Chito Rono's Caregiver was an effective drama, though, most of the times it was melodramatic, still, there were scenes that worked. The movie, in my opinion, failed to capitalize on the real potential of what the story has to offer.
So, we learn that Sarah is a school teacher, who while teaching English, is taking a caregiver course to work in London. The first few scenes were OK. It was swift and direct to the point. It got, melodramatic when we get introduced to her family.
I find the scene very irksome, loud and chaotic. I mean, why does it have to be like that always? And why does each family member have to have an underlying problem? To give each supporting cast a dramatic moment on screen?
While I do understand that it's meant to generate conflict and tension, the said scenes in the movie did nothing to Sarah and her character. Yeah, we came to witness how flawed her family is, and flaws are good in characters, it makes them more believable. But what is its purpose? Nothing, really. In short, they could go without it and won't change the story, it had no bearing and importance, aside from lengthening the movie.
The transitions were effective. That scene in the market where Sarah is buying winter garments for her trip could've been trimmed and the dramatic monologue edited more. I find it when she put the jacket on and it cut to London effective. It eliminated more melodrama of saying their goodbyes, Sarah and her son already cried a river in the market, c'mon.
The London exterior scenes were gorgeous. The photography was subtle. The "caregiver" aspect of the story started when Sarah meets grumpy Mr. Morgan. Again, this is one of those effective moments which would've been great had the filmmakers took advantage of it. Instead, we again get introduced to the supporting characters, of course, each of them having their own dilemmas in life. My point again is, what does these do to Sarah's character? I believe her husband's not telling her that he's not really a nurse but a healthcare assistant has more weight compared to the egocentric doctor/nurse friend of theirs.
The filmmakers tried doing a lot in crafting the story, where sometimes and most of the times less is more. Another missed and also misused subplot was that of the book, Tess D'Urberville by Thomas Hardy, I haven't read the book, but, based from what I know, it is a story about a young woman, Tess who had to go to work with an Aristocratic family but later was seduced and raped by her cousin. I could see the parallelism between Tess and Sarah working in a far-away land to help her family but the rest of the story doesn't fit. Though it was clever for the writer to include the book, it was poorly integrated into the movie. Sarah's an English teacher for Crissakes, they could've found a book in the beginning where both she and Mr. Morgan can relate to, not just some random book. Every detail in a movie must have a relation to the entire picture.
Still, I believe, without Rono's direction, Caregiver wouldn't be the movie it is. His skill is evident in the entire movie. The camera placed on the ground where Sarah discovers Mr. Morgan's lifeless body is a beauty. Though, I find it hard to believe, the night before, when Mr. Morgan is almost out of breath saying goodbye to Sarah, he managed to enjoy flying a kite with her the next day!! Also, the scene where she looks for the kite in the woods seems out of place. I felt I was in a Blair-witch movie.
The ending where she decided to stay and leave her husband is brave. This is where I keep on referencing the book, 'cuz in it, Tess D'Uberville died, though I laud Sarah's action, I find it puzzling. I felt that its a twist that the filmmakers had to do to make it different. I maybe nitpicking, but hey, I guess I've expected more from the movie. Overall, its an effective drama that went too melodramatic which could've been great had they concentrated more on the plot's potential.
So, we learn that Sarah is a school teacher, who while teaching English, is taking a caregiver course to work in London. The first few scenes were OK. It was swift and direct to the point. It got, melodramatic when we get introduced to her family.
I find the scene very irksome, loud and chaotic. I mean, why does it have to be like that always? And why does each family member have to have an underlying problem? To give each supporting cast a dramatic moment on screen?
While I do understand that it's meant to generate conflict and tension, the said scenes in the movie did nothing to Sarah and her character. Yeah, we came to witness how flawed her family is, and flaws are good in characters, it makes them more believable. But what is its purpose? Nothing, really. In short, they could go without it and won't change the story, it had no bearing and importance, aside from lengthening the movie.
The transitions were effective. That scene in the market where Sarah is buying winter garments for her trip could've been trimmed and the dramatic monologue edited more. I find it when she put the jacket on and it cut to London effective. It eliminated more melodrama of saying their goodbyes, Sarah and her son already cried a river in the market, c'mon.
The London exterior scenes were gorgeous. The photography was subtle. The "caregiver" aspect of the story started when Sarah meets grumpy Mr. Morgan. Again, this is one of those effective moments which would've been great had the filmmakers took advantage of it. Instead, we again get introduced to the supporting characters, of course, each of them having their own dilemmas in life. My point again is, what does these do to Sarah's character? I believe her husband's not telling her that he's not really a nurse but a healthcare assistant has more weight compared to the egocentric doctor/nurse friend of theirs.
The filmmakers tried doing a lot in crafting the story, where sometimes and most of the times less is more. Another missed and also misused subplot was that of the book, Tess D'Urberville by Thomas Hardy, I haven't read the book, but, based from what I know, it is a story about a young woman, Tess who had to go to work with an Aristocratic family but later was seduced and raped by her cousin. I could see the parallelism between Tess and Sarah working in a far-away land to help her family but the rest of the story doesn't fit. Though it was clever for the writer to include the book, it was poorly integrated into the movie. Sarah's an English teacher for Crissakes, they could've found a book in the beginning where both she and Mr. Morgan can relate to, not just some random book. Every detail in a movie must have a relation to the entire picture.
Still, I believe, without Rono's direction, Caregiver wouldn't be the movie it is. His skill is evident in the entire movie. The camera placed on the ground where Sarah discovers Mr. Morgan's lifeless body is a beauty. Though, I find it hard to believe, the night before, when Mr. Morgan is almost out of breath saying goodbye to Sarah, he managed to enjoy flying a kite with her the next day!! Also, the scene where she looks for the kite in the woods seems out of place. I felt I was in a Blair-witch movie.
The ending where she decided to stay and leave her husband is brave. This is where I keep on referencing the book, 'cuz in it, Tess D'Uberville died, though I laud Sarah's action, I find it puzzling. I felt that its a twist that the filmmakers had to do to make it different. I maybe nitpicking, but hey, I guess I've expected more from the movie. Overall, its an effective drama that went too melodramatic which could've been great had they concentrated more on the plot's potential.
