone who were looking for his/herself. It's a character study about someone who tried to face the changes in his/her surrounding. The set design was fantastic! As if - I was taken back to those years...
No doubt everything is visually stunning and ethereal - and Tilda Swinton is magical as always. However, for someone not already familiar with the story, it can be confusing. I liked the subtlety in the fantasy element, but the portrayal of the story is lacking depth. Enjoyable in some sense, but didn't take my breath away.
Woozy in its own, mystic entrancement, Sally Potter's 'Orlando' is a stunning feat of ethereal proportions. The young, beautiful Orlando evolves from man to woman across the strikingly-short running time, and with this change so does the world (or, at least, how it is perceived by him) rock, wane and tune itself to new feelings or patterns of expression. 'Orlando' is unlike anything else.
I have huge admiration for Swinton as a versatile and compelling performer and Orlando is no exception. Despite my own ignorance of the source material I enjoyed the bizarre dreamlike narrative and poetic charms - "I think you suffer from a strange meloncholy, that is, you suffer in advance" and a beautifully sung track in the credits.
Ideas come crashing through this film thick and fast, it looks great, it sounds great and Tilda is just translucently magnificent - as she always is. Does seem to lose it's way from when Billy Zane turns up but make no mistake this is a fantastic, ambitious, inventive, inspiring, thought-provoking adventure of a film.
Had I not read Virginia Woolf's novel I would have liked the film more. However, knowing the original I have to say that Sally Potter's adaptation lacks narrative depth and the surreal subtly of Woolf's writing. In spite of this - Tilda Swinton's performance is great (as always).
It looks lovely and has wonderful costume design but overall feels empty. At a grasp, the idea is that gender doesn't define you; only it does in practically all situations. Or perhaps that's the point? It's hard to tell but Swinton is enigmatic as ever. The first half is better than the second half.
An extraordinary vehicle for La Swinton. A sumptuously filmed time-traveling tale. Offers homage to Woolf's wonderful but puzzling novel and even more timely, 25 years, on in the allegedly post-feminist era of trans liberation. Loved the music and the catalogue of vignettes from a surprisingly starry cast, the witty use of Jimmy Somerville and the ultimate gender-bender Quentin Crisp as an ageing Queen Elizabeth.
Sally Potter captures the essence of Virginia Woolf's novel and consequently continues the story to the present time. There are some really stunning sequences, and the film generally shows a great sensibility for dramaturgy of camera movements (like during some dialogues), but also for colors, sounds and the use of music.
It was quite clever and witty, but other than a few particularly stunning scenes it just didn't leave a strong impression. I wouldn't say it was a bad film by any means and it's themes of gender, equality, identity are worth pursuing but considering it's a tale of an individual whose life spans four centuries I actually found a lot of it quite shallow, particularly it's treatment of it's historical figures.
Woolf breaks the unities of time, place and action - and gender - in this cross-period, 1928, epic 'biography' about equality. Potter's sumptuous tableaux-driven format works best in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. Several characters cross the centuries with Orlando, their wigs a sly comment on the vagaries of fashion. Quentin Crisp, as an ageing, despotic Queen Elizabeth I, is a casting stroke of genius.