★ 10 / 10
As a poet myself, and Janet frame being
Eleanor C
As a poet myself, and Janet frame being one of my inspirations i just had to watch, and it was wonderful. I can relate to her in many ways, I grew up in the…
As a poet myself, and Janet frame being one of my inspirations i just had to watch, and it was wonderful. I can relate to her in many ways, I grew up in the country with not really any friends, as I became a teen I struggled with my mental health. Her story inspired me so much, to never give up hope on my dreams of being a writer.
The movie itself was warming and heartfelt, and also heartbreaking as we see her struggles. The movie captures many emotions. Everytime ive watched it, it's never lost its magic. Its refreshing to see a movie portraying real life issues without toning it down, as a viewer I feel like I can relate and connect with the character.
It's also now made me read and feel janet frames poetry in a different light. Truly beautiful
Read full review
★ 6 / 10
AN ANGEL AT MY TABLE is a lovingly
Reuben M
AN ANGEL AT MY TABLE is a lovingly crafted and beautifully acted story, based on the biography of Janet Frame, New Zealand’s most beloved author and poet. It…
AN ANGEL AT MY TABLE is a lovingly crafted and beautifully acted story, based on the biography of Janet Frame, New Zealand’s most beloved author and poet. It juxtaposes views of grand vistas with highly specific and intimate glimpses of a family and specifically, Frame herself. Her story is the stuff film biographies are often made of. She comes from very poor circumstances and of course, in her large family there are occasional tragedies. She faces obstacles both personal and societal, some of them quite compelling (her stint in a mental hospital is the most alarming). Certainly that she was able to emerge from this squalor and hardship is a testament to her spirit and to her will to write.
And yet. And yet, I didn’t love the film. The easiest knock on it is that it is quite long, coming in north of 2.5 hours. But as I reflected on it afterwards, the length would have been okay if there had been more narrative drive or more pace. Frame is a deeply, painfully shy girl, teen and young lady. The movie dwells on this too much. We get it, she’s pathologically shy. But again and again and again we are given scenes where her role is to essentially be a wallflower, watching those around her, wishing she could join in or perhaps hoping she’ll just continue to be ignored so she doesn’t have to muster up social graces. Frame is a character worthy of getting to know, but it’s as though director Jane Campion didn’t trust that showing her main character as deeply shy only 10 or 20 times was enough. Not when she could do it 30 or 40 times.
To my mind, the movie is also hampered by a sketchy sense of time. We meet Frame first as a little girl, then a teen then an adult…each time played by different performers (and always very well), so we know time has passed. But otherwise, there are very few clues as to WHEN we are. WWII starts and ends during the course of the movie, so that helps root us a bit. Towards the end, Frame is listening to The Twist on her radio. That gives some idea. But I cannot tell you how much time she spent in the mental hospital…not even a guess. (Yes, much later in the movie, she tells someone when they ask.) She goes to Europe on a literary scholarship. Does she spend 2 months or 2 years there (or more or less?). No idea. I think they may have aged actor Kerry Fox, who plays Frame very convincingly, but it’s hard to say, and if so, I’d be hard pressed to say how many years she was aged. It is as though the film is showing us vignettes, in chronological order, but each vignette exists on its own, with no idea of how closely it follows upon the prior vignette.
Finally, and I really hate to say this, but I feel that this movie was made for people familiar with Frame and in particular also devoted to her work. I’ll admit that I had never heard of her before, but I’m not from New Zealand. The camera dotes on her as though she is a near saintly figure, enduring trials, but knowing that in the end, her “martyrdom” will be rewarded by literary success. I am happy she was vindicated after her hardships, but I wasn’t moved by Janet Frame or her story. At the end, I didn’t want to run out and read any of her work. Simply, the movie didn’t grip me. I’ve had that trouble with Campion movies before. I know everyone loves THE PIANO, but it didn’t do that much for me. THE POWER OF THE DOG has a great plot twist or two, but it also frequently plods along. Campion likes to take her time, but sometimes, I think, she forgets she is supposed to engage and entertain her audience.
I viewed the Criterion Collection version, and was somewhat disappointed that the extras were pretty skimpy. Despite it all, I was interested in hearing from and seeing Frame herself (on film, she is a very striking looking person, with a huge mass of curly, untamable red hair), but all we have are a radio interview. It’s mildly interesting (and apparently one of the very few she gave), but I was disappointed. There is a making of featurette that I was actually interested to see, but it was only 10 minutes long. The accompanying booklet has a nice essay and also excerpts from Frame’s autobiography (the three volumes of which are the basis of the script). I did not read them; that should indicate how I had become a bit weary of spending time with this person. Yes, I know, I’m a terrible, terrible person to say this. But the movie wasn’t interested in making new fans of Frames work; it was made for New Zealanders who grew up admiring her as a national treasure. There’s a bit of a disconnect there.
I still give the movie a modest recommendation. Kerry Fox (and Alexia Keogh and Karen Fergusson as the younger Janets) are uniformly excellent. There are some moving sequences throughout. So don’t let me completely scare you off.
Read full review
96%
TOMATOMETER
· 23 reviews
90%
AUDIENCE
· 2.5K ratings
7.4/10
9.6K
•••
Excellent! Thank you very much!