Why Orlando is my Favorite Film

Because it's anti-Fabio and it's everything I love in movies

I visited my relatives in Colombia a few months ago. I had not seen them for many years so they started to quiz me on what my life was like. They asked, “what is your favorite movie?” I paused. First, I am at a point in life where I don’t obsessively make “best of” lists like a High Fidelity character. I love pizza, but I also love sushi. I am cool with that, no need to rank. Second, I realized that my taste in film has at least two incommensurate layers. I love science fiction, space opera, and, to a lesser extent, fantasy. But I also have a taste for extremely pretentious art film, like the inscrutable Begotten. I love pretentious art film because it brings me to emotional or conceptual places I would never be. I am so comfortable with myself that I pay to be occasionally uncomfortable with myself.

It turns out there is one film that somehow manages to perfectly merge art house film pretense and sci-fi excitement - Orlando (1992), starring Tilda Swinton and directed by Sally Potter. It’s got everything - an A+ cast, fascinating story, gorgeous period costumes and scenery, biting wit, gender crossing, exploration of colonial politics, and the ever so dreamy Billy Zane. The movie is a depiction of the book by Virginia Woolf, which is about an Elizabethean aristocrat who spontaneously changes genders and lives for centuries. It’s not a perfect film, but it gets a lot of things right:

• All Tilda Swinton, all the time. It prepares you for films like I am Love, which is great.

• Great costumes - like the 18th century gown worn by Swinton in the above photo.

• Excellent supporting cast. Quentin Keats for the win!

• A real, and persuasive, attempt at dragging you through British imperial politics.

• Interesting and occasionally funky music. It’s a nice mix of classical and music scored for the film.

• Savage humor and put downs. Twice, Orlando goes to battle against poets - and loses badly.

• Literary context - any film that brings Woolf to film had better do well with its literary references, Mr. Greene.

• Deft commentary on gender and national politics. Not ham fisted.

• The film still is a little mysterious, even after many viewings. What is the Middle Eastern lady singing? I don’t think I’ll ever get a translation - I don’t know the language and a Google search doesn’t produce anything. Still, it’s a cool scene.

And this brings me to the narrative core of Orlando. In the hands of many writers, Orlando would be a superhero, a real Mary Sue. In contrast, Woolf and Potter treat Orlando as a normal human in a very abnormal situation. Orlando is a twit and becoming female just makes Orlando into a female twit. It literally takes about two hundred years before Orlando gets a grip on the situation and in the 20th century, she finally gains a self-control and direction in her life. That is nearly 400 years of slow, painful character development.

Orlando doesn’t make the “top” list of many critics or viewers but it gets generally very good ratings. IMDB readers give it 7.1 out 10, which is actually pretty good. Rotten Tomatoes has both audience and critics giving it 80%. The movie has been getting more love over the years. Rachel Pronger at the BBC defends the film, 30 years later, as a wildly subversive and queer affirming. Caryn James gave the film a shout out in 2018 in Newsweek. I agree with them. I hope this essay will encourage you to check it out.

++++++

My books: Grad Skool Rulz - cheap advice manual for grad students / The history of Black Studies / Obama and the antiwar movement / A Social Theory book you will enjoy reading / Intro Sociology for $1 per chapter