shanfloyd "A soldier's daughter never cries" by James Ivory presents us with an interesting story about fine aspects of human relationships with really impressive acting. The film is divided into three segments - "Billy", "Francis" and "Daddy". Each containing the protagonist Channe's experiences with three men in her life - her adopted brother, her school friend and her father respectively. The film shows how these experiences let her become gradually mature... emotionally, sexually and also in terms of personality.Acting is exceptional in this film. The first segment shows the time right after the brother, Billy, being adopted when he was 7 years old. Channe was also 7 at that time and the child actress who played her (Luisa Conlon) really deserves our praise. In the next two segments Channe (14 and 17 yrs respectively) was brilliantly portrayed by Leelee Sobeiski who is much responsible for the rather reserved nature of the character. Kris Kristofferson does a solid job as the father. His character is an unique one, as evident not only by the words he spoke, but also by Kristofferson's accent and expressions. Among the other actors Jesse Bradford is worth mentioning as Billy is last two segments. The actor who played Francis in "Francis" brings too much dramatic persona in my opinion. Though arguably that's one of the best things about the character. And there's also a nice extended cameo by Virginie Lledoyen as Billy's biological mother.Now about the characters and screenplay. Though stated from Channe's point of view, her father is the major influential character in this film. It was always his decisions, his outlook towards life that affected his family. The character of Channe is somehow very interesting. Her experiences with womanhood and men are written in an unique manner. And how she develops into a warm, soft-spoken yet determined personality is clearly something that Ivory spent time on. On the other hand Billy is a rather shy and quite unimpressive character with no apparent personal feature that should be rendered as a quality. Now Channe's school friend Francis has all the unusual features - he's an opera singer, loves to dance puppets, has a really corky sense of humor and his mother is an existentialist. His relationship with Channe is one of the film's major assets. All the characters are quite multi-layered, even Billy. The script is also masterfully written. A nice example is the conversation between Channe's father and her High School boyfriend Keith. I don't understand French that well so can't comment about the French dialogues though.Actually, it is a film that is bound to be enjoyed if seen in a special mood. I'm lucky that I had that mood when it was showing on TV. Also it is a film that grows wonderfully with time, segment after segment. It's a really good coming-of-age story that should be considered as Ivory's one of the best works.

childintime-1 I guess this was supposed to be some attempt to portray the relationships between a family faced with much adversity, but it feels like it was written and directed by people who have no clue of what that might mean or how it should be portrayed. The film has no context whatsoever, and there is no continuity from start to finish. There are no consequences for any of the actions.The family is devoid of morals or values, and yet they lead an idyllic existence. There is little or no emotion between them, yet we are asked to believe that they are as close and loving a family as ever lived. The two children evolve into teenagers that assume the usual bad habits and make the usual bad choices, but there is never any crisis ensuing, and all is forgiven because nothing is really wrong.Every character that impacts on their lives seems construed to be as unlikely as people can be, and yet there are so many of them in this one story. And then they just disappear from the scenery as implausibly as they entered.The persistent introduction of totally unnecessary episodes of menstruation, gratuitous sex, birth control, intoxication, etc., etc., is simply irritating. Kris Kristofferson shows once again that Dolf Lundgren is not the worst actor in film history.As for a theme or moral, good luck finding it. But then, I met a girl once who said she could dance to Pink Floyd'd music, so maybe...Watching this film made me feel like I had just been to the finest restaurant in France only to find out that there is nothing to be served, but the chef then describes in great detail how good the food might have been.

jcappy5 I don't think less is more in this case. Generally I favor low key films, but this movie has too little drama. What tension there is seems to be too little and too late. Just as one seems to arrive at the film's point(s) it's just about over. I do praise the restraint the film exercises in drawing its characters, but i am only moved by Francis (the daughters Paris friend) and Billy (her adopted brother). These two make the movie for me--both convincing outsiders, interesting and very troubled. But neither is, of course, a main character. The principal characters are rather unlikeable and somewhat static--they are not much different than all the stylish, rather snobby, and obnoxious teachers who are shown in the Paris section of the film. This said, these main characters do seem more human and real as things progress and do seem to invite the viewer to a second viewing.

gromit-14 I was disappointed in this movie, because I thought it had great potential: Merchant/Ivory, good cast and so on. The film suffers from dealing with too broad a sweep of time. Having to cover so many incidents in the life of one family, one gets a series of incomplete gesture drawings instead of a rich oil painting focussed on one or two subjects.I found that the characters never engaged me emotionally. The film never really let me into their world so that I really cared about them and what happened to them. So many plot threads were left undeveloped, and most of the emotionally engaging scenes of conflict were left out of the script. As an example, as Charlotte-Anne (Leelee Sobieski) develops into a young woman, she is frustrated as the family housekeeper/nanny continues to come into her room without knocking. The first time it happens, she yells at the nanny. Later in the film, she talks to her father about what is apparently a continuing problem. But we never get the logical scene where Charlotte-Anne confronts her nanny (which could have been played so many ways, and given such shading to Sobieski's character). Then, this thread with the nanny is simply left hanging. Emotions are stated as facts, they aren't really experienced in this film.