jdennist says > TOM JONES, to me, has one fatal flaw which may have been overlooked (or even appreciated) at the time: the chaotic style really hampers the growth of the characters and the development of the plot beyond fragments. And when you have over two hours of frantic fragments...it gets tedious.
I know what you mean about the chaotic style of the movie but I have to disagree that it's a fatal flaw. The style is actually one of reasons I think the movie works. If the story was told in the typical way it would probably be too long and drawn out; which equals boring.
The fragmented style adds to the humor. I believe the style helps us identify with Tom. The movie is as scattered as he is and we're forced, like him, not to take anything too seriously. In regards to the other characters, we know as much about them as we need to know.
I did still enjoy the film. The actors seem to having a blast, the music is catchy, the production values are fine, it manages a few laughs. But 50 years on, it just doesn't hold up that well.
I just watched the movie for the first time today and I laughed and enjoyed it so I think it did hold up well over the years. It was a period piece then as it today so it's not like we can say anything in it is dated. All the same issues that were dealt with in the movie like love, lust, greed, jealousy, etc. are still relevant today.
We may think illegitimacy issues are a thing of the past but that's not exactly true. A lot of British people today; especially the landed gentry, still pay very close attention to peerage. What's more, the same rules of inheritance apply today that would have applied then. That was one of the issues I did have with the movie.
Having learned his sister was Tom’s mother, Allworthy immediately announces that Tom is his sole heir. Is this because Tom was her first born so he supersedes his younger half-brother and rival or is it because Allworthy is disinheriting Blifil, his sister’s other son, because of the things he’s done; like hiding the letter? It seems things would remain as they were because Tom was still of unknown birth. Bridget was his mother but who was his father? Blifil was the product of her marriage; why wouldn’t he remain Allworthy’s rightful heir? It would seem he’d have a better claim to Allworthy’s estate as his adopted son than as his sister’s bastard child.
Woman, man! That's the way it should be Tarzan. [Tarzan and his mate]
reply
share