Alexis’s review of Box Hill > Likes and Comments
93 likes · Like
What an amazing review. Really really amazing. Now I have to both read the book and watch the movie. THANK YOU!!!
Thank you for such a deep dive. It has helped me crystallise my own thoughts/reactions to both book and film. Which were complex and in the case of the book, unresolved.
And yes, Harry Melling is extraordinary. I had not seen him prior to this and found his performance utterly beguiling.
A final note: if you think about it, Murderbot and Ray are surprisingly similar characters!
Anne wrote: "Thank you for such a deep dive. It has helped me crystallise my own thoughts/reactions to both book and film. Which were complex and in the case of the book, unresolved.
And yes, Harry Melling is e..."
Oh wow, I find it interesting you found the book harder to resolve than the film because I found the book much more coherent. The film left me with a lot of questions I wasn't wholly sure it wanted to have left me with.
Personally, I find Murderbot a lot more sympathetic than Ray. Ray clearly doesn't appreciate premium quality entertainment.
KSena wrote: "What an amazing review. Really really amazing. Now I have to both read the book and watch the movie. THANK YOU!!!"
Thank you for reading. The review is almost longer than the book ;)
I also had to read Box Hill after watching Pillion but I felt the artistic gap more rewarding than you did (I think, or I'm assuming from what you said in the review - not saying that you didn't find it rewarding). I read some reviews of the book before actually reading the book which left more confused bc I didn't know if the reviewers understood enough to comment. I found the book (when I finally read it) very good and funny (in a pithy way) and I could see how Pillion was an adaptation but a different beast altogether. I have to say that I wasn't so concerned whether the relationship was abusive or not (bc like yeah, if you think about it for a little while, it was, cleatly) but more about what it said about the different characters. Like in the book, there is no bdsm community but it does feel like Dudley has more say and is more equal. By contrast, the movie which sets up a bdsm community with everything that that entails, Murderbot is a lot less communicative in a way that is a no no in bdsm, like yes, Dudley is not alone and can literally talk with the other sub (s?) so they can exchange tips but anyone else would say mmm this is not good. Also putting all of that aside, I find the scene in the movie with the mom the most arresting and well acted and uncomfortable scene of them all. Anyways, thank you for the review, I found it very interesting and good to know that I was not the only one that was like mmm I wonder how the book compares!
Thesincouch wrote: "I also had to read Box Hill after watching Pillion but I felt the artistic gap more rewarding than you did (I think, or I'm assuming from what you said in the review - not saying that you didn't fi..."
Yes, for the record, I don't think an adaption has to reflect the source material exactly - but I do think, for me, the book has an emotional and thematic coherence the film lacks. I did really enjoy the portrayal of the leather community in the film: I thought it was sincerely lovely and felt, to me, authentic (not that I have grounds on which to make that claim - it's not my community).
I agree that Dudley having people around to model healthy relationships with negotiated boundaries was meaningful, and there was something that felt empowering in that information being sort of passed from sub to sub, but it also just made Ray/Murderbot look extra fucking bad. Because everyone else around him is practicing community-centring lifestyle RACK and he's ... uh ... a dick? And that goes to complicated places about, like, even positive BDSM communities sheltering abusers and urgh.
I also found the confrontation with the mum really fascinating. But I think the questions is was asking (like why did it instantly code abusive when Dudley fills Murderbot's water glass, when, within the patriarchal framework, of a het relationship, a woman might do that for her husband as standard) would have, ironically, retained more nuance had Murderbot not been such an awful person & awful dom.
Alexis wrote: "Thesincouch wrote: "I also had to read Box Hill after watching Pillion but I felt the artistic gap more rewarding than you did (I think, or I'm assuming from what you said in the review - not sayin..."
Agreed. Agreed. Re: the mom and the patriarchal framework, to me more than her seeing him being subserviant it was her seeing him behave out of character, plus the fact that Ray didn't acknowledge, thank him at all for doing that. Because I agree that yeah, it doesn't look good when he is a dom and asshole and abusive. I thought the contrast was very interesting, because that might be a part of that his mom never saw of him. And I really liked the tension between this relationship being abusive but also a relationship that opened his eyes to things that he does like. I did really like that it was not an easy movie, or that tried to make it easy for the viewer. No easy answers here.
I also wanted to comment that I found the moment when Ray looks completely vulnerable before disappearing to be very moving because it made me think that he had real feelings for Dudley that he couldn't handle if it wasn't through control or by disappearing. I really liked that they didn't make him a complete villain but a person that was struggling and making bad (and harmful) decisions because of it.
Also I really appreciate your opinions and I'm not disagreeing with you or questioning you (I don't know if my writing makes that clear so I wanted to make it clear).
thanks for this review, i really liked the movie but was conflicted about the book, this made me want to re-read
Isaac wrote: "thanks for this review, i really liked the movie but was conflicted about the book, this made me want to re-read"
I'm starting to feel other people felt way more positively about the movie than I did (carnal thoughts about Harry Melling aside) - which is super interesting to me.
oooh I knew of the movie but have never gotten around to actually watching it and I’m only just now finding out it’s based on a book—which sounds markedly more interesting… thanks for the rec!! <3
Castiel wrote: "oooh I knew of the movie but have never gotten around to actually watching it and I’m only just now finding out it’s based on a book—which sounds markedly more interesting… thanks for the rec!! <3"
I mean, from these comments alone, it seems like opinions are fairly split re book versus movie. But hope you find something interesting at least!
Weirdly I could not read the new comments, while travelling. I got to know the film, by women at the BBC and festival clips being completely enthusiastic about the film. There was something of the fifty shades of grey wave about the reactions I heard and saw, which made me wary, of the film.
Sophie wrote: "Weirdly I could not read the new comments, while travelling. I got to know the film, by women at the BBC and festival clips being completely enthusiastic about the film. There was something of the ..."
The film is ... complicated. I do think it attempts a more authentic portrayal of, you know, the leather scene than 50 does BDSM. In fact, it's portrayal of the scene was one of my favourite parts of the film and the sex scenes, in general, seem to be handled with a sensitive degree of directness. It was just the dynamic of the central relationships & what the film was wanting the watcher to take away from it that left me questioning.
I saw murderbot on Stephen Colbert promoting this, and was immediately torn between "this will be too heart wrenching" and "I must immediately consume this in all its forms". Came on here just hoping to find someone who could speak about the nuance of queer and kink without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and my god, did you deliver. I expect to be emotionally wrecked anyway, but I'm gonna give it a go, so thank you.
Sandra wrote: "I saw murderbot on Stephen Colbert promoting this, and was immediately torn between "this will be too heart wrenching" and "I must immediately consume this in all its forms". Came on here just hopi..."
So glad it was helpful! Yay!
I came here looking for just this. After watching the movie, I felt I had to read the book, but after finishing the book it was still not enough, too many thoughts and feelings in disarray. So thank you for the review that gave coherent voice to many of them!
I do have a few thoughts on this, that made me see the movie a bit more favorably than the review, I think.
First, I don't expect art to show me positive relationships or behaviors. I find it boring and often unrealistic. I do want to see how the work frames the relationships or behaviors it shows. The movie is almost too blatant in telling us how unhealthy is the specific relationship, without condemning Ds relationships in general, which is a nice addition. I did feel Harry Melling managed to convey his satisfaction with Ray's treatment through his superb acting (which is really hard, as his character is still mostly quite and we do not have his inner monolog). I think there was a level of intimacy that can only be understood by readers of the book, as in the film Colin calls him Raymond when he "breaks character" and Ray doesn't deny that that's his name, which I read as Colin knows that it is, unlike the book, where Ray challenges him and he doesn't know his first name.
But at heart I am a consequentialist. In the film, Colin is a young boy. He's yet to learn what he likes and how far he's willing to go. Him showing discontent is a positive thing for me, I see him growing enough confidence and gaining knowledge and experience, a lot through the community, to challenge Ray's abusive behaviors, while learning he actually enjoys the Ds dynamic otherwise. He comes out on the other end of this relationship more mature, knowing more about himself and ready to try again and do better, which is something I could easily identify with regardless of the specific circumstances. In the book, I'm not even convinced Colin was really into the Ds dynamic. He was just so hungry for approval and attention. He builds castles in the sky around any gesture or lack thereof from Ray, without convincing me he has any idea what really goes on in Ray's mind, as is demonstrated at the end when he debates with himself what would Ray think or do about modern things. He fell in love with a character, that he half created himself, this live consumed him and the death of Ray devastated him. At the last third or so he's 42, still broken and harping on the guy he dated when he was 18. He's dependent, still with just as low self esteem as he had at 18, with death and decay around him. He has no interest in BDSM, hardly any interest in sex, so there is less reason to think he really wanted all that with Ray.
I just want to emphasize that these are the thought I had that differed from the review. I had many, conflicting and disorganized thoughts about both, and I found myself mostly agreeing with the review and subsequent comments. I think the book is more complex, and that the idea it's juxtaposes the parent's relationship with the one of Colin and Ray is brilliant.
Also Dudley/murderbot. Lol.
Shunit wrote: "I came here looking for just this. After watching the movie, I felt I had to read the book, but after finishing the book it was still not enough, too many thoughts and feelings in disarray. So than..."
Thanks for sharing your thoughts. First off, I should say that I *also* don't expect art to portray only "positive" relationships. Just because I write and read romance, doesn't mean I expect every cultural artefact I interact with to end with a HEA. I do, however, want thematic coherence in terms of what a piece of media is saying, and I think, for me, a lot of the ambiguity in Pillion (the movie) is that I wasn't completely certain we were on the same page regarding was being said and portrayed. I think the movie thought it was being very confronting on the subject of non normative relationships without really thinking too hard about what it was saying about non normative relationships. And I that becomes extra important when you're stepping into specific subcultures of marginalised groups: because there's going to be a portion of your audience who already doesn't have a context for what you're depicting.
Also I think if you need to have read the book to be able to see intimacy in the film, that's a genuine failure of the film - like, it should stand alone. And as I said in the review, I found the book far more intimate in how it portrays D/s relationships with scenes like Ray and Colin reading together, while Colin sits at Ray's feet etc.
In terms of the whole issue of where Colin is in the book versus the film, I think you're disregarding a couple of really significant aspects to the Colin/Ray relationship as portrayed in the book versus the movie. Firstly, Colin and Ray are together for *seven years* rather than the ... what ... months? a year at most? they're together in the film. Like that is a significant long-term relationship, not something easily "got over." Moreover, Ray *dies* in the book (he doesn't just ghost him because he can't cope with emotional intimacy) and Colin is left without closure--yes, he essentially spends his whole life mourning this one significant relationship, but that's as much about queer people being denied access to the social structures that provide straight people with support when they're bereaved. It's kind of like A Single Man, in that regard: the love is partially demonstrated through grief. Finally, I'd note the allegorical/elegiac themes of Box Hill (the book v. the movie) where Ray is representative of an attitude and a way of life that could essentially only exist post-Wolfenden/pre-AIDS. The book is not just about Colin mourning Ray, it's about all of us queers mourning a kind of queerness that, yes, had its faults for sure, but can never exist again, and Colin never "gets over" Ray because we can never get the historical moment of Ray back. This is also why it's hard to for Colin to imagine Ray reacting to modern things: Ray's brand of identity cannot exist in the world we inhabit now.
I read about a fourth of this review (I think the spoilers started from that point), and as a former hp fan and a current murderbot fan who has neither read Box Hill nor watched Pillion, the review killed me! But it definitely helped me decide that I wanna approach it book-first. I had considered watching the movie before because I like both actors, but I was also apprehensive because bdsm culture isn't always portrayed well in media.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
What an amazing review. Really really amazing. Now I have to both read the book and watch the movie. THANK YOU!!!
Thank you for such a deep dive. It has helped me crystallise my own thoughts/reactions to both book and film. Which were complex and in the case of the book, unresolved.And yes, Harry Melling is extraordinary. I had not seen him prior to this and found his performance utterly beguiling.
A final note: if you think about it, Murderbot and Ray are surprisingly similar characters!
Anne wrote: "Thank you for such a deep dive. It has helped me crystallise my own thoughts/reactions to both book and film. Which were complex and in the case of the book, unresolved.And yes, Harry Melling is e..."
Oh wow, I find it interesting you found the book harder to resolve than the film because I found the book much more coherent. The film left me with a lot of questions I wasn't wholly sure it wanted to have left me with.
Personally, I find Murderbot a lot more sympathetic than Ray. Ray clearly doesn't appreciate premium quality entertainment.
KSena wrote: "What an amazing review. Really really amazing. Now I have to both read the book and watch the movie. THANK YOU!!!"Thank you for reading. The review is almost longer than the book ;)
I also had to read Box Hill after watching Pillion but I felt the artistic gap more rewarding than you did (I think, or I'm assuming from what you said in the review - not saying that you didn't find it rewarding). I read some reviews of the book before actually reading the book which left more confused bc I didn't know if the reviewers understood enough to comment. I found the book (when I finally read it) very good and funny (in a pithy way) and I could see how Pillion was an adaptation but a different beast altogether. I have to say that I wasn't so concerned whether the relationship was abusive or not (bc like yeah, if you think about it for a little while, it was, cleatly) but more about what it said about the different characters. Like in the book, there is no bdsm community but it does feel like Dudley has more say and is more equal. By contrast, the movie which sets up a bdsm community with everything that that entails, Murderbot is a lot less communicative in a way that is a no no in bdsm, like yes, Dudley is not alone and can literally talk with the other sub (s?) so they can exchange tips but anyone else would say mmm this is not good. Also putting all of that aside, I find the scene in the movie with the mom the most arresting and well acted and uncomfortable scene of them all. Anyways, thank you for the review, I found it very interesting and good to know that I was not the only one that was like mmm I wonder how the book compares!
Thesincouch wrote: "I also had to read Box Hill after watching Pillion but I felt the artistic gap more rewarding than you did (I think, or I'm assuming from what you said in the review - not saying that you didn't fi..."Yes, for the record, I don't think an adaption has to reflect the source material exactly - but I do think, for me, the book has an emotional and thematic coherence the film lacks. I did really enjoy the portrayal of the leather community in the film: I thought it was sincerely lovely and felt, to me, authentic (not that I have grounds on which to make that claim - it's not my community).
I agree that Dudley having people around to model healthy relationships with negotiated boundaries was meaningful, and there was something that felt empowering in that information being sort of passed from sub to sub, but it also just made Ray/Murderbot look extra fucking bad. Because everyone else around him is practicing community-centring lifestyle RACK and he's ... uh ... a dick? And that goes to complicated places about, like, even positive BDSM communities sheltering abusers and urgh.
I also found the confrontation with the mum really fascinating. But I think the questions is was asking (like why did it instantly code abusive when Dudley fills Murderbot's water glass, when, within the patriarchal framework, of a het relationship, a woman might do that for her husband as standard) would have, ironically, retained more nuance had Murderbot not been such an awful person & awful dom.
Alexis wrote: "Thesincouch wrote: "I also had to read Box Hill after watching Pillion but I felt the artistic gap more rewarding than you did (I think, or I'm assuming from what you said in the review - not sayin..."Agreed. Agreed. Re: the mom and the patriarchal framework, to me more than her seeing him being subserviant it was her seeing him behave out of character, plus the fact that Ray didn't acknowledge, thank him at all for doing that. Because I agree that yeah, it doesn't look good when he is a dom and asshole and abusive. I thought the contrast was very interesting, because that might be a part of that his mom never saw of him. And I really liked the tension between this relationship being abusive but also a relationship that opened his eyes to things that he does like. I did really like that it was not an easy movie, or that tried to make it easy for the viewer. No easy answers here.
I also wanted to comment that I found the moment when Ray looks completely vulnerable before disappearing to be very moving because it made me think that he had real feelings for Dudley that he couldn't handle if it wasn't through control or by disappearing. I really liked that they didn't make him a complete villain but a person that was struggling and making bad (and harmful) decisions because of it.
Also I really appreciate your opinions and I'm not disagreeing with you or questioning you (I don't know if my writing makes that clear so I wanted to make it clear).
thanks for this review, i really liked the movie but was conflicted about the book, this made me want to re-read
Isaac wrote: "thanks for this review, i really liked the movie but was conflicted about the book, this made me want to re-read"I'm starting to feel other people felt way more positively about the movie than I did (carnal thoughts about Harry Melling aside) - which is super interesting to me.
oooh I knew of the movie but have never gotten around to actually watching it and I’m only just now finding out it’s based on a book—which sounds markedly more interesting… thanks for the rec!! <3
Castiel wrote: "oooh I knew of the movie but have never gotten around to actually watching it and I’m only just now finding out it’s based on a book—which sounds markedly more interesting… thanks for the rec!! <3"I mean, from these comments alone, it seems like opinions are fairly split re book versus movie. But hope you find something interesting at least!
Weirdly I could not read the new comments, while travelling. I got to know the film, by women at the BBC and festival clips being completely enthusiastic about the film. There was something of the fifty shades of grey wave about the reactions I heard and saw, which made me wary, of the film.
Sophie wrote: "Weirdly I could not read the new comments, while travelling. I got to know the film, by women at the BBC and festival clips being completely enthusiastic about the film. There was something of the ..."The film is ... complicated. I do think it attempts a more authentic portrayal of, you know, the leather scene than 50 does BDSM. In fact, it's portrayal of the scene was one of my favourite parts of the film and the sex scenes, in general, seem to be handled with a sensitive degree of directness. It was just the dynamic of the central relationships & what the film was wanting the watcher to take away from it that left me questioning.
I saw murderbot on Stephen Colbert promoting this, and was immediately torn between "this will be too heart wrenching" and "I must immediately consume this in all its forms". Came on here just hoping to find someone who could speak about the nuance of queer and kink without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and my god, did you deliver. I expect to be emotionally wrecked anyway, but I'm gonna give it a go, so thank you.
Sandra wrote: "I saw murderbot on Stephen Colbert promoting this, and was immediately torn between "this will be too heart wrenching" and "I must immediately consume this in all its forms". Came on here just hopi..."So glad it was helpful! Yay!
I came here looking for just this. After watching the movie, I felt I had to read the book, but after finishing the book it was still not enough, too many thoughts and feelings in disarray. So thank you for the review that gave coherent voice to many of them! I do have a few thoughts on this, that made me see the movie a bit more favorably than the review, I think.
First, I don't expect art to show me positive relationships or behaviors. I find it boring and often unrealistic. I do want to see how the work frames the relationships or behaviors it shows. The movie is almost too blatant in telling us how unhealthy is the specific relationship, without condemning Ds relationships in general, which is a nice addition. I did feel Harry Melling managed to convey his satisfaction with Ray's treatment through his superb acting (which is really hard, as his character is still mostly quite and we do not have his inner monolog). I think there was a level of intimacy that can only be understood by readers of the book, as in the film Colin calls him Raymond when he "breaks character" and Ray doesn't deny that that's his name, which I read as Colin knows that it is, unlike the book, where Ray challenges him and he doesn't know his first name.
But at heart I am a consequentialist. In the film, Colin is a young boy. He's yet to learn what he likes and how far he's willing to go. Him showing discontent is a positive thing for me, I see him growing enough confidence and gaining knowledge and experience, a lot through the community, to challenge Ray's abusive behaviors, while learning he actually enjoys the Ds dynamic otherwise. He comes out on the other end of this relationship more mature, knowing more about himself and ready to try again and do better, which is something I could easily identify with regardless of the specific circumstances. In the book, I'm not even convinced Colin was really into the Ds dynamic. He was just so hungry for approval and attention. He builds castles in the sky around any gesture or lack thereof from Ray, without convincing me he has any idea what really goes on in Ray's mind, as is demonstrated at the end when he debates with himself what would Ray think or do about modern things. He fell in love with a character, that he half created himself, this live consumed him and the death of Ray devastated him. At the last third or so he's 42, still broken and harping on the guy he dated when he was 18. He's dependent, still with just as low self esteem as he had at 18, with death and decay around him. He has no interest in BDSM, hardly any interest in sex, so there is less reason to think he really wanted all that with Ray.
I just want to emphasize that these are the thought I had that differed from the review. I had many, conflicting and disorganized thoughts about both, and I found myself mostly agreeing with the review and subsequent comments. I think the book is more complex, and that the idea it's juxtaposes the parent's relationship with the one of Colin and Ray is brilliant.
Also Dudley/murderbot. Lol.
Shunit wrote: "I came here looking for just this. After watching the movie, I felt I had to read the book, but after finishing the book it was still not enough, too many thoughts and feelings in disarray. So than..."Thanks for sharing your thoughts. First off, I should say that I *also* don't expect art to portray only "positive" relationships. Just because I write and read romance, doesn't mean I expect every cultural artefact I interact with to end with a HEA. I do, however, want thematic coherence in terms of what a piece of media is saying, and I think, for me, a lot of the ambiguity in Pillion (the movie) is that I wasn't completely certain we were on the same page regarding was being said and portrayed. I think the movie thought it was being very confronting on the subject of non normative relationships without really thinking too hard about what it was saying about non normative relationships. And I that becomes extra important when you're stepping into specific subcultures of marginalised groups: because there's going to be a portion of your audience who already doesn't have a context for what you're depicting.
Also I think if you need to have read the book to be able to see intimacy in the film, that's a genuine failure of the film - like, it should stand alone. And as I said in the review, I found the book far more intimate in how it portrays D/s relationships with scenes like Ray and Colin reading together, while Colin sits at Ray's feet etc.
In terms of the whole issue of where Colin is in the book versus the film, I think you're disregarding a couple of really significant aspects to the Colin/Ray relationship as portrayed in the book versus the movie. Firstly, Colin and Ray are together for *seven years* rather than the ... what ... months? a year at most? they're together in the film. Like that is a significant long-term relationship, not something easily "got over." Moreover, Ray *dies* in the book (he doesn't just ghost him because he can't cope with emotional intimacy) and Colin is left without closure--yes, he essentially spends his whole life mourning this one significant relationship, but that's as much about queer people being denied access to the social structures that provide straight people with support when they're bereaved. It's kind of like A Single Man, in that regard: the love is partially demonstrated through grief. Finally, I'd note the allegorical/elegiac themes of Box Hill (the book v. the movie) where Ray is representative of an attitude and a way of life that could essentially only exist post-Wolfenden/pre-AIDS. The book is not just about Colin mourning Ray, it's about all of us queers mourning a kind of queerness that, yes, had its faults for sure, but can never exist again, and Colin never "gets over" Ray because we can never get the historical moment of Ray back. This is also why it's hard to for Colin to imagine Ray reacting to modern things: Ray's brand of identity cannot exist in the world we inhabit now.
I read about a fourth of this review (I think the spoilers started from that point), and as a former hp fan and a current murderbot fan who has neither read Box Hill nor watched Pillion, the review killed me! But it definitely helped me decide that I wanna approach it book-first. I had considered watching the movie before because I like both actors, but I was also apprehensive because bdsm culture isn't always portrayed well in media.
In speaking of his father, Colin writes:
By contrast, Colin accepts the pain of the “left behind” - a pain made all the more intense because the non-normative nature of his relationship with Ray, means he is fully shut out of any possible closure.
There is an elegiac quality to Box Hill that I personally found intensely moving. Ray’s distance and wordlessness and recklessness--his powerful charisma--reflect an expression of identity only possible pre-AIDS. It is hard not to mourn that a little, even if we wouldn’t, and shouldn’t, go back to it. So yes. I’m not saying I didn’t get anything out of Pillion--Harry Melling is a fucking revelation and Alexander Skarsgård’s dick is very pretty, assuming it was his dick, let’s say it was, also check it out, I looked up their names--but I found the experience confusing and conflicting. Box Hill, though. Box Hill is beautiful. Dark and tender, and complicated and unique. And so resolutely, defiantly queer it actually makes the movie seem oddly tame in comparison.