The Field

Critical Overview: The film The Field has gotten many reviews, most of them were negative in a sorts. Many thought that the play which the movie is based off of, should have never been made into film. For example, Roger Ebert, a critic for the Chicago Tribune said, “This was not a work called out to be filmed” (Ebert). In his opinion he thinks that when the film was in play format one was able to care more about a field. However, when it’s filmed it seems stilly that the whole surrounding area is full of farmable land, and obsessing over this one plot seems preposterous. I can’t help but to agree with what Robert says here. The film had a tendency to pan over the vast green fields, yet there is never any talk of them. Ebert also mocks the …show more content…
They all felt that it was very dramatic, and the viewer could not empathize with the film as much as they could when it was a play. None of them liked the aspect, of showing this small plot of land, and they could not grasp their heads around the fact that, Bull would go into a murderous rampage over this. On the contrary, some critics seamed to enjoy the film. Owen Gleiberman, thought that the acting in the film was wonderful. Gleiberman said that Sean Bean and John Hurt did fine work in the film, and that Harris gave a, “seething, wounded performance that attains moments of startling power” (Gleiberman). His critique of the movie was that the character of Bull was made too big and symbolic. He too thought that the conversion of play into movie had defeated Sheridan. One man that really seemed to like the film is Bill Thompson, and he even makes note of how many people have ripped the movie to shreds. He comments on the strength of Harris’s character, and notes his total conviction to the role that he is playing. He also notes that the other characters may have have seemed as if they were giving their best performances, however, he relates this to the fact that Harris’ performance was so large …show more content…
Conflict blocks his way at every turn, making for an interesting story line. One can assert from this film that it is about a man stuck in his convictions, and he is so caught up in his own mind that he can not see the destruction that he causes in the world around him. The Narrative structure of the film conforms to the typical narrative chronological structure of film. The Bull as the main character is met with conflict when the Yank enters the film. Bull overcomes this conflict when he murders the Yank to get his land again. The rising action of the main plot of film occurs when the land first goes up for auction. Here we see the tension in the film start to rise. Every action that is taken from this point on is important. The climax of the story is when Bull murders the Yank. After Bull does this sinful deed we as an audience see him unravel. This is the pivotal point in the film. From here on there is just a string of madness. Finally, the falling action occurs when everything goes awry, and it ends with the demise of Tadgh. This death is a very symbolic moment in the film when Tadgh falls off the cliff. In the film this point relates back to the first bit of the movie when the donkey is thrown off of the cliff. It creates a cyclical effect or a book end so to speak. The whole movie is connected with being thrown from a cliff. This imagery thematically