Just wondering what you thought of Jane Campion's "Portrait of a Lady"?
Thanks
Thomas
Thomas Staley wrote in message <7iil98$762$1...@izvestia.its.unimelb.edu.au>...
>Just wondering what you thought of Jane Campion's "Portrait of a Lady"?
>
A mixed bag. Some nice performances, great visual appeal, but long and dry in
places. I was never sure Campion had a very clear handle on who Isabel Archer
really was or what motivated her. Jamesian women in particular are a subtle
bunch, hard to fix and categorize, but I can wish for complexity rather than
vagueness in translating them to film.
I think the best adaptation of a Henry James story is still _The Innocents_
with Deborah Kerr, a model of ambiguity and subtlety.
Still, _Portrait_ is better than some I've seen, such as Merchant/Ivory's _The
Bostonians_.
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
http://members.aol.com/frajm/
"All over the room throats were being strained and minds broadened."
-- P. G. Wodehouse, Piccadilly Jim
Thomas Staley <tst...@trinity.unimelb.edu.au> wrote in article
<7iil98$762$1...@izvestia.its.unimelb.edu.au>...
> Hi all,
>
> Just wondering what you thought of Jane Campion's "Portrait of a Lady"?
>
> Thanks
>
> Thomas
I thought it was one of the best movies of '96 - translating James into
bold cinematic terms instead of the usual dull masterpiece treatment.
Malkovich was the one miscast - the role needed someone more charming,
less obviously wicked. The film was extremely underrated and a lot of
people outright hated it - my impression was that they were expecting some
tame adaptation in the mode of Sense and Sensibility and were put off by
this film which was difficult and took a lot of chances.
I am a champion of Campion.
Dashiell
Once again, r.a.m.p-f's resident troll displays his idiocy. First he
says "heard the movie stinks," implying he hasn't seen it, and the next
thing he says is "it stinks." If you haven't seen the damn thing, how do
you know it stinks?
Grow up and get your OWN opinions.
Josh