Period films are typically good for only one thing: winning Costume Design Academy Awards. They usually involve an American actress getting some street cred by throwing on a British accent (Anne Hathaway in Becoming Jane) and boring us with attempts at comedy (Jessica Biel in Easy Virtue - she was pretty good in a lame film) or drama (Keira Knightly in The Duchess). What the filmmakers behind these types of movies assume is that its enough to photograph gorgeous castles. They overlook that the problems of the hero or heroine (Can't marry the one they love because of class, has to marry someone to save the family) are not modern problems and thus the modern audience can not identify with them.
Falling in love, however, is a timeless theme and writer/director Jane Campion attacks the story with such an immediacy that while it takes place in 1818, we lose ourselves in the world. I was not distracted by the beautiful landscapes (although there are plenty) and the gorgeous gowns (plenty of those) because it was serving the story, and not simply the work of a craftsman seeking to dazzle the audience and look like a really talented person in the process.
The film is the simple story of John and Fanny falling in love. Ms. Campion does a great job of taking time in the delicacy of their courtship. John is not instantly smitten with Fanny, and Fanny is really just curious to see if John is an idiot or a great poet. There are no rapid fire insults that lead the characters to hate each other and then realize that hate is love (sorry for the knock, Jane Austen). When Fanny mentions that she wants to like John's collection of poetry but doesn't quite, he takes it simply and offers no barbs in return. And Fanny is not trying to insult him, she just doesn't quite understand poetry and can't find the words to express how she felt about his work.
It is this sort of subtle back and forth that feels so true to life, and I think it could be the film's downfall with mainstream audiences. Campion takes her time to get to the big romantic moments, and even then they are handled with great care and subtlety. Ben Whishaw and Abbie Cornish both do amazing work, although its been argued by some that Ms. Cornish's is the stronger of the two, and the one likely to get an Oscar nomination.
I think the performance that deserves the most attention is that of Paul Schneider. He plays Mr. Keats' benefactor and writing partner, Charles Brown. He plays the familar role of the best friend in such a unique manner that it feels entirely fresh. He doesn't want Fanny to interfere with Mr. Keats' writing, and believes that she is a simple woman, not interested in poetry, but only of fashion and fine things. Mr. Schneider goes from obnoxious to polite, humorous and finally heartbroken, all the while making the audience wonder what he's thinking. It's a quite impressive performance and nothing in his acting resume thus far will prepare people for it.
The film is so tender and true that, as I said before, I do worry audiences will find it cold. There aren't the epic fights and passionate make-ups as in The Notebook and the simple problems the couple faces, such as not having enough money to marry, may not be compelling enough for many viewers. For most people, love is an emotion that washes over them until they are done with it and then move on to the next person. John and Fanny invest everything that they have into one another, no back-up plan imaginable. When Fanny offers herself to John, telling him, "You know you can have me if you'd like," John replies, "Yes, but I have a conscience." A bit corny to some, but in 1818 (and even today), that was a true act of devotion. Bright Star is in my opinion a film about commitment and faith and perseverance - in other words: a film about love. And it's one of the year's best. [A] - Ryan Sartor.
