Genres

Visitors Review

2012-05-24 09:14:31

Portrait Of A Lady In A Swift Carriage Of A Dark Night

Two themes characterize Henry James' novels and are wonderfully rendered in this film: they are fortune hunting and the depiction of wealthy guileless naive Americans in the hands of sophisticated wordly Europeans. Isabel Archer is such a creation, an American transplant to England exploring her self and future, and full of beauty and promise. At the outset she rejects Lord Warburton, the man who should be perfect for her, so she can find her 'self' and let light into her soul. "I am very fond of my liberty...I wish to choose my fate" she tells her cousin, Ralph Touchett who also is in love with her. Isabel's idea of happiness is a romantic journey into the unknown, "A swift carriage ride, of a dark night..." She appears to be independent and full of purpose, but Isabel is also an innocent with a streak of sensuality in her being. In her naivete' she mistakes the heartless Gilbert Osmund's sensual indulgments for refinement and is captivated by him, while he determines to possess her for her money. The marriage is a disaster for Isabel whose world becomes darker and progressively more oppressive. At last the mortal illness of her cousin, Ralph, allows her to escape Osmund and go back to England. Now all has come full circle, she is older, wiser, she meets again another ex-suitor, Casper Goodwood. He pleads with her to leave Osmund and make a new life for herself with him. She is back at the moment where it all began and she can start over, she has only to make the choice.It is not only Henry James plot but the way director Campion presents it that makes this film great and utterly intriguing with every viewing. Nichole Kidman presents a marvelous performance of a woman pursuing not only her vision but also struggling with forces within herself and around her that she, at first, doesn't understand. Kidman is the perfect foil for John Malkovich's superb portrayal of Osmund, a shallow sinister dilettante who manipulates Isabel, his daughter, and his ex-mistress like objects. In Campion's settings the lighting of the opulent surroundings dims as Isabel's world closes about her. In the final scene she makes her choice and turns away from the welcoming warmth of Casper Goodwood's world; she chooses to remain out in the cold. She's not stupid. She's no longer innocent, but she rejects the light for the dark and returns to her abuser. Why?In her rejection of one promising suitor after another, men who are clearly devoted to her, Isabel reveals that engulfing love terrifies her because it will destroy her independence. The only man she can totally give her love to is her cousin Ralph Touchett, on his deathbed, since she will be free again after he dies. We see also in her early fantasy of a threesome with her suitors that there is a strong element of sensuality in her persona that Osmund perceives and exploits, even to the degree that she is roused as he abuses her. Certainly Osmund doesn't love her. She now knows she is nothing but an ornamental bankroll in his shallow world so she no longer has to surrender her independence to him. Yet she returns to him because he challenges her in ways that other suitors never could, and in this Isabel emerges as the most subtle, complex, courageous, and triumphant persona of all.In fact Henry James modeled Isabel Archer after his patroness, Isabella Stuart Gardner, whose life is revealed in Douglass Shand-Tucci's biography, "The Art Of Scandal".

2012-05-23 20:32:34

flux and paradigms

i first read henry james' great novel when i was a teenager. i remember being fascinated by the astounding complexity of his characters -- how every one of them seemed to mask his or her own hidden agendas beneath layers and layers of "proper" social veneers.the Isabel Archer in the beginning of the novel was an outsider, fresh from america, who single-handedly breathed a new life into the stale surroundings of these rigid european social constructs. she was an ephemeral presence, a beam of light around whom both men and women hovered and wished to take something from. the main dilemma that the novel posed was how this young, somewhat naive outsider could hold true to her dreams of bettering herself within a sophisticated european community without compromising her free-spirited nature and selling herself short. simply put, the novel was about a woman who was in a constant state of flux -- involved in a precarious juggling act involving her own aspirations and those of the people who claimed to love her.with her "controversial" ending to the film version, i believe that jane campion has brilliantly dramatized this state of flux, for in this scene, we see our heroine, once again, fleeing from her options (which are presented to her throughout the film in the form of aggressive male suitors and their various promises) rather than confronting them; but this time, as she rushes away from Caspar Goodwood's embrace in the icy yard and toward the warmth and security of Gardencourt, we see her suddenly stop at the threshold of the home and turn her gaze back toward the yard, back toward Caspar Goodwood. and the frame freezes and fades to black.critics of this scene are disappointed that campion chooses not to reveal, as James does in the novel, that Isabel leaves for Rome the very next day, thereby implying that she has decided to go back to Osmond and reject Goodwood yet again. however, i believe that drawing this sort of implication would be a far too literal and surface-level reading of the text. in the novel, Henrietta is the one who reveals to Goodwood that Isabel has left for Rome. Goodwood is stunned and is turning away when Henrietta grabs him and tells him to wait a moment. and then the novel ends. James seems to suggest that Henrietta will reveal to Goodwood -- who, like the readers at this point, is shocked at the thought that Isabel may actually go back to Osmond -- the true nature of Isabel's intentions. for me, the implication of all of this is that Isabel will return to Rome because it is her duty to confront Osmond, if only to tell him that she is leaving him. indeed, james devotes some time earlier in the final chapter to expounding about Isabel's inner dilemma over remaining true to her obligations.of course, this is only my reading of the text, but i believe that this reading helps elucidate campion's decision to end the film the way she does. for although, in the film, Isabel does turn at the threshold of the house to look back towards Goodwood, you will notice that her hand is still firmly on the door handle. she MUST open the door and enter the house and leave for Rome the next day because campion would not stray so far from the text as to betray the facts of the novel (which happens to be a work of literature that she reveres). by ending the film on this moment, campion is at once able to stay true to the facts of the text while dramatizing, in essence, what the whole film has been about: the precarious nature of an independent-natured woman's destiny in a world that aggressively forces her to choose between various life "options" that are really nothing more than thinly veiled, socially accepted constructs. just as the ending of the film is uncertain and ambiguous, campion suggests that so too was the future of a woman who dared to stray from the social conventions of that time.as an astonishing counterpoint to the women of Isabel's time, campion opens the film with an inspired segment in which we see a diverse range of young women looking attentively into the camera; some are sitting gracefully, others are dancing, some are dark skinned, others light, some have short hair, others long, and all are either smiling or looking content. earlier, we hear them discussing the impact of a kiss and the dreamy, romanticized attentions of a lover. campion suggests that these women are, in essence, the descendants and beneficiaries of Isabel Archer's earlier struggles to maintain her own identity within a socio-cultural paradigm that wished only to devour it. for these contemporary women, the nature of love and romance is a topic that is to be discussed in leisure and with fondness, not a crushing matter that could determine the course of their lives. THAT, campion suggests, is Isabel Archer's gift to them.

Baby Bunny 2012-05-20 11:31:15

Watch this again...

The first time I saw Jane Campion's "Portrait of a Lady," I disliked herinterpretation of one of my favorite books. The film is aestheticallypleasing, stylish, and has a good presence, but I couldn't get past, what Ifelt then, was a bad ending.Just recently I watched the film again. I had a completely differentexperience. Suddenly I saw what Campion was doing, and some of it wasbrilliant. Especially the end. I know many people like to see that theprotagonist is "safe" and "happy" and it appears that Kidman's character isnot. But she is. The last scene is a cinematic triumph if scrutinized by athoughtful watcher.Nicole Kidman does a wonderful job under Campion, as does Martin Donovan (ifyou read the book, he is perfect for the character). This film deserves asecond look.

morisey-1 2012-05-20 01:38:50

A brilliant adaptation

This movie makes me bawl, every time I see it. Beautifully filmed, anexquisite rendering of one woman's gradual entrapment by the world of menand nineteenth-century social constraints. The drama unfolds slowly, but masterfully, building to one of the bestendings I've ever seen.Nicole Kidman is excellent, and Martin Donovan is a god.

2012-05-16 02:14:24

IT COULD HAVE BEEN A CONTENDER...

Jane Campion is a brilliant director who can direct a film and convey much with a minimum of language and action. Her film, "The Piano" is a testament to that innate talent. This would lead one to believe that directing an adaptation of a Henry James novel would be a natural segue for her. While this is a lush and beautiful period piece, the problem with it is that it is somewhat dull. Despite stellar performances by Barbara Hershey and the supporting cast, the main star, Nicole Kidman, is out of her league, though she is a luminous beauty and has some acting ability. The problem is that her performance lacks the presence or depth necessary to transcend the material and make this a truly interesting film. She just is not good enough an actress to be able to carry this type of storyline and engage the viewer in the lead role of wealthy expatriate, Isabel Archer. Moreover, while John Malkovich gives a wonderful performance as the malevolent Gilbert Osmond, he is decidedly miscast as he is simply not charismatic enough to make it believable that Isabel Archer would throw caution to the wind over such an unattractive and, decidedly, sinister man. It is unfortunate, as the film is an otherwise fairly faithful adaptation of Henry James' complex novel of the same name. It could have been a contender.

amileoj 2012-05-15 14:15:53

The Best Screen Adaptation of a Henry James Novel

Given the tenor of some of the other reviews posted here, I shouldstart by making the extent of my disagreements clear.First, this film is unquestionably Jane Campion's best work to date,and it represents, in particular, a significant advance beyond herprevious work in The Piano.Second, this film, while unapologetically feminist in point of view, inno sense attempts to shoehorn James's artistic vision into anideological box for which it is unsuited. On the contrary, James hasprobably never been more sensitively interpreted on screen.Third, purely as a film, The Portrait of a Lady belongs on a shortshelf among the very best movies of the 1990's, of whatever genre.Consider what Campion was up against: A literary adaptation, in thefirst place (itself almost a recipe for cinematic failure); a HenryJames novel, in particular (a novelist who situated most of the"action" in his novels in the invisible social and psychological spacesbetween his characters, and whose works therefore constitute a kind ofstanding temptation to focus on picturesque/prestigious historicalambiance at the expense of narrative power); and a story, as Jameshimself pointed out, centered on the seemingly quite confined topic ofone very ordinary young woman's working out of her particular destiny.Out of these distinctly unpromising materials, Ms. Campion created afilm in which nearly every scene adds depth and color to her story,even after repeated viewings. And her Isabelle Archer (beautifullyrealized by Nicole Kidman, in possibly her finest performance to date)is as fully tested and tried by life's moral and epistemologicalambiguities, and as fully responsive to life's promise, on film, asHenry James's heroine is, on the printed page. One could hardly ask formore.

Gordon-11 2012-05-06 12:04:32

A terrible bore

This film is about a wealthy American heiress and her romantic pursuitsof varying success in Europe."The Portrait of a Lady" is immensely dull. The pace is slower than asnail, with many self indulgent artistic shots in between the alreadyvery slow plot. To make it even more boring, every character deliverstheir line in a flat and monotonous way. That may be the way how upperclass speaks, but it is terribly dull and emotionless in a film. Thereis no emotional climax in the film either, everything is just plain andboring. Even the plethora of big stars can do nothing to save this filmfrom being a bore.

Sean Gallagher 2012-05-05 23:05:40

Misses the mark, but shouldn't be entirely dismissed

When I read DAISY MILLER in high school and was completely unengaged, thatset me off the wrong foot with Henry James. I also dislike hisover-attentiveness to detail, and I must confess a prejudice against anywriter who says in 10 pages what they could just have easily said in 2. YetTHE PORTRAIT OF A LADY, once you get into it, turns out to be quite apowerful novel, and given how much I loved THE PIANO, I was really lookingforward to what Jane Campion could bring to it. Rarely have I seen a movieversion, though, which is so far off the mark but still has worthy parts toit.Let's start with the mistakes. Campion claimed she was re-imagining thestory of Isabel Archer, an American woman of character but not of means, whoeventually marries unhappily, instead of just giving a straight filmedversion. That's all well and good, but what she and writer Laura Jones dois all but gut the motivations behind the story; we don't see Archer'svitality early on, so we have nowhere to go when she falls, and we don't seewhat draws people to her. And when Madame Merle and Osmond appear, they areso obviously snakes in the grass that we think Archer is a fool for trustingthem, instead of feeling empathy for her. It doesn't help that Malkovich isso obviously bored here he does nothing to exude any charm. Hershey comesoff better, but what's done with her character is a little strange aswell.Nevertheless, this movie can't be easily dismissed. First of all, Campion'sgift for imagery still comes through; she visually expresses the passionslying hidden in the novel, which few directors do when adapting periodpieces. Also, Kidman grows more confident as the movie wears on, so we doget a sense of Isabel. But as someone already commented, the most worthyelement here is Martin Donovan as Ralph, Isabel's sickly cousin in love withher, and whose advice sets the whole story in motion. He doesn't play forsentiment, but earns it instead. The ending also keeps its power. Still,this is quite a missed opportunity for Campion.

2012-05-05 03:33:24

More appropriation than adaptation

This adaptation of Henry James' technically innovative but infamously dense novel is interesting primarily because director Jane Campion seems to have entirely missed the point. She's mistaken Isabel Archer for a "romance addict" rather than the naive idealist James created. Perhaps aiming for wider appeal, she tries to turn this from the portrait of a unique female personality into a more general exploration of "women in love". Such universalizing might have worked if she and screenwriter Laura Jones had also had the wherewithal to change the story to suit their modified heroine. But having ditched the most critical aspect of the novel, they then remain reasonably faithful to its flow of events, with Isabel choosing an ugly, "sterile dilettante" (Malkovich) over a handsome lover and a rich English lord (Mortensen and Grant respectively) both of whom are infatuated with her. For Isabel the "naive idealist", such a choice is perfectly understandable. For Isabel the "romance addict", and women in general, such a choice beggars belief. So this not only fails as an adaptation, it fails as a convincing narrative in its own right. Screenwriting devotees might be drawn to it wondering just how Jones will convey Isabel's famous interiority without resorting to voiceover. The answer is simple: she ignores it in the writing (with the exception of one inspired fantasy sequence) and leaves most of it to performance. The result is that Kidman spends more than half the film in incomprehensible tears. The novel's Isabel cries once in 600 pages. For all that, this film is still not without reward: the performances from the near-ensemble cast are universally marvellous, the settings and costumes exquisite, and the music and cinematography are a perfect match for it all. There's no doubting Campion's skill as a director; I just doubt her interpretation of the source material.

2012-05-04 17:09:00

This is why....

I ADORE period movies! The acting, scenes, story line...character growth is beyond amazing. The scenery is breathtaking. The movie pulls at my soul and heart....And I love the ending....so much intense possibilty with that one pause and backward glance. Nicole Kidman was superb in this adaption. All the other actors as well were excellent. This is by far the best adaption of Portrait of a Lady I have yet seen.

Popey-6 2012-04-30 08:01:57

Tap, Tap, Tap

Much emphasis here on the tapping of shoes on paving stones as peoplehurryfrom one sadness to another, each one in turn deeper than the last. All inall a pleasant enough film slightly spoiled by the use of the old cinemareel-style interlude for the main character's adventures during 1873. Thisis 1873 after all - before the invention of cinema - and there is noreasongiven to believe we are living beyond this period i.e. in someone else'sremembrances. Much strain and inaudible mumbling but eventually asatisfyingglimpse into the pressures of a lady (with money) in the nineteenthcentury.

2012-04-29 16:17:29

SOMEWHAT SPLAYED-OUT BUT GORGEOUS RETELLING OF THE CLASSIC

At about two and a half hours, Jane Campion tinkers at the bare threshold of monotony with this gorgeous period-piece, but she seldom falters in her ability to make her leading roles (The Piano, Sweetie) hypnotically compelling for all of their mulishness and tenacity. Much has already been said about Malkovich and Kidman, both of whom I find were good if not superb, and Barbara Hershey, who brings just the right flavour of deviousness to her character. So I will focus instead on some common criticisms of this film. Reviewers lament Campion's psychological simplifications of the theme, or her ungenerous treatment of Isabel as a sufferer of false consciousness who walks blindly into her own trap. On the contrary, I think the director is both adventurous and above-board in stating her revisionist projects from the very opening frame. Henry James lived in the 1880s. His original work was intended as an exploration of what a woman might do if she were given independent means, and his story indicted women as being trapped by a weaker nature. Exploring the same material Campion comes to a different, more ambiguous, but IMHO, also more interesting conclusion. She prefers to establish the film largely as Isabel's subjective experience, not as the story told by some omniscient narrator on whose shoulders falls the onus of proof. This is evidenced, for instance, by a sequence at the beginning where Isabel imagines making love with three different men at the same time.For all its occasional flaws the film is at least internally consistent and proves to me yet again that Campion possesses cinematic imagination in spades. From her comes some of the boldest use of lighting and Black & White interludes I have seen in modern cinema. Net net, don't let the negative reviews put you off, this is a very heart-warming experience even if a languorous one. Recommended rental for sure.

Eric Sayettat 2012-04-29 19:29:55

A good reason not to hark back to a morally stifling era

This may not be the movie of the Century but Jane Campion certainly capturedthe essence of Henry James. The almost oppressive Anglo-Saxon atmosphere ofhis novels and his ability to draw in-depth portraits of femalecharacters.The movie depicts very well the entanglement of XIXth century women inVictorian society. Nicole Kidman is clever and curious yet shackled byconvention and so dependent on men. Her dresses are stern and she misses theapparent freedom of her French Nemosis Madame Maire.Sure this movie was not imaginative, after all it is an adaptation of afamous novel, but Jane Campion should be praised for her talent in renderingboth the epoch and the mentality. Yes, I think this portrait has beenunderrated.

darrenkoneill 2012-04-29 05:54:44

Actual line "You don't loose your temper, you find it, and that must be beautiful"

If the Carry on Team made 'Carry On Florence' would people who wearPanama hats still watch it because it's in Florence? Well they may aswell, as it would have about the same dinner party kudos as JaneCampion's 'The Portrait of a Lady', this film pins all of its hopes onappealing to the same crowd who have the directors cut of 'A room witha view', which incidentally should never sit next to this passionlessnonsense on a DVD rack, it would be like putting a Chopin CD next to aBooty Gyals Rap attack CD.Anyway to cut to the chase for some reason we the audience just likethe cast are supposed to be captivated and / or in some way enchantedby Isabel Archer(Played by Nicole Kidman) who if she were a Cocktailwould be a glass of Luke warm tap water, admittedly she isunforgettable as she had an Austrailian accent throughout, and sporteda full head of red Pubic hair. Nevertheless the film carries onregardless (ooops wasn't that a Carry on?) assuming (insisting) thatyou're sold on Ms Archer and her great invisible bag of charm.She teases three men who are all clamoring for her affection, all ofwhom may have had their own personalities and characters but you won'tknow as it didn't seem important to include such detail.Only when she gets to Florence does she finally meet someone who canmatch her invisible bag of charm, he comes in the very camp averageform of Gilbert Osmond played by John Malkovich, he does however speak(again slightly camply) in a consistent whispering single tone, thatsimilar to serial killers, this seems for the most part to be just whatMssss Archer had been missing whilst plagued by all of thoseTestosterone touting 'oh so predictable' men. He is completely illequipt as a seducer both physically and mentally but then again MsArcher has about the same kit, therefore the question is, does anyonecare what happens to empty boring people, in an empty boring film?During a business trip a colleague of mine asked me to watch this, Isaid to her jokingly that it sounds like a Chick Flick and that I hadalready seen Fried Green Tomatoes (a good film), she insisted itwasn't.....Shelly Winters (Great actress) was in the opening credits..need I say more... as De Niro would say 'Whatchagonnadoo?' A supporting character that shouldn't go unmentioned is HenriettaStackpole played by Mary-Louise Parker, she is completely 1990... everytime she was in a scene I couldn't help trying to spot her timemachine, she even had that new contrived horrible spoiled nasalCalifornian accent, you know instead of saying 'never ever' they say'Navaar Avaaaar'.I just hope no 'Ladies' try and watch this in the innocent hope it maytrigger some wild passionate dreams about moody Barons fighting inmoonlit Florence over their 'Porcelain beauty'.. because ladies you'llbe disappointed, and if things are so bad you're not disappointed, andthat this film does indeed tick your passion boxes ... then you need adivorce....or your Husband does.

Stefano Fiore 2012-04-27 04:19:25

Jane Campion forgot to set camera adjustments

This is her first movie that I see but it will also be the last. These2 hours and 20 minutes were pure affliction. Unbearable. A torture. Iwent all the way through because, even if it might seem absurd, themovie is nice. But it is unwatchable and I will never see it again.Can anybody explain me why the images are so dark? Is this a techniqueof Madame Campion so that she can distinguish herself and be so cool?Unbelievable. A nice movie ruined forever.Stanley Kubrick in order to film his candle-light night scenes of BARRYLYNDON used lenses and equipment borrowed directly from NASA. Get mypoint? Jane Campion instead insults my cinematographic intelligence.

Kynde 2012-04-26 10:37:48

Too long, too dark, too boring, too much!

*SPOILERS*This was just not what I needed. The most depressive film I might ever haveseen. Not one single person has a moment of real joy in this film. Everyoneis miserable, even those, like Malkovich, who enjoys making the life's of othermiserable. There is no consolation to find anywhere, and the end only leavesme thinking about who of the characters are going to commit suicide. There are at leastfive that I can think of. It's dark and depressing all the way, and strangejumps takes us around in the Lady's life. Take for example this: Kidman gets a child, whodies within a year, however, this happens while the film jumps three yearahead, that is from a year before to a year after the birth/death. Hey! If this is a portrait of alife, this must have been one of the most important and devastatingexperience, and therefore very important to tell about. But no...I'm sure this film is true to the book, but the movie is nothing like thefine Piano of the same director. 4 out of 10.

2012-04-26 02:10:31

The film, like Isabel Archer, is bursting with promise unfulfilled

Visually, I would rate this film five stars. And, I'm certain, that those reviewers who see past this film's flaws and award the film four or five stars are rewarding the stunning visuals. But, dramatically, its barely a three (and that's being generous), because, unfortunatley, it seems, that Campion is far more interested in period detail and far more fascinated with various costume choices and interior designs than she is in allowing her actual characters to do or say interesting things. No one in this film is alive. This is, in part, the theme of the film (and Henry James' fiction in general): everyone, in some way, is living a stifled life. But, it is a problem when the sets are infused with more color & life than the actual people. Mary-Louise Parker (whose eccentric bespectacled performance is the most memorable thing about this film) is perhaps the exception here; she breathes life into every scene she is in. But there isn't much air in these salon rooms and the characters just don't seem to connect to each other. This is especially true of Martin Donovan, who plays Isabel Archer's consumptive cousin and confidante, "Ralph Touchette". Donovan looks every bit the part (he looks like he just walked out of a Whistler or a Sargent) but we never feel that he really cares for Isabel nor she for him. The indigo and purple and green color palette that surrounds Donovan and co. is really striking but instead of expressively accenting character moods the colors seem only to highlight a lack. Director Campion does provide a few creative bursts which promise to break through the films subdued surfaces--I am thinking of the 2-3 anachronistically avant-garde fantasy sequences that momentarily threaten to artfully collapse the late-Victorian veneer-- but they are contained bursts that produce no real effects (in the audience or in the characters). Its as if Campion spent all her time figuring out what everyone and everything should look like and had no time left to infuse her still life with any energy or enthusiasm. The result is that the film feels, well, like a fin de siecle museum exhibit, which is unfortunate as this is supposed to be a film about an intelligent and sensual woman's coming to life! To be fair, there are plenty of fine actors in this film (John Gielgud, Shelly Winters, Martin Donovan, Christian Bale, Viggo Mortensen, Richard Grant, Barbara Hershey, Mary Louise Parker) but the one character that matters most, and the one that is supposed to be the very embodiment of life, "Isabel Archer", is played by a strangely self-conscious and self-contained, Nicole Kidman. Kidman is beautiful and brilliant in her way and she wears her satin gowns exceptionally well, but she never succeeds in allowing us any access to what thoughts & passions drive one of the most complex female characters in fiction; and she never really connects with any of the other actors; its as if her panoply of emotions all come from some invisible source. The men in her life seem not to matter at all. The performance is solipsistic (and many of the performances in this film are just that). All we really get from Kidman is a youthful yearning & promise that then, all too quickly (after about one hour of cinema time), turns to a full-on pout once she falls for "Gilbert Osmond" played by the clownishly evil John Malkovich (this pout lasts for one hour and twenty minutes). Malkovich's performance seems to be a study in extremes as he veers between too-lazy-to-care dilettantism & manic misogyny. Malkovich has made a career out of playing bohemian burn-outs (Dangerous Liasons, Sheltering Sky...) but this one is so detestable that it borders on self-caricature. Barbara Hershey, as Osmond's accomplice "Serena", fairs slightly better. Taken alone each actor seems perfectly suited to play their roles, but somehow the characters just don't materialize; the actors take turns having their big moments but these moments just don't seem to add up to anything that we care to count. The characters never really matter to us, the magnitude of their emotions seem unconvincing, and so this Jamesian plot just seems trifling. I think Campion very much wants this film to be an emblematic film about all free-thinking woman on the cusp of life (and the opening credits that roll while various young women of all races look on seems to be a testament to this), but since she fails to give us a sense of Isabel Archer's deep longing for free choice and danger, we fail to feel the tragedy of her dream of endless options being thwarted and her dream of danger, ironically, coming true.

2012-04-25 12:12:41

Beautiful film, though I disagree a little with the casting

Its amazing that Jane Campion stays so faithful to the novel, and the movie is every bit as captivating as the book. The end differs slightly but the good thing is that Campion's ending is almost as ambiguous and open to interpretation as James's. This stylized film is wonderfully shot, with the colours, dresses and hairdos reflecting various good and bad times of Isabel's life. I thought Kidman is extraordinary as Archer because she captures a good deal of what James took so much pain to describe about Isabel - the nervousness, the quick wit and a sense of wonder about the future, and a slightly frigid attitude.I wished Caspar Goodwood would be more animated and less brooding than Viggo Mortensen. Martin Donovan is good as Ralph, but I felt he hurried through some of his most important sentences (for e.g "I call people rich when .."). Also, when I read the book, I had imagined Osmond would be a lot less physical, though not less malicious, than Malkovich. Its a great film overall, and it's sad that it didn't catch on as much as it should have. It was after all a very difficult story to film (much like the Bostonians) and I guess very few people liked it when it came out since the story always refrains from helping the reader/viewer. It is not like (say) Sense and Sensibility or Little Women where everything is happily resolved in the end.

moonspinner55 2012-04-24 04:07:36

Darkly textured, darkly felt...and darkly photographed

23-year-old American in 1872 England, orphaned and now residing withwealthy relatives, is preyed upon by a fortune hunter who--despitecoming up against a determinedly independent lass with a cynicaloverview of marriage--breaks down the girl's defenses and takes her ashis wife; years later, their marriage on the rocks, the woman upsetsher husband's plans by interfering in the love-life of her stepdaughterwho is being unsuccessfully wooed by a Lord. Director Jane Campionopens this adaptation of Henry James' novel with a collage of modernwomen's faces, free and forthright and fulfilled, but then hands us aheroine who is duped, abused, and reduced easily to tears. This is notNicole Kidman's fault, her performance as Isabel Archer is as good ascan be expected. Campion fails to reveal any dimensions of this girl,and Isabel's circling conversations with men have a one-note, droningquality which matches Campion's chilly visual style: colorless.Campion's artistic attributes certainly give select sequences astunning, eerie romantic flavor, but she doesn't do much with theactors (some of whom, Mary Louise Parker and Shelley Duvall inparticular, seem woefully out of place). Kidman is under-lit and posedlike a porcelain doll (at one point, her grayish pallor perfectlymatches that of a pillar just behind her); yet, while these shots arethoughtfully composed, they call attention to themselves in a negativeway for an audience very likely to get fed up with such pretensions(especially in a film which is already methodically paced). Ironically,"The Portrait of a Lady" comes mostly to life when dealing with JohnMalkovich's cunning hubby; the actor has played roles similar to thisin the past, but his relish in bringing out the dark side of this talecan clearly be felt. The picture is literate, but almost in anexasperating way; the tastefulness of it as 'art', and the tactfulnessof Laura Jones' screenplay, nearly kills off our interest. ** from ****

2012-04-23 14:48:30

Not so bright

Jane Campion has done some great work. Most recent of her films that I watched was the magnificent Bright Star about John Keats. This Portrait (from 1996 with a youthful Kidman and a boyish Bale) is not a bright star.Henry James wrote quite a few great novels and stories. The Portrait of a Lady is not among those that I like best. I have just reviewed the novel.JC takes HJ's book and shrinks it: she takes the skeleton and forgets about the tissue. She takes the people of the novel and ignores what HJ has to say about them. She only listens to what these people say and do and then she forms her own ideas about the story.For a while I thought I like the movie far better than the book. I changed my mind later. All in all, the film is rather boring.A problem of the main character in the book is that HJ dislikes her. He makes fun of her. One can only like HJ's Isabel if one ignores what he says about her.JC, in contrast, loves Isabel, and Nicole Kidman is a convincing version of what JC sees in Isabel Archer.The problem with the film version of Isabel Archer is that she acquires a personality of suppressed sexual needs. Kidman as Isabel is doing the same strange things to her men, as in the novel, but then she goes and has fantasies about sex. Campion fills James' gaps (e.g. in the film Merle and Osmond have `something'), but she does it a bit cheaply.The film version of the story loses interest later but stronger than the book. The novel recovers from disappointments better than the film. All in all, I would say the novel was better.