You write about an uncanny link between the bodies of Sofia and her mother, Rose. I explore this in my essay, Things I Don’t Want to Know, where I say it’s as if ‘mother’ is a delusion, and ‘the world loved the delusion more than it loved the mother’. I look at it through myth too, in the way I show Sofia’s need to separate from that dynamic with her mother and make a life of her own. That’s a question it is not necessarily answered in stone. Is that why she has so many mysterious symptoms, is that why she uses illness as a way to gather love and attention to her? Sofia understands that her mother’s wishes and hopes for herself have been dispersed in the winds and storms of a world not arranged to her advantage.
There is a question at the centre of Hot Milk and Sofia, the daughter, nails that question. That’s a very complicated theme because we are looking at a history, not just a story. I’m also looking at the way that she uses her illness as a means of control. I’m showing that she can be many contradictory things at the same time: infuriating and endearing. The mother in Hot Milk, Rose Papastergiadis, is spirited and controlling, and also a loving woman. You’ve chosen motherhood in literature as your theme first of all, please can we talk a little about the mother in your new novel Hot Milk? Foreign Policy & International Relations.It may all be a little heavy and too stagy but it is enjoyable if you can do enough to get past the heavy message and some overly worthy acting. It has more meaning and human pathos than most WWII propaganda films as it is not anti-enemy but pro-spirit and persistence. Overall this is a reasonably good propaganda. The support cast of passengers is less assured and really never get close to being real people - instead their dialogue and stories are too heavily laden with meaning. Mason has a minor role but always has such a good presence that it is hard to fault him. He exaggerates his performance as if he is on a stage and needing to project to the back row, but he is still very good. The cast is OK but really it is all Redgrave's film. It is rather heavy at times but it still works if you know what to expect. The film is very stagy however, it doesn't really flow very well at times and the best scenes are played out as if in a theatre. The stuff with Charleston himself works better as I cared about him due to the time spent with him.
The pre-war setting is a morale boosting tale of sticking at it - for we never know what tomorrow will bring it delivers a reasonable tale but I found it hard to get into the stories of the various passengers as they were not characters I was given a lot of time to get into and care about. The message of not giving up is laboured at the end, but for the majority of the film, it is hidden and damages the early meaning of the film. The point of this film is both obvious but also too obscure. However he finds that each passenger has had similar experiences that he, with the benefit of future knowledge, can learn from. Charleston hides away - having been frustrated by those in power ignoring his warnings about fascism. One of the visitors gets into a chat with the lighthouse keeper, David Charleston and discovers that his desire to stay in the lighthouse is based on the fact that he is in contact with the ghosts from a ship that sunk many years ago although the ghosts do not know they are dead. When the authorities discover a lighthouse keeper is not cashing his paychecks, they go to visit him to make sure he is OK.
0 kommentar(er)
