Enduring Love Roger Michell UK 2004
No endurance whatsoever is required to pass the time with this solid adaptation of Ian McEwan’s well received novel. Action over contemplation has won here barraging a ballooning tragedy above the relationship of two London intellectuals. Gone are the many resonances and subtleties of the source novel, sacrificed instead for the rejuvenation of the leads – younger buffed up actors, and a pinned down concentration upon the central themes. Thankfully the problems this ordinarily creates are avoided through good casting, Daniel Craig and Samantha Morton are quite excellent so any criticism in this vein is reserved solely for the script. Craig’s character Joe has now become a teaching academic as opposed to a science writer in the original, disrupting the sexual themes with the Morton character, originally a Milton academic now an upcoming sculptor. Ratcheting the couple firmly within theme-park Working Title London (which audiences will now forever associate with ‘90s British cinema - characters wandering around Tate Modern etc), including Bill Nighy as the couple’s friend and making their professions slightly more high profile (Morton has a feature in the Guardian published about her in the film, assuring the characters political sympathies if nothing else...) adds an element to the mix - celebrity stalking. The stalker in question, Jed Parry, is another scuzzy-haired oddball contrived by Rhys Ifans.
Enduring Love the novel achieved such acclaim that it was bestowed that epitaph of authorly reception - becoming a set text within the lifespan of the author. By changing many of the books events after the initial balloon accident, the director creates a genuine sense of disarray even for an audience familiar with the book. The opening is a case in point. Via shakily real hand held camera work the rushed reality of imminent danger inherent in even the most serene means of transport is brought home. Slicing the rescue attempt up in this way with fast cuts reinforces the speed at which events can unfold. Then using the oldest trick in the trickster’s manual he turns everything inside out with deft sleight of hand and misdirection. Touches like this separate the film from the novel in a more tension filled than cerebral way culminating in the similar yet sufficiently different ending. The menace is upped, as are the hideous lengths Joe has to go to resolve the final dilemma, adhering fully to the central plotline of misplaced love in a sufficiently more visual direction. Unusually for a film where the book uses a gun in the finale, the film does not, another example of the superior adaptive processes occurring here.
