Arguably the greatest British novelist of the 20th century, Virginia Woolf, who invented "stream of consciousness" writing, composed the 1928 novel "Orlando" upon which director Sally Potter's exotic film is based.

Woolf's novel was written for & about the famous cross-dressing British heiress, poet, gardener, feminist, wife & mother; yet bisexual lover to many--Vita Sackville-West--who was one of Woolf's closest friends & perhaps her lover. Sackville-West's son, Nigel Nicholson, calls Woolf's novel "Orlando," "the longest love letter in the world." From Virginia to Vita. I view it as Woolf's way of saying to Vita, 'I know you. You're more than this world could ever be ready for; but, I love you for being who you are'. Instead of Woolf composing a biography, per se, she wrote a fantastical fiction. But, to any scholar of Woolf's & Sackville-West's lives (& I am one), "Orlando" is one of the best biographies ever written. Director Sally Potter does a splendid job of putting a very difficult & complex novel on film.

The narrator says of Orlando: "She's lived for 400 years & hardly aged a day; but, because this is England, everyone pretends not to notice." It's Woolf's biting satirical commentary on Victorian society, from a woman's perspective who, though owning her own publishing house & a truly great writer, was nevertheless oppressed by gender inequality. One of the giant points Woolf contends with is that Vita Sackville-West was an only child born into a 600 room castle; but, solely because she was a female, she could not inherit it. That's gender supremacism. These were two of the women historically spear-heading the way for women's equality through art & by living non-cooperatively with it.

The time span of the life of Orlando (Tilda Swinton) is from the 16th to the 20th century. Orlando starts out as a man to whom Queen Elizabeth I (the ever so queenly, Quentin Crisp) promises her estate as long as 'he' (Orlando-Swinton) never ages. Waking up in a changed sex in the 18th century, 'she' (Orlando-Swinton) learns that women are underprivileged. Especially when Orlando looses her property, since women were not allowed to own any. Woolf's dialog on this biographical point was the most painful of Sackville-West's life; Woolf makes it the height of her scathing satire:

First Official {speaking at Orlando the woman}: One, you are legally dead & therefore cannot hold any property whatsoever. Orlando: Ah. Fine. {stoically} First Official: Two, you are now a female. Second Official: Which amounts to much the same thing. {as being dead!}

Woolf & Sackville-West were of similar minds about gender inequality--outraged. Woolf rebels against it as Sackville-West did in real life by portraying Orlando as outraged, transgender & bisexual. Both feminist writers were profoundly critical of Victorian society's various forms of supremacism. So Woolf's characters bring that out; for example, through this single line uttered by the The Kahn (Lothaire Bluteau): "It has been said to me that the English make a habit of collecting... countries." (Wham, a direct hit upon British imperialism, Woolf style--a razor sharp, compact, one-liner that is also tongue-in-cheek amusing. Woolf was the shrewdest of 20th century British writers who used satire to express truths that make people able to grin & bear it. Woolf didn't want to be viewed as a mere street protester, in-your-face obnoxious & annoying. She was very much like France's 18th century philosopher, Voltaire (read his "Candid," to understand what I mean).

This was a word-smith with one of the most amazingly refined gifts for language & self-expression. That Woolf could provide satirical critiques of her own culture was quite rare. That she published hundreds of them is nothing short of genius not just as a writer but also as a business woman.

Back to the film: a famous solo performer, Jimmy Somerville (who plays an angel singing in falsetto, sounding like a castri, in the 16th & 18th centuries) used to be a singer for Bronski Beat & the Communards in the 1980's. Sally Potter, aside from directing, also did the vocals for the musical score that she co-wrote. The music is fascinating, exotic & indescribable. What an original CD!

Potter's movie grasps the key points of Woolf's novel by being filled with sexually dubious characters & relationships. For instance, Quentin Crisp plays a marvelous Queen; Charlotte Valandrey plays Princess Sasha, a young woman who dresses as a man; Lothaire Bluteau as The Khan has a friendship with Orlando that is highly suggestive of gay flirtations between 2 men. Jimmy Sommerville's voice is the epitome of queerness & dressed as an angel couldn't be more fey if he tried! Considering how Sackville-West played with sexuality & gender, plus, how Woolf was one of the few people who ever understood what she was doing, it is amazing that Potter was astute enough to not only comprehend both women, Potter also interpreted Sackville-West through Woolf onto the screen.

Since I'd critiqued Woolf's "Orlando" text in college, when the movie came out in the summer of 1993, I found it so true to Woolf's quick witted tones of political satire that I couldn't stop myself from cracking up with laughter out loud in the theater. If a movie goer doesn't know the true story of both the biographer's & the subject's lives, they won't get the scathing political points Woolf's made. Genius as they are!

Woolf & Shakespeare have great skills in common that come out through their vast libraries they left to us. That's another story.

"Orlando" is a curiously ravishing series of essays built around an the title character's travel through four centuries and two genders. The film's critical acclaim and awards in contrast with the luke warm IMDB user rating is testimony to the esoterics and queer plot of the film. "Orlando's" artful and elegant presentation features a wonderful performance by Swinton, sumptuous costuming, lush locations, and a screenplay rich in comedic overtones and serious undercurrents. Not for everyone but a wonderful film for the jaded.

Orlando is a true original,and for that reason alone it deserves praise. It is sometimes irritating,partly because it refuses to answer so many questions it poses- for instance does Orlando actually travel forward in time in some scenes,or is it just time passing? Why does one other character,the Archduke Harry,also seem to live for ages? Some of the film's touches,such as Orlando's addresses to camera,do come across as a little pretentious. Even considering the short running time,the pace is at times extremely slow,but that is not always a bad thing. Those in search of an original film experience which provides plenty to talk about after could do far worse,and the film actually becomes more rewarding the more one sees it,because you can put up with the flaws and concentrate on the many remarkable things about this film.

The film is absolutely gorgeous to look at,so many shots look like they could be great paintings. The film has a unique atmosphere,as it passes through the centuries,it creates a highly stylized,almost fairytale-like view of the past-this is especially successful in the early Elizabethan scenes set around snow. Here there is a terrific sense of a world that may have existed only in Orlando's distant memory,although it must be said the low budget does often show. There is plenty of humor that becomes funnier with repeated viewings-how about the overwrought Victorian melodrama of the meeting between Orlando and Billy Zane's character? The film is also quite erotic in a subtle way that is hard to explain,but it's there.

And of course there is the unique Tilda Swinton-she may have become a star recently with The Chronicles of Narnia,but this is her defining role. No other film has used best her striking appearance,and her casual reaction to the things that happen to her,such as going to sleep as a man and waking up as a woman,provides some of the film's best moments.Of the other performances,Quentin Crisp is unforgettable in the early scenes as a really decrepit Queen Elizabeth,although Billy Zane,as usual,is somewhat wooden.

Virgnia Woolf's novel probably seems completely unfilmable to most people after they have read it,but this film does a great job of simplifying it and yet still retaining the essence. Whether you consider the film {as the novel is}a feminist tract,or just a very strange fantasy,it can be extremely rewarding if you have the patience for something that is at times as offbeat as they come. I should add here that this is now probably one of my favourite films,but I certainly didn't feel like that about it when I first saw it many years ago.

Simply put one of the best movies I have ever seen. The cast is amazing and deliver in their performances, the stunning visuals and beautiful music combine to create a dreamy atmosphere through which S. Potter uses Orlando as a medium to make subtle and elegant commentaries about life, the human condition and the struggle of the sexes to understand each other when they are basically two aspects of the same coin. As opposed to some of the other reviewers here I did not find the movie slow or boring at any time. Nor is it just about Orlando; there are multiple layers. It flows simply and quietly but with great intensity and an underlying irony at every moment. This film must be Potter's masterpiece.

Orlando (Tilda Swinton) is a feminine well-educated young man. It's 1600. The elderly Queen Elizabeth takes on Orlando as her mascot. She bestows on him land, money and a castle on one condition. Do not fade. Do not wither. Do not grow old. He falls for Moscovite Ambassador's daughter Sasha Menchikova leaving his engagement to Lady Euphrosyne. Sasha leaves him and breaks his heart. He pays poet Greene who then ridicules his poetry. It's 1700. He is sent to Constantinople as British ambassador. He is changed into a woman. It's 1750. Lady Orlando loses her property since a woman has no ownership rights to the land. She rejects a proposal from Archduke Harry. It's 1850. She falls for Shelmerdine. The lawsuits are settled and she can only keep the land if she has a male heir. It's the modern era. She has a daughter and has written a book.

Tilda Swinton has a gender bending role and has the androgynous presence to do it. She does an amazing job taking on this role. The movie should probably be a lot more surreal. It's stuck somewhere in the middle. There is a perfunctory nature to this film. She wakes up one morning and finds that herself a woman. It could be read as she was always a woman pretending to be a man. Some sort of transformation needs to be seen or Orlando needs some more declarative speech. Also spanning so much time leaves very little space for each section. The movie feels shallow hinting at a much deeper source material.

Tilda Swinton was born for this role. She IS Orlando. But that preoccupation aside, the first striking aspect of this film is the costumes! It opens on a scene with Orlando in Elizabethan finery, and moves through several historical periods, not least of them 18th Century literary England. That's something to see. The film is, as you would expect, very literary. You don't need to have read the book, but a working knowledge of typical euro-centric history and literature is helpful, I guess. Quentin Crisp plays a perfect Queen Elizabeth, the grotesque Institution herself, opposite Swinton's birdish Orlando. The photography is clear and even luminous at times, and the story moves along quite well--I consistently wondered what would happen. The exploration of gender, while it was obviously "the point", was not overdone, in the last analysis. Our freakish Orlando turns out to be quite human, which is a relief. The film is very well done; Swinton is a rare bird, never boring, and not to be missed.

I have been watching films for well over thirty years, but this one in particular has remained my favorite since its release for the simple reason that it consistently makes me weep with joy. Joy being so hard to come by, and a commodity rarely associated with any sort of entertainment medium, I don't need any other reason to love "Orlando." It's clever, charming, thought-provoking, at times achingly ironic, and lavishly beautiful. I have to say also that I love seeing and hearing dear Jimmy Sommerville whom we miss so much. While I tend to be hyper-critical of all films, with "Orlando" I just listen to my gut and it says, "this is perfection."

This is one of those rare films that really captures magic. After watching it, I feel as though a fairy has enchanted the air around me. Maybe it's Tilda Swanton's fathomless, eyes. She stares at us so enigmatically, as if she can see through the camera, into our souls.

I could also go on about the sumptuous costumes and set design, but I'd say the subtle humor pervading the film was even more compelling and delightful. It assumes an intelligent audience, but does not come across as superior. The end of the film leaves me with a sense of hope for the future.

As someone who knows nothing at all about Virginia Woolf and her writing career, I found this film rather vacuous. Sure the costumes and sets were great, I do love much of those eras clothing styles, but that hardly makes a great film. Hollywood has this thing with books and IMHO if you need to know the book prior to seeing the movie then the movie is at fault either the screenwriter or director failed to make a film that can stand on its own. Maybe it was an impossible task I don't know since I haven't read the book.

Too much seems to depend upon knowing the author and her relationship with her friend but without that foreknowledge it loses any irony or bite.

Tilde Swinson simply cannot make a convincing male and for 2/3 of the movie that simply got in the way.

Stunning picture based on the Virginia Woolf novel about an immortal youth who sees the world from both sexes through the course of four centuries of change. Elegant in all areas especially in the costume design, which is handled by Academy Award winner Sandy Powell (Shakespeare in Love) and decadent design of the whole production. In the title role, Tilda Swinton is strikingly beautiful and brings energy and passion to the character in every scene. Although in a small role, this is Zane's best screen work as Sheimeidine, the "pursuer of liberty." Other stand out performances include Valandrey as a luminous woman whom Orlando adores and Crisp, exceptional early on in the film as Queen Elizabeth I.

Swinton is certainly worth seeing in her Academy Award-winning performance in Michael Clayton (2007), but plenty of actresses could have pulled that one off. Too bad that's the film that will bring this excellent artist to a wide audience.

If you want to enjoy Swinton in a role for which she truly deserved a golden statuette, see Orlando. The film showcases Swinton's versatility, and there's hardly another actress out there who could have done a better job. Obviously, if you're a Virginia Woolf fan, that's a bonus.

This is one of 20 or so movies I've ever seen that gets better each time I watch it. Approach this movie with an open mind, and it's sure to become one of your favorites.

Absolutely superb movie...

just saw it right before writing this...

remember having seen the clip on YT,

and it gave me the feeling I should enjoy it :

I definitively did !

As say others comments, mesmerizing, mysterious, delicate...

and very profound even though quiet hidden at the beginning...

It reveals this aspect, like all the movie, like a woman in love,

slowly, enigmatically, words after words, with great sensitivity...

And Tilda Swinton, wow ! what an actress !

Plus she's beautiful ! I didn't see any movie with her before,

but for sure gonna see some more...

Not at all a usual Jimmy Somerville fan, I just love his part too ;

and last song leaves you full of hope in our humanity.

Music, cinematography, set design and costuming are absolutely exquisite and stunning.

But unfortunately guess this exceptional movie is not for everyone's taste..

In one sentence, Sally Potter made a movie that you won't forget !

Her film eventually expresses what Orson Welles wrote with so much accuracy :

"a film is never really good unless the camera is an eyes in the head of a poet"

This film is a classic example of an arty film on a hallowed novel which gets brilliant reviews but is unapproachable and dull to the majority of the movie going public. Unless you have read the novel and are au fait with the subject matter, even the intelligent viewer will be left bemused and quite frankly bored to tears. Only for the die-hard Virginia Wolfe fans.

Spoilers herein.

The value in this film is in wondering after the fact where it went wrong. Reminds me of another `artistic' woman filmmaker who thinks that decoration alone matters, Julie Taymor.

Woolf's work is notable in how she took the emerging notion of self-aware narration and elaborated it. Her stance is one where the narrator challenges the reader: she sets up phrases, small images and local metaphors in such a way that we complete them. using deep-seated assumptions about the ay the world works. And then she subtly shows that completion to have been based on assumptions that embarrass us, usually in ways related to gender. This results in a dual narrative: the story itself which superficially deals with many of these elements, and the shape of the narrative where the real challenge occurs.

This is tough stuff for a filmmaker, and the only transportable solution we have devised is to find an actress (almost always an actress) that can create that dual stance of being the character and also someone halfway between the film and our mind. Brando could do it. Streep sometimes. Today, we have Penn, Moore, Blanchett, and Winslet. (An alternative approach is to honk around with the eye, as with Kubrick, Tarkovsky or -- in places -- dePalma. But this cannot be borrowed by others.)

Sally Potter isn't up to this. She tries a little Greenaway to place a certain abstraction in the lush perspectives, but doesn't seem to know how he places the narrative in the environment. Along the way we get a few nice compositions, but they don't do the heavy lifting we need. Her main strategy is invested in her actress. Ms Swinton is completely outclassed by the nature of the problem: her solution to the dual narrative is to occasionally look at the camera. Those moments -- a long one at the end -- are supposed to substitute for the rich, engaging thrust and parry Woolf puts us through.

Well, they don't. What we end up with is a simple metaphor: `Forrest Gump' meets `Boys Don't Cry.' It did have the beneficial effect of sending me back to Woolf. Hope it does for you as well.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 4: Has some interesting elements.

Though the film has exquisitely stunning visuals and everything looks absolutely beautiful, it just doesn't seem to grasp certain (I think:key) aspects of the book. It might be that their is way too much book to put in one film, but it does make the story less good and certain things would just have been much better, were they done like in the book. Many things just don't get enough time, though other things are added, or changed without making it better. I'd think that when you haven't read the book, you'd enjoy the film more, as always, but that even then you could see that some things could better be done differently. I'd recommend it though, because of the absolutely beautiful way everything is made. The sets are really beautiful and I give my compliments for those. Though the plot and how it is done in general lacks, how stunning everything looks makes it more than worth watching.

Sally Potter's Orlando is a clever and ambitious dissection of love and gender that defies culturally sexed expectations in both content and form. The film owes much of its narrative experimentalism to Virginia Woolf, who first conceived the story of immortal, androgynous Orlando as an exploration of societal prejudice and conduct, satirizing naively patriarchal feelings of romantic ownership and the laughably self- important status of masculine art. Potter deserves credit, however, for translating the story into a Brechtian subversion of traditional viewership modes: the film's drag casting, fourth wall disruption, titles and music all remind us to be conscious and critical of how we engage the film. Orlando is anchored by a charming performance from Tilda Swinton, and some stunning costume and set design. It is a smart film that challenges the sexed gaze, and it genuinely earns the sense of hope it ends on. -TK 10/12/10

To look to this film to be simply entertaining underestimates the director, the film, and the viewer. The post-modern thrust of the film strikes at the very heart of the academic discussion surrounding maleness and femaleness. "Orlando" resides at the center of transgendered theory and delightfully explores the transcendence of even biology by the social construction of gender. Indeed, transgender theorists, such as Vivianne K. Namaste, address many of the issues presented to the viewer: Orlando's "ambiguous sexuality" (as observed by Archduke Harry), her "erasure" in class-conscious English society (being a woman is tantamount to being dead and without privilege), and the future that belongs to her as a consequence of being able to be "free of the past." The film is rich in gender-bending imagery, not the least of which being the powerful, re-occurring presence of the voice of Jimmy Somerville. To group this production with most other films is to ignore the theoretical brilliance with which Sally Potter adapted Virginia Woolf's novel.

Being a huge fan of Virginia Woolf, I was apprehensive about the film adaptation of the novel, especially one which lends itself so easily to the printed word (it seems natural to accept Orlando's change in gender within the constructs of Woolf's pastiche of the historical novel, mostly due to her presentation of Orlando's personality as outside of social gender constructions).

I was pleasantly surprised! The central performance from Tilda Swinton, seemed tinged with the awkwardness the male form of Orlando has, which, when Orlando becomes a woman, seem resolved.

Structually the film is strong, making the transitions over the four hundred years more solid than the novel's more subtle approach. The film is also stunning visually. Despite a few moments which seem to ground the film very firmly within the early nineties (Jimmy Somerville as an angel...?!) overall the film is an interesting and fulfilling adaptation of an interesting novel.

I saw Sally Potter's 1997 film 'The Tango Lesson' before I saw this more well-known one, but after viewing 'Orlando' I had the same overall impression of both--that is, I wish I could have enjoyed it as much as I admired it.

As a director Potter is a brilliant craftsman. Scenes are always compelling to look at; sometimes they are luscious, even stunning. Cinematography, art direction and costume design are outstanding. As a feast for the eye, Potter's films are hard to beat.

I have a little more trouble with the narrative, though. Trying to comprehend the meaning of Orlando made me feels like one of two scenarios is possible: (1) I'm a thick-headed Philistine that can't understand anything but the most literal story, or (2) the screenplay and its execution aren't up to handling such a difficult premise in an accessible manner. Even a bare-bones relating of the plot will show one that this is an extraordinarily ambitious and complex undertaking, and Potter's screenplay, which tends towards minimalism, is so obscure and just plain unfathomable at times (and aggressively so, as well) that it leaves me cold. If you're hoping to understand four hundred years of sexual politics by watching this movie, good luck, I don't think it does the best job of explaining things.

Again, as with the 'The Tango Lesson,' I would have to give the movie an overall positive rating, but only slightly, as the visual and the narrative elements are at loggerheads in my estimation. I would like to be able to praise it to the high heavens as a work of transcendent brilliance. Maybe one day I'll be so enlightened. Or maybe one day Ms. Potter will make a film that one can feel comfortable eating popcorn to while watching.

A visually stunning film. I can't think how they could have improved the locations/makeup or the atmosphere created by some of the outdoor shots.

The film covers a 400 year long period in the life of Orlando (Tilda Swinton) who we are introduced to as a well educated young man of high position in the court of Queen Elizabeth I. She takes him as her favourite and asks him to "Never Fade". He obliges. Time passes, and we are presented with several scenes from Orlando's life up to the end of the twentieth century. He does become a woman during this time, but it really has no bearing on the story except that she loses her house and jumps into bed with an American (Billy Zane).

Orlando's character changes little throughout the film. Over 400 years of experience and nothing to show for it? This film revolves around a single character without any real examination of him and his connection to time and place. Quite a shameful waste. Completely unrealistic and unentertaining , unless of course you assume this was intentional as part of Queen Elizabeth's original decree.

I would have loved to have seen an epic journey through Orlando's life especially since Tilda Swinton can act well and her pale skin and striking hair give weight to the kind of frightening confidence/knowledge/experience you would expect to find in a 400 year aristocratic human.

This subject has been better explored in supposedly lower brow films such as "Interview With The Vampire" or dare I say it even "Highlander".

I confess I have not read Virginia Wolf's novel and therefore cannot judge whether the film though very thin on plot and substance is at least faithful to the book.

This idea that an eternal being can almost not develop at all just because he/she is mostly bound to a huge house, is very weak.

Clearly the theme of an eternal being is very tough to treat, especially in a film - consider that such a being could spend 100 years studying, say, ants, and not mind at all given the infinite amount of time available. Because of this it may be that an eternal being would develop slowly anyway, from a human point of view - house or not.

However once one puts aside the weakness and relative emptiness of the plot, one does have to recognize that the film is aesthetically stunning, very beautifully filmed. Worth seeing if only for that.

Antoine

I am really at a loss in trying to review this movie... What is there to say about this film? Unfortunately, not much. Yes, Swinton gives a good performance, and yes the costumes are good, but that is just about all there is to this motion picture.

Everything else is a mass of senseless mumbo-jumbo. This film has no story, no meaning, says nothing and is going nowhere. A complete waste of time and money, I really don't know what else to say about this film.

But then again, it's probably one of those 'intellectual masterpieces' I am just too ignorant to understand. Silly me...

Orlando became my favorite film from the first time I saw it. It has a sense of mystery in it. The acting, the costumes,the music, and yes- the story are extremely captivating. It is also dear to me, because Orlando, in the stage of being a youth, travels to the far East (as the Ambassador, on the orders of his native Enland). He sees the magnificent cities of Samarkand, Bukhara and meets the brutal Timurland). I come from that part of the world and that is why I liked seeing present day Uzbekistan in this film.

But aside from that, Orlando's going through the centuries and turning into a different sex is so abstract, yet powerful. HE/SHE gets to be an immortal contributor to, and the witness of the evolution of humanity.

Tilda Swanton was perfect for this part.

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS MOVIE. I think anybody who considers oneself and intelligent movies admirer must not miss out on a chance to see this enchanting film.

I watched this because my wife wanted to see it and the synopsis on the back of the DVD case made it sound interesting. To be honest, if I hadn't read that synopsis I wouldn't have had a clue what the story was supposed to be about - even then I didn't think it was about self discovery as the synopsis claimed.

I didn't find Tilda Swinton at all convincing as a man. Yes she looks vaguely androgynous but her voice gives her away as obviously female. There's also the small matter of her being almost the only male character in the Elizabethan scenes who isn't sporting a beard...

I found the pace of the film to be dreadfully slow. There seemed to be endless long shots of people walking towards or away from the camera. I eventually reached the conclusion that these were to show off the wonderful cinematography (and some excellent Foley artist work) rather than to advance what there is in the way of plot. The first half of the film probably devotes more time to nothing much happening than it does to dialogue.

Not a film that I'll be watching again.

Orlando is a man, then a woman. Orlando lives hundreds of years and writes crap poetry. Orlando speaks to the camera occasionally, but has very little to say. Etc...

The director aimed far too high here, considering her lack of intelligence; the dialog and the script simply aren't a match for the production and design. The dialog is relatively scarce, and when it does take place it tends to be irrelevant and not at all philosophical or "deep", which the director clearly wanted it to be. A woman directed this, but I fail to see any radical feminism. The movie has a pretty reasonable premise, and should/could have been much better. Sally Potter is obviously a pretentious little Englishwoman whose ambitions of relaying a "message" to the film-viewing humanity far surpass her intellect. Better luck next time, Sally: how about a Pepsi commercial?

(For an even more unpopular IMDb comment, check out my "Der Untergang" review (1 out of 178).)