Look, somehow, I don’t know why, maybe I could be wrong in my interpretation, but it seems, the girl (Cairo) became the writer from the ruins of the poet’s love, whilst, at the same time, she unshackled the writer (Jonathan), deliberately or by accident, no idea, to become who he once was or always destined to be i.e. a writer and a poet. Who crossed the boundaries? Of course, both the sides, yet, not in a repulsive way. And indeed, at times, you would say why Winnie, Cairo’s friend, was asked by the production house to act sometimes in a wired manner that wasn’t looking synced with the subject; because honestly, on one hand, I didn’t find any repulsiveness between Cairo’s & Jonathan’s relationship, when being compared to Boris & Winnie; for the reason that it’s indeed a question as what defines being an Adult? Cairo was far matured in terms of mental evolution compared to Winnie. And if your natural (not artificial) tastes in literature, choice, attitude, aptitude, aura signals being a more Adult person when you’re merely 18 or 19, compared to other people who are in their even forties or fifties, then, I didn’t see anything wrong in the matured refined conversations between Cairo & Jonathan.
And if I recall in 2000’s Under Suspicion the relationship between Gene Hackman & Monica Bellucci, honestly, I couldn’t digest it, for the reason, as both of their relationship wasn’t looking even cohesive, neither by conversations, nor by temperament, nor by their attitude, as if in that flick, a rich man married a young woman on the basis of money, and justifying that in the whole movie. But in the Miller’s Girl, when the tastes & choices of both Jonathan & Cairo actually synced well, then it made sense on screen and justifiable.
If they had reduced the roles of Winnie & Boris, and just concentrated on Cairo & Jonathan alone, then I think it could’ve been much better.
All said & done, an OK watch! 😊
© Pranav Chaturvedi
