Opinions of Portrait of a Lady
Iron
Hi,
Could someone give his opinion on Jane Campion's "portrait of a lady"
with N. Kidman, B. Hershey and J. Malkovich ?
Thanks in advance
Ken Rudolph
Iron wrote:
> Could someone give his opinion on Jane Campion's "portrait of a lady"
> with N. Kidman, B. Hershey and J. Malkovich ?
>
After seeing the way the cultural slobs on this newsgroup have been
savaging "The Piano" (a film I greatly respect), I'm not at all sure
that I want to venture an opinion of "Portrait of a Lady" here.
But I will anyway. Beautiful photography, sets, costumes, an unerring
period piece about some 19th century upper-class Americans living in
England and Italy. I can't speak about the script adaptation, since I
haven't read the book: but the story worked for me, up to a point.
Kidman gives something of a one-dimentional performance, which seemed to
be rather weak compared to past heroines in Campion films. Hershey
gives a *very* strong performance in something of an enigmatic role.
Malkovitch underplays an evil character; and I found myself disliking
him intensely (the character must have gotten under my skin.) Admirable
work by John Guilgud, as usual, Christian Bayles (in a thankless role),
and a very nifty performance by Martin Donovan as a male version of
Camille. Plus a nice return to films by Shelly Winters. Altogether
average plus as these sorts of movies go.
--Ken Rudolph (ke...@worldnet.att.net)
RPM
Ken Rudolph wrote:
>
> After seeing the way the cultural slobs on this newsgroup have been
> savaging "The Piano" (a film I greatly respect), I'm not at all sure
> that I want to venture an opinion of "Portrait of a Lady" here.
>
> But I will anyway. Beautiful photography, sets, costumes, an unerring
> period piece about some 19th century upper-class Americans living in
> England and Italy. I can't speak about the script adaptation, since I
> haven't read the book: but the story worked for me, up to a point.
> Kidman gives something of a one-dimentional performance, which seemed to
> be rather weak compared to past heroines in Campion films. Hershey
> gives a *very* strong performance in something of an enigmatic role.
> Malkovitch underplays an evil character; and I found myself disliking
> him intensely (the character must have gotten under my skin.) Admirable
> work by John Guilgud, as usual, Christian Bayles (in a thankless role),
> and a very nifty performance by Martin Donovan as a male version of
> Camille. Plus a nice return to films by Shelly Winters. Altogether
> average plus as these sorts of movies go.
Hey Ken, I'm with you on this one. POAL a very good movie, but I
wouldn't
necessarily recommend it to everyone. All your points are dead on,
although
I don't think Malkovich's evil was underplayed at all. The main weakness
of the film is that it's extremely vague as to the motivations behind
the
actions of Nicole Kidman's character. She makes choices in this movie
that
don't make any sense given what is revealed to the audience about her
desires. But if you can take the leap on that score, there are lots of
rewards to be reaped from this film.
Perry
Ken Rudolph
Michael Barry wrote:
>
> We're not all cultural slobs, Ken.
>
> I prefer Ingmar Bergman and Eric Rohmer to Jane Campion, so I'm not a slob,
> I'm just opinionated.
Who wouldn't (well, at least Bergman)? My argument is with those who
have recently put The Piano (or Sweetie, for that matter), among the
worst movies ever made. However pretentious or boring one perceives
these movies to be, I would hope that a cultured person would recognize
their artistic merit. Yes, yes, I know that culture and Usenet can't
really be used in the same sentence.
--Ken Rudolph (ke...@worldnet.att.net)
Harrison
Thanks for your comments on Portrait of a Lady. I was wondering what you
mean by "a thankless role" - and it's by Christian >Bale< not Bayles.:)
H
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Visit the Christian Bale WWW Site and newsgroup
http://www.interlog.com/~cbale
alt.movies.christian-bale
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"He's a good man, Mr. Verloc."
"I love you, Winnie!"
Ken Rudolph <ke...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in article
<32CB1A...@worldnet.att.net>...
> Iron wrote:
>
> > Could someone give his opinion on Jane Campion's "portrait of a lady"
> > with N. Kidman, B. Hershey and J. Malkovich ?
> >
>
> After seeing the way the cultural slobs on this newsgroup have been
> savaging "The Piano" (a film I greatly respect), I'm not at all sure
> that I want to venture an opinion of "Portrait of a Lady" here.
>
> But I will anyway. Beautiful photography, sets, costumes, an unerring
> period piece about some 19th century upper-class Americans living in
> England and Italy. I can't speak about the script adaptation, since I
> haven't read the book: but the story worked for me, up to a point.
> Kidman gives something of a one-dimentional performance, which seemed to
> be rather weak compared to past heroines in Campion films. Hershey
> gives a *very* strong performance in something of an enigmatic role.
> Malkovitch underplays an evil character; and I found myself disliking
> him intensely (the character must have gotten under my skin.) Admirable
> work by John Guilgud, as usual, Christian Bayles (in a thankless role),
> and a very nifty performance by Martin Donovan as a male version of
> Camille. Plus a nice return to films by Shelly Winters. Altogether
> average plus as these sorts of movies go.
>
> --Ken Rudolph (ke...@worldnet.att.net)
>
Bryant Frazer
Ken Rudolph <ke...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: After seeing the way the cultural slobs on this newsgroup have been
: savaging "The Piano" (a film I greatly respect), I'm not at all sure
: that I want to venture an opinion of "Portrait of a Lady" here.
Hmph. I didn't care at all for THE PIANO -- wanted out of the theater
before it was over, in fact -- but I'd also argue that's no basis for
name-calling. Certainly I'm not enough of a "cultural slob" that it kept
me away from Campion's new movie.
I'm working on a review, but I will say that I was quite a lot more
impressed with Nicole Kidman than you were (and I didn't like TO DIE FOR
at all). Disagree that John Malkovich "underplayed" his role -- in fact,
his early scenes together with Barbara Hershey (who is excellent) fairly
reeked of showy malevolence. His evil intentions were so telegraphed that
it felt for a few minutes I was in a different movie, one played a lot
more broadly than TPOAL.
Loved the costumes and art design, but TPOAL will certainly get my award
for "most cinematography" this year (not really a compliment). I found the
blue lighting a little hard on the eyes and all of the off-angle shots a
little off-putting (especially the one that rotates on its access, ick).
The moments I truly loved were the most eccentric ones -- the camera
whipping around the big pillar in the basement of that church (?) on a
jump cut right after Malkovich proclaimed his love, the weird
expressionistic film that's plopped into Isabel's head some two decades
before film even existed, the beautifuly expressive final shot (THE 400
BLOWS crossed with QUEEN CHRISTINA perhaps?)
All in all, a little staid for my tastes, but lovely just the same. Quite
superior to THE PIANO, but reviews had led me to hope for a more deeply
affecting experience, and I was disappointed.
-bf-
--
DEEP FOCUS (Movie Reviews)
http://www.panix.com/~bfrazer/flicker/
"Your eye's too impatient;
Think about the speed of his pen."
Michael Barry
We're not all cultural slobs, Ken.
I prefer Ingmar Bergman and Eric Rohmer to Jane Campion, so I'm not a slob,
I'm just opinionated.
Michael Barry.
Richard Nathan
I did not care for the film "PORTRAIT OF A LADY." I have to admit I only
got half way through the novel, though I plan to finish it some day.
I felt the film lost a lot by not showing more of the background of
Isabell Archer - how she came from a home where the family had lost its
money. Her two sisters were married, but she stayed at home, spending
most of her time reading.
I thought the reason why she turned down the proposals of both Warburton
and Goodwood was that she was intimidated by how much more wealth they had
than she did, and she was afraid the differences in their finances would
mean she would have no power in the relationship. I think she accepted
tha Malkovitch character because she had more money than he did, which
led to a false expectation that she would have the power.
In the novel, Archer does not have a physical, sexual awakening until the
kiss with Goodwood at the very end, Thus, it was not faithful to the book
for her to fantasize about being felt up by the three different men.
I certainly do not think that Henry James intended her primary attraction
to the Malkovitch character to be sexual or sensual.
I thought Kidman was missing a something in her performance, but I'm not
certain what it was.
Bryant Frazer
Ken Rudolph <ke...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
: My argument is with those who have recently put The Piano (or Sweetie, for
: that matter), among the worst movies ever made. However pretentious or
: boring one perceives these movies to be, I would hope that a cultured person
: would recognize their artistic merit.
You're saying that even if I find THE PIANO both pretentious *and* boring,
I'm expected to kowtow humbly to some notion of "artistic merit?" Now I'm
confused -- how am I supposed to figure out which boring, pretentious
films have "artistic merit," and which ones don't?
Charles B. Francois
bfr...@panix.com (Bryant Frazer) wrote:
> Ken Rudolph <ke...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> : After seeing the way the cultural slobs on this newsgroup have been
> : savaging "The Piano" (a film I greatly respect), I'm not at all sure
> : that I want to venture an opinion of "Portrait of a Lady" here.
>
> Hmph. I didn't care at all for THE PIANO -- wanted out of the theater
> before it was over, in fact
Ditto. Though I had adored SWEETIE and warmly liked ANGEL AT MY TABLE.
> (and I didn't like TO DIE FOR at all).
Ditto. But I really liked Kidman in it.
> All in all, a little staid for my tastes, but lovely just the same. Quite
> superior to THE PIANO, but reviews had led me to hope for a more deeply
> affecting experience, and I was disappointed.
Interesting that you should say "deeply affecting". I bet you anything
that, except for Taubin's, you probably misread a lot of them. I saw
the movie a few weeks before it opened. By then, I had only read one
review and that had been Variety's way back in early September. So
after ascribing the fact that it was largely overlooked at Venice to
the suspect tastes of a Jury that could prize Jordan's (just okay)
MICHAEL COLLINS over, say, Arturo Ripstein's (much more challenging and
rewarding) DEEP CRIMSON, I went in fairly untainted by expectations.
And the phrase that came to mind immediately after was that I had
"admired" it enormously without actually "liking" it. So I was amazed
at the number of reviewers who thereafter expressed similar sentiments.
Few of them made a big point about the "not liking" part (though it was
definitely there by omission). But I couldn't believe how many of them
actually used the word "admire" or expressed a substantial degree of
respect while also conveying a measure of emotional reserve.
In my case, it had a lot to do with Campion's surely well-considered
casting decisions. Except for the two Shelleys (both terrific), I
objected to how just about every other character was cast and/or
played.
> I will say that I was quite a lot more impressed with Nicole Kidman
> than you were.
She does what she can but is undermined at every turn by Campion's
decisions surrounding her. In fact much of the time, her Isabel looks
like a complete idiot. How else can one accept her choices? Cast the
swooningly attractive Martin Donovan as the actually plain and sickly
Ralph. Ask Malkovich to play Osmond (who should be more like an older
Montgomery Clift as Morris Townsend in THE HEIRESS) like a silent
matinee villain with no trace of the charm that could explain why
Isabel would fall for *him* -- not just his taste and (per Campion) his
promise of sexual initiation. And we're left to wonder what in the
world is wrong with the girl for not seeing the obvious. I was so
alienated I didn't even want to bother shouting "Snap out of it,
child!" at the screen.
Taubin makes the very salient point that the film is ultimately a study
in masochism. But I would argue that should have become apparent only
after Isabel realizes she's trapped. We should have been a lot more
implicated in endorsing Isabel's initial misjudgements. Only then
could we have felt involved in her desperate attempts to help her
stepdaughter avoid a similar fate and her own -- doomed (per James),
evocatively unresolved (per Campion) -- struggle to break free. I
realize that some of the blame lies with James and his narrative's
untimely jump in time. But by making the character seem so willfully
self-destructive so early, Campion simply left me stranded emotionally.
She did however score with me cinematically. Bereft of the endless
complexities of James' prose in support of his character's tortuous
motivations, Campion aims for a corresponding visual excess that
achieves a similarly ironic effect. Yet captivating as those visual
flourishes were, they could not accomplish the classic James trick of
simultaneously obfuscating and elucidating. They never seemed to
penetrate to the core of the matter. I was left thinking of Campion's
film as a beautiful moth struggling dazzlingly but fruitlessly to get
at the light.
> Disagree that John Malkovich "underplayed" his role -- in fact, his
> early scenes together with Barbara Hershey (who is excellent) fairly
> reeked of showy malevolence. His evil intentions were so telegraphed
> that it felt for a few minutes I was in a different movie, one played
> a lot more broadly than TPOAL.
Yeah, that movie is called MARY REILLY, (which is actually a lot better
movie than has been widely credited). He (and Campion) borrowed the
wrong things from that performance, though. They went with the Evil
Malkovich Lisp (tm) without bothering to take along either Jekyll's
guarded gentleness or Hyde's sexual allure.
The other performances were also oddly pitched. I only went for the
earlier parts of Hershey's performance. Her grip on the character
seemed to grow more uncertain as the character itself began to
vacillate, so that her last two scenes with Kidman, which should have
sizzled with intimations of her betrayal of her entire sex, kind of
just sat there for me. Gielguld was touching but why cast him as an
American? Grant was a tad mannered, which is something that Bale
should have been a lot more. Mortensen was bland, Cervi generic, and
Parker really, really annoying. However inappropriate, Donovan was
still a babe. I credit him entirely for the abundant sniffles in my
audience.
> Loved [...] the beautifully expressive final shot (THE 400
> BLOWS crossed with QUEEN CHRISTINA perhaps?)
As I. I picked up on the 400 BLOWS allusion right away (amazing how
influential that shot still remains!) Not the QUEEN CHRISTINA nod,
though. Excellent thought.
Reading back above, I notice that I've mostly carped about the film. I
do want to say that ample frustrations notwithstanding, it was still
completely absorbing, certainly the most accomplished failure I saw
last year.
--
Charles B. Francois c...@akula.com
Bryant Frazer
Charles B. Francois <c...@akula.com> wrote:
: Interesting that you should say "deeply affecting". I bet you anything
: that, except for Taubin's, you probably misread a lot of them.
Good call. I read Taubin's review first (it's not unusual that I'm right
on her wavelength regading a film). I followed it up with Sheila Benson
and then Kathleen Murphy (in FILM COMMENT) and was still expecting a
fairly wrenching piece of work. But the critics I read after the fact
uniformly summed up my more lukewarm experience.
: Parker [was] really, really annoying.
Say that again, please. For a little while (when she was on screen), I
felt like I really wanted out of *this* theater, too.
: Reading back above, I notice that I've mostly carped about the film. I
: do want to say that ample frustrations notwithstanding, it was still
: completely absorbing, certainly the most accomplished failure I saw
: last year.
Agreed, but boy did this one not score with the audience on Sunday night.
The skinny guy next to me kept ramming his ass back and forth in the seat,
a sign that he shared a general impatience that I felt hanging in the
auditorium. The film endured snickers and guffaws aplenty from a couple of
large groups, and just about everyone in attendance seemed baffled and
irritated by the closing shot. You could almost feel the psychic vibes of
300 minds crying out: "Huh?"
A few days later, leaving CITIZEN RUTH, my girlfriend remarked, "There's a
portrait more like a lady I'd know."
Luis Canau
Ken Rudolph <ke...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Michael Barry wrote:
>Who wouldn't (well, at least Bergman)? My argument is with those who
>have recently put The Piano (or Sweetie, for that matter), among the
>worst movies ever made. However pretentious or boring one perceives
>these movies to be, I would hope that a cultured person would recognize
>their artistic merit. Yes, yes, I know that culture and Usenet can't
>really be used in the same sentence.
I don't read everything in here, but the only post I found under
«worst movies» mentioning those two films was mine. If that's the
case, please notice that I was being sarcastic. Quoting myself:
>Hated The Piano? Did you see Sweetie, the first feature by Jane
>Campion? You would probably have to find another word stronger than
>hate.
I liked both movies, but prefered Sweetie and that was what I meant to
say, finding ridiculous - as you did - to mention The Piano under such
a title. My second post on that thread is more clearer.
(If you're not referring to me, than I should just have made an arse
of myself. Sorry)
Portrait of a Lady premiered in Lisbon last Friday and I will surely
see it. Then maybe my opinion.
--
Luis C.
<luis....@individual.EUnet.pt>
jrjoh...@aol.com
THE PORTRAIT OF A LADY.......2 1/2 hours of my life that I'll never get
back.....Curse you, Jane Campion.
First and foremost......BORING. I didn't care about a single character in
this movie. The cinemotography, lighting, effects and acting were all over
the top and distracting. Every character (except for Nicole Kidman's) was
an overly mannered and unnatural PERFORMANCE, particularly John Malkovich
and Barbara Hershey. <Look at ME!!! I'm ACTING!!!!> John Gielgud's
performance is fine, but the extreme close-ups, especially his death
scene, draw such attention to it......now Jane is saying <LOOK! isn't this
great ACTING?> as to make it laughable. The only actor to bring even a
hint of conversational reality to this movie is Nicole Kidman. I could
write much more about this, but I believe my opinion has been properly
conveyed.....
RE: THE PIANO......I have not seen it, and after reading the posts in this
group, I was actually curious to see it. After TPOAL, I will NEVER, as God
is my witness, see another Jane Campion film as long as I live. What a
pretentious and forced director!! <I'm an ARTIST! FILM is ART, FILM is
ART, FILM is ART.......etc., etc.,>
I like arty films just fine, thank you, but give me something or someone
to care about.......hold my interest......ENTERTAIN me. TPOAL did none of
those things.
John-Ryan
jrjoh...@aol.com
In article <32CB67...@worldnet.att.net>, Ken Rudolph
<ke...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>Who wouldn't (well, at least Bergman)? My argument is with those who
>have recently put The Piano (or Sweetie, for that matter), among the
>worst movies ever made. However pretentious or boring one perceives
>these movies to be, I would hope that a cultured person would recognize
>their artistic merit. Yes, yes, I know that culture and Usenet can't
>really be used in the same sentence.
Oh, please!!! I am so tired of "cultured people" putting down someone who
has a different opinion from their own. So many people are afraid to not
like something that they feel they're supposed to like......<If I don't
like it, I'm stupid....or uncultured, or ignorant, or a rube.> Well, I
would be interested to know what ANYONE found entertaining in this movie.
If I want to see pretty costumes and sets, I'll go to a museum or the
library. If I want to see hammy actors overplaying, I'll watch TV.
Bottom line, I HATED this movie, and that doesn't make me any more or less
cultured than anyone else......It's simply my opionion. If you liked it,
good for you.....you got your money's worth. I did not.
John-Ryan
Luis Canau
jrjoh...@aol.com wrote:
> What a pretentious and forced director!!
><I'm an ARTIST! FILM is ART, FILM is ART, FILM is ART.......etc., etc.,>
>I like arty films just fine, thank you, but give me something or someone
>to care about.......hold my interest......ENTERTAIN me. TPOAL did none of
>those things.
«Entertain me»? There are movies to eat popcorns at. And there are
movies to look at. If you were expecting this movie to «entertain»
you, someone should have been telling you lies about it. If you want
something to care about, to hold your interest, you should try to find
every time before going to the cinema if the subject is interesting to
you. But that would be quite limited, no?
If someone decides to give a particular aesthetic treatment to a movie
it may happen that he/she likes of doing that, or that he/she feels it
might be adequate to the movie. Doesn't seem to me that Campion would
have need to do that to say everybody she's an 'artist'. Her first
movie - «Sweetie» - was more artistic in the way you use the term. It
had an 'experimental' touch, and she acknowledge the influence of
David Lynch by that time. This movie is much more mature in the
treatment given.
I found «An Angel at My Table» a little slow, but then it was
previously a TV series, and was long. Campion's work has been from
interesting to good. And, yes, there are theatres in Portugal were
people eat popcorn while watching this movie, which is very weird.
I didn't found Isabel story particularly interesting. Since I don't
read the book I may just think that I wouldn't found it either
interesting there. I felt what some others mentioned in the thread. It
seemed to me that more should be shown for us to understand why
reasons that kept the men who proposed her away were overcome, in a
way that seemed so easy for the Malkovitch character.
I prefer to think that this weren't flaws in the movie but in the
people that were being portrayed. Isabel was naive and weak. Or maybe
just masochist.
The actors were good. I didn't like very much the acting of
Malkovitch. (Or maybe it was the character?) Donovan is a very good
actor (but we knew that from other movies before).
As ‘art’, it surely was one of the greatest movie experiences I had
lately.
Campion didn't decide to use a wide format (Panavision) just to show
better she's an 'artist'. All the shots were brilliantly constructed,
and would look completely pathetic pan&scanned. The cinematography was
astonishing. I've nothing against seeing Kidman's blue eyes in such a
contrast. All images were clear, no objects were blurred, wherever it
was a shot in the sunlight or a dark indoors scene.
It's been a long time since I didn't 'saw' digital sound being used
not as a toy. You had *completely* silent scenes, with the voices
coming out of the actors, as you had 3 and 4 levels of surround sound,
at the same time, when it was useful to compose the scene.
It was a good movie experience. It's a good movie. Which doesn't mean
that if I knew Isabel I wouldn't be willing to slap her face.
----
«Should you be so lucky like St. Sebastian
Preferring the ache to the aspirin
Swooning as they shoot the arrows
Through your narrow chest
Striping naked in the Circus Maximus
With a martyr-eating lioness
Bartering with flesh for a little pain
Scenes like this give sadomasochism a bad name»
Momus, «Lucky Like St. Sebastian»
--
Luis C.
<luis....@individual.EUnet.pt>
jrjoh...@aol.com
In article <5bh7or$k...@news.EUnet.pt>, luis....@individual.EUnet.pt
(Luis Canau) writes:
>«Entertain me»? There are movies to eat popcorns at. And there are
>movies to look at. If you were expecting this movie to «entertain»
>you, someone should have been telling you lies about it. If you want
>something to care about, to hold your interest, you should try to find
>every time before going to the cinema if the subject is interesting to
>you. But that would be quite limited, no?
>
>
Of course, there are different levels of "entertainment" SCHINDLER'S LIST
is certainly a different form of entertainment than MOTHER, but they are
both films that I loved. To be honest, I don't know enough about the
film-making process from either the technical or narrative side to
sometimes know WHY a certain film works for me and another does not. THE
AGE OF INNOCENCE comes to mind here.....Highly stylized, but that wasn't
ALL there was to it.....I CARED about these people....I wanted to know
what would happen, why, how their lives affected one anothers'....
I don't necessarily have to LIKE these people.....BAD LIEUTENANT and
KIDS.....both disturbing, and although the word may not be entirely
appropriate, ENTERTAINING. Believe me, in both cases, I didn't leave the
theatre with a smile on my face, raving to everyone how much I loved that
movie, BUT....Was I glad that I saw them? Did I take something away with
me that I didn't bring in? YES So in a sense, I was entertained.
I guess my question with TPOAL is, why was it made in the first place? I
have talked to people that put this movie on their top 10 list, as well as
read some critics who have done the same, and it seems to me that they
have many of the same criticisms that I have, but they LOVE the movie!!! I
was a bit sarcastic in my last post, mainly because I'm having trouble
putting into words what I thought of this film.
I know I'm rambling now, but the bottom line, for me anyway, is that TPOAL
was a waste of my time......
Luis Canau
jrjoh...@aol.com wrote:
>Of course, there are different levels of "entertainment" SCHINDLER'S LIST
>is certainly a different form of entertainment than MOTHER, but they are
>both films that I loved. To be honest, I don't know enough about the
>film-making process from either the technical or narrative side to
>sometimes know WHY a certain film works for me and another does not (...)
>(...) I was a bit sarcastic in my last post, mainly because I'm having trouble
>putting into words what I thought of this film.
>I know I'm rambling now, but the bottom line, for me anyway, is that TPOAL
>was a waste of my time......
Sorry, I guess I was to literal around the word «entertainment». The
problem is that I always picture - below the word - hoards of people
talking out loud and throwing food in the air, while watching films
without script.
I also enjoy movies that disturb me or even make me headaches. I loved
«Bad Lieutenant» and I liked «Kids». I guess I only disagree in
thinking «Portrait...» a waste of time. I also did not found it a
superb film, but I think it shows that Campion is able to make very
good movies in the future.
You sarcasm is OK. I think that what made me react more was when you
said:
>After TPOAL, I will NEVER, as God
>is my witness, see another Jane Campion film as long as I live.
which I thought was a little overreacting.
--
Luis C.
<luis....@individual.EUnet.pt>
Will Simmons
In article <5bh7or$k...@news.EUnet.pt>,
luis....@individual.EUnet.pt (Luis Canau) wrote:
[SNIP]
>I didn't found Isabel story particularly interesting. Since I don't
>read the book I may just think that I wouldn't found it either
>interesting there. I felt what some others mentioned in the thread. It
>seemed to me that more should be shown for us to understand why
>reasons that kept the men who proposed her away were overcome, in a
>way that seemed so easy for the Malkovitch character.
>
>I prefer to think that this weren't flaws in the movie but in the
>people that were being portrayed. Isabel was naive and weak. Or maybe
>just masochist.
>The actors were good. I didn't like very much the acting of
>Malkovitch. (Or maybe it was the character?) Donovan is a very good
>actor (but we knew that from other movies before).
>
>As ‘art’, it surely was one of the greatest movie experiences I had
>lately.
[SNIP]
Perhaps not so much flaws as sensibilities that have passed into history
and are simply not comprehensible a century later.
Isabel grew up in what are now called Victorian times. Blessed with a
superior education and money -- an unusual circumstance for a young
American woman at the time -- she sought what she believed to be a new,
independent lifestyle and a modern relationship with a man. The novelist
(James was an expatriate who had personally witnessed, if not experienced
such tensions) sought to show what might happen in such an case.)
To Isabel, as to many Americans up to WW II, continental Europe
represented high civilization and sophistication. Simply to collapse into
the arms of some ordinary, old-fashioned man would have been (to commit a
an anachronism and mix a metaphor) an 1875 cop-out.
Yes, Campion had difficulty portraying some of Isabel's perceptions, but
with good reason. Reading the novel shows how Campion carefully glossed
over many of Isabel's thought processes that current audiences would find
genuinely esoteric. (Recall the flap over Ken Burns' attempt to explicate
civil war officers' relations with their wives to the Terminator
generation.)
And yes, Malkovitch did give into temptation and ham it up a little. On
the other hand, the novel certainly mirrors James's wariness of the then
newly minted vocation of professional aesthete. And, Malkovitch's
performance may have been overly informed by the recent literature on
Berenson, that craft's apotheosis.
All in all, as the poster says, an outstanding experience.
-- Will --