Bloom (2004)

Bloom is an Irish film of the James Joyce novel Ulysses by director Sean Walsh. Let me be up front- I think Ulysses is a vastly overrated book, with moments of superbness and many more moments of wretchedness. It was Joyce, Woolf, and their ilk that started a good deal of art down the road to narcissistic hermeticism. That all said, while the film Bloom is not a great film, in and of itself, it is a good film, with moments of brilliance, and does a far better job at explicating the events of the first Bloomsday, June 16th, 1904, than the book ever has, despite what pretentious critics say.Basically, nothing much happens on that day, yet three main characters- a married couple, Leopold (Stephen Rea) and Molly Bloom (Angeline Ball), and an aspiring artist and scholar named Stephen Dedalus (Hugh O'Conor)- protagonist of Joyce's earlier A Portrait Of The Artist As A Young Man. The three perambulate about the world of Dublin on that day, meeting and missing each other on several occasions. Dedalus is trammeled by his own inadequacies, and rebelling against the established order, while the Blooms deal with the slow death of their marriage, precipitated by the untimely death of their son, and aided by Molly's flagrant infidelities. Yet, the book takes these circumstances and subordinates them to the intellect, in the conceit of 'stream of consciousness' writing, which is basically unpunctuated interior dialogue. Of course, the thing about stream of consciousness is that it is really the conceit, not the real way people think, lest punctuation would never have gotten started. Think of how often your thoughts veer and back up, U-turn and screech to a halt. The mind is certainly not like a river, but more like a potholed city street.The film, however, does not suffer from these limitations. The visual image can work on multiple levels with far more immediacy than the word, so the 'day' of the book can be easily condensed. Some Joyceans will complain that the film takes things out of order, and mixes many of the chapters together, yet a) this is a film, not a book, and b) that is akin to deriding those who deride Joyce's approach in the book (regardless of whether or not he succeeds- I vote nay), as well as being the height of hypocrisy. There are marvelous images, and truly the cinematography is the best thing in the film. Rea is also great as Leopold Bloom, while ball and O'Conor also have moments of brilliance- including Molly Bloom's closing soliloquy- the last chapter in the book- which the filmmaker wisely opens and closes the film with, so that Molly is indelibly stamped in the viewer's mind while most of the rest of the film explores Leopold and Dedalus…. Almost all of the flaws in the film are carryover flaws from the novel. Film, in fact, would seem to be a medium that Joyce was born to indulge in. Had he been born thirty or so years later I think he may have become the first great screenwriter, and may never have dabbled in novels. Film is far closer to poetry than prose, and Joyce's prose certainly is among the closest published skirts near poetry. Instead of 'not doing justice' to the book the film really makes the book far more relevant to readers- hardcore or casual. Its only flaws, outside of the book's, is that it could have been a bit more daring. I mean, if Ulysses is rent of nudity, just how avant garde can it be?Overall, I recommend this film on its own right, and as sort of a Cliff's Notes to the book, especially considering the excellent director's commentary. But, it's a so-so book to begin with, so take the former notation in that light. Yes?

Joyce's 'Ulysses' is the record of a single day (16th June 1904) in the lives of three characters in Dublin - Leopold Bloom, Stephen Dedalus and Bloom's wife Molly, and deals with their actions, inner thoughts and relationships. The day itself was meant to be unexceptional – it actually commemorates Joyce's first date with his girlfriend, Nora Barnacle. In the manner of such records it does not follow traditional plot structure. This of course does not mean the book is unfilmable. Quite the contrary in fact - we have seen the video diary become increasingly ubiquitous and there is a recent fashion for films that trace interlocking lives through short periods of time.Additionally Joyce himself in his novel employs all kinds of innovative cinematic techniques with flashbacks, dissolves and close ups (Joyce was very interested in film and actually opened Dublin's first cinema in 1909, but he was a better writer than a businessman).Joyce hoped Eisenstein might film his book and perhaps the ultimate film of 'Ulysses' is yet to come, but in their own very different ways Joseph Strick with Ulysses (1966) and Sean Walsh with 'Bloom' have done the job for two successive generations.However the book - arguably the 20th century's English literary masterpiece - has an iconic status that may prevent a filmmaker departing too widely from the text. In 'Bloom' Sean Walsh, plainly a lover of Joyce, has been anxious to follow the text as closely as possible and also to create a period drama that has the genuine look and feel of the time. But while a film that remains so faithful to the text may satisfy an audience of keen Joyceans it will mystify those who have not read the book.Although the day in question is a century ago the book actually ranges over a plethora of surprisingly modern topics: sexual relationships including adultery, the power of the press, publicity and advertising, popular culture and music, nationalism and political cynicism, alienation, racial and ethnic prejudice, technology and consumerism - to name but a few.To my mind Joseph Strick's 1966 film, which is very new wave - right down to its minimalist score - and which treats the story in 'modern dress' with modern setting (for the time) had a contemporary look and feel that allowed the audience to reflect that the topics pursued were every bit as relevant to them as to the actors on the screen. By contrast 'Bloom' plays as a nice historical drama but one that is about as relevant to our own lives as Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice.Ultimately the greatest film of Ulysses will come when the filmmaker attempts not verisimilitude but instead works from a script that will be 'freely adapted from Joyce's Ulysses'. That day will come when Joyceans – and the Joyce estate – permit. But after all it is worth reflecting that Joyce's book is itself but a free adaptation of Homer's original.

If they made1001 movie versions of _Ulysses_, none would be as beautifully and compellingly cinematic as the book itself. This is only the second version, as far as I know. But I enjoyed watching it. I suspect it was an effort to expose the book to the Good People of Ireland (Flann O' Brien) in preparation for the big centennial Bloomsday party--so they would know what they were celebrating, and so that the hapless tourists who wondered into Dublin on that day to experience the famous Irish hospitality, etc., might know what these people were celebrating as well. He used to be on the ten-pound note, Joyce, before the Irish switched to Euros.I don't know if this movie would make any sense at all to people who haven't read the book itself. I have read the book itself, more than once, and some parts of it more even than that. This version appears to have been written by Gerty MacDowell, after she grew up and got a job at the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, in 2003 (it takes some of us longer to grow up than others--and it seems to have taken her 99 years). I am looking forward to the next 999 versions. Joyce is reported to have said that he meant to keep academics busy for the next 300 years. God only knows how many years he wanted to keep film makers busy (it is a fact that he once tried to open a movie theater in Dublin Himself).Stephen Rheas' Bloom is nicely Chaplinesque, as is just about everything else in the movie, including the music. All told, _Bloom_ is a nice exercise in nostalgia for a Joyce and a turn-of-the-twentieth-century Ireland that never existed--nostalgia is like that. Nice is nice, but this movie, it goes without saying, is nowhere near as great as _Ulysses_ is a book. Most of the characters and dialogue, as best as I can remember, comes from the book itself--but you can't capture much of that in two hours. But, then, there is ... Love's Old Sweet song.

1904, Dublin. Stephen Dedalus is an English poet in the service of the Catholic Church in Ireland; Leopold Bloom is a tragic figure who walks the streets of Dublin while his wife, Molly, commits adultery with barely the regard to try and conceal it. With the streets of Dublin as our colourful background, we take a journey into the lives and minds of these three characters.Not being a cultured man I have never read Ulysses and the fact that it was 100 years since the day the story was set was not being to be enough reason for me to change that fact. However, being an uncultured man, I was very happy to watch a film version of that book and it was this that brought me to see this film on the 100th anniversary. Before the film all I knew of the main character (title character here) was that comedian Eddie Izzard had compared him to Scooby-Doo in that he was a tragic, cowardly character that we root for but I was happy to let the film show me the book (although I was aware that it was never going to be able to capture all of it). The story is very loose when considered on the level of a traditional narrative and at times it just seems to be so lost in itself that it is impossible to really care or follow. At best it is frustratingly difficult to get into and it never really feels like it has any structure apart from the start and the end. The start is a nice introduction but the ending only has structure in a rather pat attempt to give it a) some sort of ending that relates to at least one part of the film, and b) a happy ending to boot. It doesn't work and just seems to come out of nowhere even if the dialogue is great.The film doesn't have an epic look but that is down to it's budget and, considering that, I thought they had done well with the shoot and managed to hide a lot of it's limitations with a solid shoot. In terms of dialogue the film has several occasional highs, which I can only assume come from the book either directly or with minor amendments. However the fact that it has a nice imagination and some good visual touches does not disguise the fact that it is very uninvolving as a film and lacks enough of its other qualities to really make it worth a watch.The cast are mixed indeed. I thought O'Conor was pretty much absent without leave for most of his scenes and I never once got more than a vague understanding of his character and, judging by his performance, I would say that he had no better grasp than I did. Rea however is great – I had no preconception of Leopold so I felt that Rea did well to deliver a solid character in a film where almost nothing was solid. Ball may have little to do but she is also good value even if the film betrays her by making her the focal point of a happy ending having barely touched her throughout (unlike her men!). Some of the support cast are good but really the main reason I stayed with the film till the end was Rea's performance.Overall this is not a great film, although I do not know how it compares to the book because I have not read it (but other comments on this site make it clear what they think!). It has occasional highs that include some poetic dialogue and an interesting visual imagination but mostly it is just frustratingly difficult to get into and offers no hope. It tries to structure a plot but it only seems to have annoyed fans by being simplistic and annoyed me by being a failed attempt at story. Maybe worth seeing for it's good points but not a very good film at all and certainly not one fans should come to.