Innocence is by definition unknowing. The ‘magic of childhood’ isn’t something a child experiences but an effort by adults to describe the palpable, heart-stopping delight they see in the eyes of children entranced, absorbed in a picture, a story, a game. Or poignantly, cherished memories of their own childhood. Most of us have a favourite image that captures this sense of magic and wonderment: for me it is of two children on the beach, a boy about 7 protectively clutching the hand of his barely 5 year-old sister. A beautiful sunny day, skipping weightlessly towards the enticing sea. Now that’s magic. To us. To them it is just life. So far.

It is clear that Beatrix Potter caught something of the essence of this childhood innocence and delight in her simple drawings of anthropomorphised animals dressed in neat and tidy human clothes and having the kind of adventures children could identify with. The only response that counts to some of the most popular childrens’ characters ever created, is that of those for whom they were intended. And for over 100 years those small customers have been confirming that Miss Potter got it right. Whatever some of us might think.

The first thing we must say about Chris Noonan’s Miss Potter is that it is not a film for children but for adults. Though at times he seems to forget that himself. It clearly has a respect for the woman and her work. But just as Beatrix Potter needed a special kind of art to touch the hearts of children, so a filmmaker needs more than respect, he needs artistry to marshal the considerable tools at his disposal to try to capture the spirit of a rather remarkable woman. Tread softly Mr Noonan for you tread on our (children’s) dreams. And our memories. Precious memories.

And here, for me Noonan fails pretty comprehensively for the worst of reasons. Rene Zellwegger follows Paltrow and Kidman as being simply miscast as a quintessentially English woman writer. In all cases, especially this one, the casting was not driven by the artistic needs of the piece but by the desire to put American bums on seats to watch it. For this piece of English whimsy that’s a pretty tall order anyway. But why oh why not stay true to the respect that drove the piece and cast it properly and not for vain hopes of enhanced box-office? Even without constantly distracting lip-pursing and facial grimaces to semaphore what’s she’s thinking, Zellweger acts far too English to be believably English. She’s acting the English bit as well as the character. And for me it just about sinks the picture. In my view she is now un-castable in an English role because her Bridget Jones is a constant ghost at the feast.

Richard Maltby Junior’s screenplay is also imbued with an American’s sense of what the English are like and at times plays like the archetypal ‘English’ speaking butlers beloved of Hollywood’s past. Again why an American, when someone like Julian Fellowes would have got the cadences right? And an Oscar winner to boot. But it’s Noonan’s direction of the performances and the action that is most off key. At times it seems as if he is directing Miss Potter’s life as one of her own stories. And getting it wrong by drifting into a kind of twee, precise preciousness that patronises us in a way Beatrix’s stories never did her young readers. The weak screenplay and misconceived direction leaves fine actors like Bill Paterson and especially Barbara Flynn struggling to make their characters something more than cardboard caricatures. Emily Watson injects a bit of genteel feistiness and naughty humour to lighten things up a bit but the key characters have far less life than the occasional animations of Peter Rabbit and co.

As Miss Potter’s first and almost only love, Ewan McGregor is engaging enough but still seems to be enunciating his lines instead of saying them. The film is prettily shot and due deference is paid to Beatrix’s commitment to her beloved countryside, and her generosity in bequeathing it in a sense to us all. The genteel tragedy that occupied the centre of her life outside writing and illustration is well enough told and the film does not lack affecting moments. But in the final analysis the spirit of the woman who could entrance children with innocent, slight little stories that have lasted over a 100 years simply eludes Chris Noonan’s film.

Harriet Lane in the Guardian described this as "possibly one of the worst films ever made"...

Yes, I must admit that having just reviewed Linda Lear's fantastic new biography of Potter, the film trailer did make me recoil in horror - film seems set on undoing all the good work done by the new book, in my opinion.

Vanessa/Griff

It was so tempting to trash this movie. But I judged that there was a genuine respect for Potter and her work driving the production. As a critic it seems to me that deserves some respect. So I tried to identify what for me was the reason why that respect went awry. Mostly I think for the all too familar reason that some critical decisions were not based on the aesthetic requirements of the piece, but a simplistic judgement about box office. I'll even accept that Zellwegger was committed to the project.

However there was always an inbuilt contradiction here: because Potter's work is immensely popular in the US as it is in the UK. BUT: I don't believe the reasons the two cultures admire this work is the same. The Americans in general I believe go for the cute, twee, Disneyesque qualities of Potter's work. There is something more innocent, real, deep about why her work has appealed to British children over the years. And despite the casting, which may well have been imposed on him, Noonan I think probably recognised the difference. It's just for me, that his efforts to realise this don't work.

In the realities of todays movie industry, raising finance is the the sine qua non of any production. This inevitably puts aesthetic vision (sorry about that) under financial pressure. So serious aesthetic and moral pressures are experienced by directors to realise their own vision of what a project should try to achieve.

Critically I try to take a positive view of everything I see. My most trenchant complaint is about movies where there is dishonesty or manipulation e.g. Lords of War. Secondarily I will have go where a filmmaker falls below his own previous standards e.g Flags of Our Fathers.

Criticism is irreducibly an arrogant function. That I have made and sold videos I have made and produced, only partially validates my comments on the work of others. My desire is to try to ensure that good films are seen by as any people as possible and try to encourage readers to see films that they might either not have noticed or might be put off because of title, content or subject. If in reading a number of my reviews and comparing them with their personal responses readers come to feel an affinity with my perspective, then that is deeply satisfying to me. Subject always to the proviso that people must always make up their own minds about a work of art. And that I will call the shots the way I see them.

I think it is grotesque to call Miss Potter the "worst film ever made". That's just a journalist desperate to make an impact. At someone else's expense. Dozens, if not hundreds of movies compete for that dubious accolade. This is no more than a flawed, perhaps failed effort to represent the spirit of the work of a remarkable woman. Failure to achieve one's good intentions cannot be compared with success in making money out of the cynical, manipulative prostitution of genuine talent just to make a quick buck.

If the critic has a legitimate role, it is to try to draw attention to the difference - wherever and whenever it occurs.

regars

Z

Well yes, calling something "the worst film ever made" is certainly a cheap shot. I wouldn't go as far as "grotesque" though, it's just a rather commonplace turn-of-phrase to describe dissatisfaction, which admittedly you might expect to hear more from a non-journalist than a journalist.

Failure to achieve one's good intentions cannot be compared with success in making money out of the cynical, manipulative prostitution of genuine talent just to make a quick buck.

But surely it's the end result you're judging, not the creative process behind it. If something stinks, it stinks, whether it was well-intentioned or cynically made ?

By the way I haven't seen this movie, as even a brilliant movie about Beatrix Potter and her vile cutesy creations would likely make me vomit.

Hey Griff

This film doesn't, as a film stink. It has merits. Potter's creations are not to my taste either and I signal that. It surely is important to distinguish between the film well made or not (and on the whole this one isn't well made) and its subject which one may not like or feel any affinity for? I for example have written more than once about Scorcese who for me makes the best hateful films in Hollywood. And loads of people, including most critics, disagree with me on that.

I used grotesque simply because judged as a film, rather than its subject matter, it is absurd to call this one of the worst ever made. I tried to argue why and for what reasons, the film as conceived fails. I want to try to be as discriminating as I can be in my criticism and will reserve my venom for films with far more venaland egregious intentions than this one.

But that is a statement of my critical position - it doesn't and shouldn't affect your view one jot. we pays our money and we takes our choice. And that's as it should be.
regards

Z

Hi Zettel

I enjoy your reviews, keep them coming.

I take your point about reserving real venom for deliberately egregious films rather than just badly made clunkers.

But I don't think that when someone says something is "the worst film ever made", that they always mean it literally. Sometimes I am telling my friends about a restaurant and I say "oh wow it was the worst restaurant ever". I'm not really mentally comparing it to every restaurant I ever ate in, just looking for a hyperbolic phrase sufficient to describe my disappointment.

What videos have you made BTW ?

Hey Griff

You are quite right about the expression. And the colloquial meaning would be the right sense to take in the situation.

For three years a friend and I filmed, edited and produced videos of the 9 month process of producing the St Albans Gang Show which is one of the biggest in the country. About 30 minutes documentary, credits etc, some animation and a version of the full show performed over 4 nights made up the package. We sold about 500 each time which for a limited market was pleasing.

However as we were using largely retail equipment, the move to digital required an investment we couldn't afford. A shame because the massive improvement offered by digital was not funnily enough the improvement in image but a massive enhancement of sound quality.

My ambition would be to make a real film but that may not happen now. However my son has just left University with a degree in film studies and intends to make more movies. His first 10 minute effort if of interest is on his web site - web.mac.com/mr23.

Thanks for the comments. Interesting issues.

regards

I must say, the arrogance and superciliousness of some of the reviews of this movie on this site betray nothing more than what I think is sheer jealousy by inferior writers who live too much in their heads and not enough in their hearts.

Pooh pooh on you, those of you who weren't big enough to admit this was a damn good movie - those of you who didn't allow the sheer purity and innocence of this movie and of this central character into your hearts - instead allowing your pettiness to attack a movie that captures in my view the charm and innocence of a central character and an era that is long gone and yet much longed for by many. We live in a time of over-analysis, skepticism, meanness of spirit and people such as some of you reviewers who live too much in their heads.

"Miss Potter" was one of the most charming movies I've ever seen. Renee Zelweger was absolutely superb, and captured the real zeitgeist of the creative spirit and artist. Childlike. Innocent. Pure.
Ewan McGregor was magnificent, and was breathtaking in his own pureness of heart and love for Miss Potter, with a touch of understated masculine sensual energy that made his love, and their love, all the more powerful.

It is rare that a movie can keep us spellbound as this one did with the performances, the wonderful cinematography and gorgeous outdoor scenes of rural England, and above all - the childlike, magical innocence of a great children's writer, splendidly captured by Ms. Zelweger.
Bravo Renee!! And Bravo Ewan!!

You know, I don't mind that you liked the film and we didn't. (Although I thought I made it clear that I haven't seen the film, I was just passing on what someone said about it in the newspaper).

But if you're going to call us arrogant, supercilious and inferior writers, which is possibly a bit un-necessary, maybe you should learn how to spell "Zellwegger" first ?

<Added>

Bugger, maybe we're both wrong and it's two L's and one G...

<Added>

Anybody know for definite ?

Sorry Griff 2 'Ls' 1 'G'

Misha - better watch out, I jealously guard my reputation for being the one who goes further OTT than anyone else (see review The Fuzz). I tried to capture in the review the fact that what the viewer brings to this particular movie is going to totally determine how they see it. Critically I was concerned that I didn't think the film had been given as much credit as it deserved but I really found Rene Zelleger sunk it for me. For the rest in my view, better than the reviews it got, but I can't see it as good as you do.

But that's the great thing about art/movies we're supposed to disagree.

Happy movie-going both - even if it's to different movies!!

regards

Z

Zettel, I wasn't picking on your spelling, you weren't the one throwing insults around...

Oh and by the way I haven't seen Hot Fuzz but I applaud your sentiments. Having sat through Spaced and Shaun Of The Dead, the cult of Simon Pegg leaves me completely cold.

Hey Griff

That makes you and me then about The Fuzz!

I've had a lot of stick about that review. Some of it justified I guess. I did go a bit OTT.


Regards

Z