The story that tell little-known by itself, the novel by Thomas Cullinan “Cheated” and now two taken at a distance of half a century apart of the film, puts the badly wounded soldier the northerner in a closed women’s hostel in the deep South; his unconscious presence begins to awaken inside tight corsets feelings long-forgotten or hitherto altogether unknown, when he comes and assesses the situation, the young (and not only young) lady little by little it does to the strict manners and French lessons. The main potential of such ties in its level of provocation, and don Siegel and Clint Eastwood, who directed the original film adaptation of “Cheated” a few months before “Dirty Harry”, in his time, is well understood, making a delightfully cynical melodrama, not schadivshie anyone in the frame.
Any discussion of “Fatal temptation“, a funny whose localized name is, ironically, better would fit right for the old movies, is impossible without a discussion of the original for all who knew him. This is a remake that does nothing better than its predecessor, but some important things or doing much worse, or refuses to do at all. That, however, in this case are one and the same.
The amazing thing that is the creation of the Director still refused to remove remakes and set this precisely because it saw an opportunity to do something new; in the words of Sofia Coppola, her goal was to retell the story from the point of view of women. This statement causes confusion; the original is not paying the corporal Macburnie more attention than the inmates of the pension, and in regard to the distribution of weight between the male and female part of the character of the composition, the remake appears almost a copy. If you believe Coppola in the word, there is only one conclusion she took her new film only because he does not understand the selected material.
This is confirmed by the screenwriting and directorial decisions. The “trick” of 1971, among other things, understands that in this story about the stresses and desires that occur between the sexes, it is not necessary to hold back. The image of Eastwood as a masculine ideal as it is elevated to parody (the appearance of his character, even the chickens begin to bear eggs) and turned inside out: Macburnie in his performance immoral liar and manipulator who starts with that kiss on the lips of 12-year-old girl, and ends with threat to rape everyone in sight. The intrigue and fun from the very beginning built on his attempts to gain control over women over their house, over their bodies, and resulting from conflicts.
Coppola also comes into the area, armed with their eternal tendency to smooth out the rough edges and give what is happening in the frame detached-hypnotic tone. The main character now in essence, a good guy, nobody wants to harm and sincerely confess in love at first sight, and Farrell plays him with the appropriate glance is first cornered, and then caught on in the comfort of the dog. And that at the crucial moment he went into the room to the other well, not stood the man that he can take. If this scene is possible as-that to explain, then the only way; follow-up action heroine dunst, meanwhile, are losing in the new context of all logic.
The Director’s desire not to offend anyone in some moments outweighs here, even ideas that are key throughout her career; so, in one of the most powerful scenes of the original Director of the Board trying to politely kick out the soldiers, the southerners, knowing why they actually came, while the top of her formal enemy enjoys her hospitality. Perfect miniature drama Coppola for each film which, in whole or in part on privileged women living in a world made by men, here is entirely behind the scenes. There is her company at a much more predictable reasons a slave Hallie, probably the most interesting character of the film Siegel, which would be unprecedented for Coppola, but that did not bother her, and it can not be called anything but banal cowardice.
Place all of the above in the new movie is, except that additional frames beating through the trees of the sun and lit solely by candles corridors and rooms. The Director seems to be enough, and all the rest, including the characters, are forced to sit and wait for the climax, which, while remaining essentially the same, made more rough (which is chaturdashi a moment at the gate, in which Farrell suddenly appears in the frame with the unlikelihood of a Tyrannosaurus Rex from “Jurassic Park”) and leave behind at best a very weak, almost weightless tragedy. Even if we accept that films, which Coppola was born to shoot “lost in translation” and, in the first place, is still unsung “Marie Antoinette” is firmly behind us, is each new work should be as less significant than the previous.