preview

Buckle's Ambiguity

Decent Essays

There’s no sense of ambiguity is Buckle’s vehement criticism of Schepisi’s Eye of the Storm. To a huge extent, pinning the film “laboriously overlong, technically uninventive, unevenly structured and edited and inevitably plotted” is completely warranted, “bloated running time” aptly describing a cinematic experience which lends a total of 3-4 minutes to the storm scene, the sole portion of the film which (arguably) credits itself as anything more tolerable than “boring”. Given that Eye of the Storm is based on a novel (of the same name) that adopts the crux of its plot from Shakespeare’s King Lear, as an audience we don’t – nor should we ever – expect a completely original creation. Where Schepisi falls short, however, is in the regurgitation of what had already stagnated with regard to both concept and cinematographic conventions – something Buckle duly notes in recounting “sideways pans and gradual zooms”, utilised to “a monotonous extreme”, becoming a “distraction”.
Buckle’s disposition does not, however, include a seething hatred of film, or more specifically cinematography, in general. His appreciation of the “intimacy” of a good close up revealing a shred of hope in a frantic search for some feature to redeem this “mediocre soap”-like picture. All the more Buckle …show more content…

Focusing on the racial aspects of this filmic adaption, Buckle categorising the characters “unlikeable” could’ve easily been justified. Why are they unlikeable? They are representative of a dominant culture, and of the power play that necessitates assimilation into it, without criticism. These characters are present in order to dissect the experience of classism in 1970s Australia, but do nothing to examine and evaluate the polarities in experience between Anglos and non-Anglos, aside from having Elizabeth scoff at Whitlam’s speech and slight allusions to Lotte’s

Get Access