The coming-of-age novel, “The Goldfinch,” by Donna Tartt was published in 2013 and won the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Fiction, gaining itself a sweet reputation and sparking interest when its film adaptation was announced several months ago. However, following its release on September 13, the movie has received a considerable dose of criticism and is “now the sixth worst opening of all time for a film playing on more than 2,500 screens,” according to GQ magazine.
The novel follows the life of Theodore Decker, age 13, after he survives a terrorist bombing at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, where his mother is killed. Theodore carried a small painting of a goldfinch, which becomes a source of hope and reinvention for the young boy as he is forever reminded of the events that transpired and the weight of grief that is comfortably settled upon his shoulders.
While possible that a contributing factor to the film’s failure is its struggle to fit the nearly 800-page storyline into a two-hour visual adaptation, Rolling Stone argues that it also flounders due to an overwhelming lack of chronology. The story is jampacked with drama and triggering themes — suicide attempts, child abuse and substance abuse — all while it flickers between the adolescent characters and their adult counterparts. With this, there has been much criticism, stating that the film’s plot is sacrificed in an effort to incorporate many of the story’s major peaks which creates a sense of confusion.
“The Goldfinch” received a Rotten Tomato rating of 26% and is ranked as the 103rd highest domestic-grossed films of 2019 with a domestic total of $4,550,103 and a production budget of $45 million. Despite this, it has amassed quite an audience from its young casting young Theo (Oakes Fegley) and young Boris (Finn Wolfhard.) While the two have spectacular chemistry and have often described their time on set together as comedic and entertaining, the New York Times claims that Fegley fails at portraying the complexity of his character and Wolfhard presents a poor Russian accent and an uninterested, unfocused expression.
While the film may have flopped according to professional critics, its audience reviews seem to be on an entirely different side of the field. Its audience score on Rotten Tomatoes is a fair 73% and has accumulated praising responses on its cinematography, acting, costumes and casting. To many audience members, the movie was seen as a “rich and beautiful piece of art” and the plot’s intensity, that was critiqued by similar commentators as those mentioned above, is commended by the audience.
Viewers seem to have very polarizing opinions on the movie, so I suggest that you grab some friends and watch the movie while it’s still in theaters and decide for yourself if this movie is a potential Oscar contender!