Portrait of a Lady
|
Our Price: $17.21 Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $1.69 (click here) Category: VHS Video See more movie releases |
|---|
Canada
VHS Movie Reviews of Portrait of a Lady
Movie Review: flux and paradigms
Summary: 5 Stars
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.
Movie Review: Not as good as I was hoping
Summary: 1 Stars
"A Portrait of a Lady" is a really FINE novel, about a headstrong American heiress who might have married anyone she wanted, and chose the absolute worst man possible. Like I thought of the recent film "The End of the Affair", everyone would be better served by reading the excellent novel and just leaving it at that.This movie could have been great, like the novel is, except for a tremendously fatal flaw made in the casting. John Malkovich plays Gilbert Osmond, the fellow Isabel (Nicole Kidman) completely misreads and marries. I found him entirely wrong for the part. When I read the novel years ago, I cast my own movie version in my mind, as I'm sure many may do to help visualize what's being played out. Osmond is a ritualist, a sensualist, but a sensualist without love. He may have passion, but there would be no tenderness. He constantly compares himself to the pope, as he like the pontiff lives in Rome. Well, the actor who came to mind then, and still did when I re-read the book ages later, is Orson Welles, as he was in "The Third Man". It has to be someone who as I say is somewhat sensuous looking. And Welles was that, with his thick lips and satiated eyes. Malkovich? No, no way. Why would she ever have thought him attractive? He was always creepy; there wasn't anything to misinterpret. Bad casting, pure and simple.
Movie Review: Masterpiece.
Summary: 5 Stars
To a scandalous degree, Henry James -- Dead White Male that he is -- understood female psychology better than almost everyone in the history of literature (only Shakespeare and Virginia Woolf rival his primacy in this). In fact, OVERTLY "feminist" literature really begins here, with his novel *The Portrait of Lady* and his heroine, Isabel Archer. (With the Brontes, Sand, and others, it was all subtext. Heck, they felt obliged to publish their works as male writers.) Rather than be outraged by this, director Jane Campion honors James' trailblazing. She works with his material, rather than against it: meaning, she doesn't try to CORRECT James, something which her fellow feminist directors would doubtless find very easy to do. While avoiding such artistic immaturities, Campion does make a point of bridging the century-long gap between the source material and 1996 with an audacious title-sequence that indicates how freer women are in some ways while at the same time showing how they still perceive themselves as not at all autonomous from the men in their lives. From there, we're treated to a technically masterful, psychologically acute rendition of the novel. Almost every shot is beautiful, innovative, inventive. The script is dense AND intense, no easy feat. The performances? John Malkovich's deliberate line-readings, tics, and serpentine manner, normally so irritating and distracting, for once seem totally in accord with the part he's playing. (But Campion keeps a firm clamp on Richard E. Grant, also known for an idiosyncratic style of acting.) As for Nicole Kidman and Barbara Hershey, each has never been better. One may say the same for Jane Campion as director, too. -- I must say it was disheartening to see so many lukewarm reviews from Amazon reviewers. Bad reviews from professional "critics", especially when it comes to truly challenging material, is par for the course; one expects better from thoughtful viewers . . . but then, *The Portrait of a Lady* seems to have corraled very few of those. I heartily concur with a reviewer below who admonished, "Get a clue, people." One problem people have with the movie is the nature of the relationship between Isabel and the loathsome Osmond, which strikes some as unrealistic, even masochistic . . . but then, that was James' whole point. Of COURSE Isabel would be perversely attracted to a guy who says things like, "I'm sick of my adorable taste." The biggest complaint is reserved for the ending. Why? Must you be spoonfed everything? Look: the crisis of decision IS the climax. It's the whole point. It's what the movie has been about, sequence after sequence. So, no: it's not "They lived happily ever after", or "They all died tragically. Curtain." I'm sorry to say that any shortcomings you might find with *The Portrait of a Lady* are probably a classic case of what the shrinks call "projecting" . . . in other words, the shortcomings are yours, not the movie's.Movie Review: Beautifully painful portrayal
Summary: 4 Stars
Nicole Kidman is convincing. The creation of this imagery of entrapment -- the kind of hell that social relationships can become, of their potentially destructive effects on the human spirit is terrifying and yet, this excellent film is beautifully captured. The plays with light and darkness and Nicole's bright future slowly slides into oblivion. It's a remarkable film.It might speak to only one gender, however. I found that my male collegues were not so enticed by it. It may be that men have not felt the same domination in relationships that Nicole's character portrays so bravely.
And yet, I wonder. In as much as Shakespeare was right, "men have been deceivers ever," I think the same must be said for both genders. So it might be, that reading to the film, male viewers can identify the entrapment as well.
Embedded in this film is a hidden recipe for how to do a relationship well. For even from those that you learn how not to act, you still have learned.
Movie Review: Lonnnnnggggg
Summary: 3 Stars
Overall quite good, but it sure drags on...and on...and on. Some scenes just go on forever, and often it seems like what would have made one good scene was split into about three. I thoroughly enjoyed Nicole Kidman and John Malkovich, but I'm not sure what all the fuss about Barbara Hershey was--she wasn't bad, but I didn't find her exceptional either, she just blended in with the rest of them. Mary-Louise Parker was completely irritating, whereas Martin Donovan, Richard E.Grant, and Viggo Mortensen (whose character kept showing up out of nowhere--very confusing) were usually good, but with a few weak moments. That pretty much summed up the film: potentially great, but too long, too pretentious, and too murky on some fairly essential plot points. Still, the scene where Malkovich makes Kidman fall in love with him is great. Really intense.