I’ve been thinking about the movie Carrington lately. It came out over 20 years ago and stars Emma Thompson and Jonathan Pryce, about the shared lives of painter Dora Carrington and writer Lytton Strachey. I’d never heard of either real-life artist before seeing the film.
My dad recommended it to me recently which is why I watched it and why it’s on my mind. It’s a subtle, sort of meandering film focusing on characters and changes in their relationships over time.
My dad thinks it’s a fantastic character study with wonderful acting and nuance and subtle insights into human behavior and interactions.
I…. enjoyed a lot about it, but found it oddly lacking in recognizable shape or plot.
If you look at the Rotten Tomatoes page (52% good reviews) you can see a hint of the differing opinions about it (from “impressive” and “intelligent” to “cowardly and dull”).
Anyway, I get a lot out of the discussions of different types of art with my father. He’s a smart, immersive artist himself, and we’ve talked a lot about the differences between US and British and European films. This one (from the UK) is focused on interactions and emotional behavior, whereas US films (even independent ones) are more often about plot and arc and reaching a certain climax at a predictable stage.
I try to keep a balance of all these things when I write, but I’m quick to question a script when it doesn’t hit key milestones (three-act structure, etc.). I want to hold onto these other values (nuance, subtlety and emotional behavior) and work to draw them out without falling prey to more generic structures. It’s an ongoing struggle for me, and I feel lucky that I’m able to have these discussions with my dad which give me a broader picture of what can be compelling to different people, without dismissing stories that just don’t *feel* right for one reason or another.
