REVIEW: THE PORTRAIT OF A LADY (* 1/2)
Steve Rhodes
_______________________________________________________________________
THE PORTRAIT OF A LADY
A film review by Steve Rhodes
Copyright 1997 Steve Rhodes
RATING (0 TO ****): * 1/2
There are so few good novelists that it is a travesty that a
director like Jane Campion (THE PIANO) would take one of Henry James's
novels like THE PORTRAIT OF A LADY and siphon away most of its beauty.
She turns the conversations in the movie into little more than serial
monologues. One character will deliver an emotionless short speech
followed by a pause and then the other will pontificate for a bit and
then another pause. The speech hangs in the air like breath on a cold
winter morning.
It is little wonder then that the people in the restroom
afterwards were making comments like, "Well, that was sure a waste of
time." The audience sat and listened as dispassionately as the players
on the screen, and the silence was broken with periodic laughter in the
wrong places. In fact, my reaction at the end was the same as others
in the audience. We started laughing out loud at how ridiculous the
show had been. Not the reaction James would have wanted.
The film starts bizarrely with modern day young women talking
about kissing. Soon the action moves to England in the 1870s where the
novel starts. Actually, the word action is a carefully chosen misnomer
since the show has been sanitized by the director to be devoid of
anything approaching action. Filmed versions of his work can be much
better, and I like several with my favorite being BBC's production of
"The Golden Bowl."
"I've never seen an ugly man look so handsome," says Bohemian
looking Mary-Louise Parker as Henrietta Stackpole. She is talking to
Isabel Archer, played with great sincerity by Nicole Kidman, about one
of Isabel's many suitors. Soon Isabel will refuse the hand of one
wealthy gentlemen and then turn around and inherit a great fortune
anyway.
Shelley Winters plays Mrs. Touchett, but she is so badly miscast
you will wish she didn't. John Gielgud gives one of his most lifeless
performances as her husband Mr. Touchett, who is the source of Isabel's
wealth.
Campion inserts strange montages and surreal sequences. One has
Isabel making love fully clothed simultaneously to three of her beaus
in her boudoir. Another has her naked in an early-1930s style black
and white film. It has a plate full of talking coffee beans, but like
much of the film it makes such little sense that they may have been
lima beans for all I know.
Kidman's acting is good but distant. She throws herself into her
role, but most of the problems of the show all point back to Campion.
The actors are all top notch, but Campion insists they approach their
roles with aloofness and disdain.
Although I put much of the blame on Campion, I must admit I have
come to think less and less of John Malkovich's great talent. Here he
gives a vapid performance as the vile Gilbert Osmond. Malkovich has a
proclivity for signing on to bad projects. Two of his most recent
films, THE CONVENT and MARY REILLY, were on my worst of the year list
for 1996.
Barbara Hershey as Madame Serena Merle is a self-proclaimed
"highly ambitious" woman who is unsuccessful because she has "neither
husband nor children nor fortune" or so she tells Isabel. Hershey ties
Malkovich for the most wooden performance. Some critics are proposing
her work as worthy of a best supporting actress award which I find
ludicrous.
Although many critics whom I respect like this film, I thought the
movie, as developed by Campion, comes off as little more than
intellectual puffery. None of her characters are worthy of attention.
Much of the dialog works on paper, but not as delivered. I liked
Malkovich's: "I know plenty of dingy people. I don't want to know any
more." My favorite of Kidman's was: "I'm rather ashamed of my plans.
I make new ones every day."
Let me attempt to end on a positive note. Since there is precious
little of merit other than Kidman's performance, I was able to soak in
Stuart Dryburgh's handsome cinematography. Like his beautiful work in
AN ANGEL AT MY TABLE, he is a master at the art of lights and shadows.
His unusual choice of a pale powder blue to light Kidman's face was one
of the few experiments that worked in the film. The costumes by Janet
Patterson (THE PIANO) are attractive, especially the tight fitting
dresses she designed for Kidman.
Perhaps, if you've recently read the novel you will be able to
pick up and appreciate some of the nuances that other viewers missed
and be able to enjoy the film more than they did, and then, again,
maybe not.
THE PORTRAIT OF A LADY drags on forever and finally finishes after
2:25. It is rated PG-13 for brief nudity, but no sex, violence, or
profanity. The show would be fine for kids who are interested in shows
this serious which I suspect is about 10 or older. I recommend you
avoid this uninvolving film which mocks a great author. I generously
award the picture a * 1/2 for the technical aspects plus Kidman's
performance.
_______________________________________________________________________
**** = A must see film.
*** = Excellent show. Look for it.
** = Average movie. Kind of enjoyable.
* = Poor show. Don't waste your money.
0 = Totally and painfully unbearable picture.
REVIEW WRITTEN ON: January 17, 1997
Opinions expressed are mine and not meant to reflect my employer's.