The Portrait of a Lady (1996)

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. February 19, 2008

The portrait of a BAD screenplay

I will start first by saying that," NO...I have not read the Henry James' novel." That said, my job is to review the Jane Campion film and Laura Jones written screenplay.Having seen this film several times over the years since it first was released in the theatres, I have pondered why this film has never really connected with me until today. I do believe that the real problem with this film is the screenplay itself. Laura Jones also adapted Peter Carey's OSCAR AND LUCINDA and the same problem exists in that film as it does in THE PORTRAIT OF A LADY......short scenes, uneven character development and a lack of "glue" that ties it all together to make the viewer have a total sense of identification with the characters and their situations.Jane Campion certainly has a beautiful sense of how a film should look and feel visually, but this screenplay screams for the viewer to run to read the source material to truly understand character motivation.

As in OSCAR AND LUCINDA, I read the book after viewing the film in order to REALLY understand what the film SO lacked.In other Henry James' film adaptations, such as THE BOSTONIANS and THE EUROPEANS, the treatment of James' material was much better (BOSTONIANS being the better of the two IMO). In THE PORTRAIT OF THE LADY, Laura Jones' script simply does not capture and distill the characters and the plot enough to grab a viewer for screen watching alone. The BBC mini series of PORTRAIT from the 1960's has alot more information in it, but it is still rather dull and is centered in the character Ralph Touchett and not Isabel Archer.Standing on it's own, without the book or other screen adaptations, Jane Campion's film is as cold as ice, filmed in dark blues with little light,and very disjointed. For all of it's gorgeous costuming, elegant set design and some moments of brilliant acting, PORTRAIT OF A LADY cannot overcome it's one biggest, glaring fault.....a BAD screenplay. Laura Jones should NOT adapt source material beyond her scope. May 25, 2007

What kind of moron can't see through John Malkovich?

John Malkovich plays this creep creepily just as he played Valmont in the American movie Dangerous Liasons. Ugh. Unknowing girlchiks, here's a litmus test to help you avoid Isabelle Archer's fate: Do you think this guy will ever help you move that heavy armoire up or down the stairs? NO!!! So kick him to the curb, slam the door in his face, IGNORE him. His type has no innate power, he only has power that you give to him.

Martin Donovan is all voice and Mary Louise Parker is all scary in this movie. But this might be too much voice from Martin Donovan.

Wow. I can't believe that there are people who could ruin their lives like this. April 28, 2007

Complex,, thought-provoking

The unusualness of this movie intriqued me so much that I have to give it 4 stars!!The prose and oral exchanges of the characters are very stimulating....For someone to watch @ understand this movie they have to be reasonably intelligent. A few times I paused the movie to think about what the characters meant in their converses (especially the scenes involving Malkovich @ Hershey)... I can see why the average person would think this movie is slow and dull, but the great part of this movie are the subtle conversations that take place. (Ex. When Isabel is explaining to Lord Warburton why he shouldn't marry Pansy and the dialogues between Isabel and Ralph). The ending is great as well. Not catering to the average moviegoers' sensibilities, it leaves the viewer wondering what might happen just as the book does. Alas, for this movie to be enjoyed, one needs to have an appreciation for literature. The musical score gets 5 stars!!! August 27, 2006

A LUSH AND BEAUTIFUL PERIOD PIECE...

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 the rich and beautiful 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. July 27, 2006

More reviews at Amazon.com ...