Sally Potter turns Virginia Woolf’s novel into a witty, welcoming fantasy, held together by Tilda Swinton. Its observations about gender are sometimes blunt, but the pleasure of Swinton’s company carries it through.
Sally Potter’s Orlando is a witty, inviting fantasy with a few points it presses too hard. Adapting Virginia Woolf’s novel, Potter lets an immortal central figure pass through centuries of English history without making the journey feel like required reading. The interest lies in watching a person persist while the conventions surrounding them keep changing. That could become a dutiful parade of lessons about gender and society, but Potter usually has a joke ready before the lesson settles in.
Tilda Swinton is the reason we stay interested in that person. Her Orlando has a reserve that never quite becomes coldness, and the wry asides give us a way into a character who might otherwise seem remote. We laughed at the looks towards the camera, because Swinton makes us feel included in the joke without labouring to explain it. The sweetness matters, too: there is enough vulnerability beneath that composure to keep the performance from becoming a sequence of knowing glances.
Alexey Rodionov’s panning shots give the historical settings time to register, while keeping Swinton an absorbing presence within them. Production designers Stanislav Romanovsky, Ben van Os and Jan Roelfs make the passage through different periods legible through the surroundings. Costume designers Dien van Straalen and Sandy Powell contribute to the comedy of social identity: clothing makes other people’s assumptions visible. The casting of Quentin Crisp as Queen Elizabeth gives that idea an especially direct expression, with a recognisable historical role occupied by an unexpected performer.
Editor Hervé Schneid keeps the procession manageable within 94 minutes, although the speed of the journey sometimes leaves the people around Orlando feeling like temporary company. The film asks us to move on just as an encounter begins to acquire emotional weight. David Motion and Potter’s music helps keep the changing periods part of the same playful film. That lightness is welcome, but it also means that the romance can feel less urgent than the pleasure of spending time with its central performer.
Potter is less persuasive when she makes sure we have understood the social point. The observations about gender can be blunt, and the film sometimes seems satisfied that noticing an absurd convention is enough to tell us something about living under it. We wanted a little more of the hurt and confusion that its central predicament suggests. Still, its humour allows those ideas to reach us without solemnity, and Swinton’s performance supplies the tenderness that the broadest observations need.
The useful comparison is with costume drama at its most obedient, where the care taken over appearances can discourage awkward questions about the people inside the clothes. Potter’s humour makes that sort of deference impossible, and her fantasy benefits from it. There is no need to know the novel before settling down. Watch it with someone who enjoys a knowing glance; Swinton provides plenty of opportunities to exchange one.