Vanity Fair (2004)

The corsets and high waists of the 19th century meet the lush colors and visual splendor of India in Vanity Fair, a classic novel translated into modern celluloid by Mira Nair (Monsoon Wedding). The very contemporary Reese Witherspoon (Legally Blonde, Election) at first seems to hit the wrong note as Becky Sharp, an orphaned girl who rises to the heights of society using her quick wits and feminine wiles. But as Vanity Fair unfolds, the movie's tone embraces both period decor and modern attitudes, searching for a bridge that will carry us more deeply into a different time. It isn't wholly successful--the movie's end wraps things up awkwardly--but some scenes achieve a surprising and vivid immediacy, in particular one in which Becky's gambler husband (elegant James Purefoy) catalogues his worth for her before going off to the Napoleonic battlefields; love and pragmatism fuse with heartbreaking results. --Bret Fetzer Amazon.com

Misplaced film adaptation

I read the novel about six years ago, when I was fresh out of high school, and I was curious to see how the movie stacked up. It's cases like these that the say is true that the book is always better than the movie--especially when the book in question is a classic. Of course, you can't always expect the movie to quite stack up to the book, but I must say that I was disappointed by this adaptation.

Reese Witherspoon plays Becky Sharpe, the orphan girl who aspires to rise higher than her station in life. She then spends time with her friend Amelia's Sedley's family, along with Amelia's fiancée, the arrogant George Osborne (played by a beautiful but miscast Jonathan Rhys Myers). Later, Becky goes to be the governess for the Crawleys, where she meets Rawdon and runs away with him. Becky's tale gets overshadowed in the second half of both the novel and the movie as Napoleon threatens to invade.

The exoticness of India and the bucolic setting of England make fine contrasts for one another, and the costumes in this period piece are beautiful (though oddly enough, in this movie, fashions don't change from the 1810s to the 1830s, and the characters don't seem to age much, either). But the actors seem a little too modern at times (especially Reese Witherspoon). The tone of Thackeray's novel was sarcastic at times, and the character of Jos Sedley was so ridiculous that he was actually pathetic. Here, he's just another bland, boring character. George Osbourne was much more malicious in the novel. It's a very watered-down version of the book, especially since Becky in this movie is shown to be a sympathetic character. And it just doesn't work. Through this movie, the whole point of the novel was missed out on completely. May 27, 2008

Go Reese!

Yes, they do make Becky too nice, but otherwise the movie's great! Lyrics from Tennyson's "Maud" anachronistic but very pretty! April 29, 2008

Curry-Flavored Thackeray With an Incongruous Lead

In many ways, director Mira Nair (The Namesake) is a daring, imaginative choice to helm this 2004 film adaptation of William Makepeace Thackeray's classic novel of social mores in early 19th century England. However, the end result of her vision is on the whole, rather disappointing. What could have been an energetic distillation of the book's themes turns into a lengthy episodic movie suffering from poor pacing and softened characters. It is a feast for the eyes though, as it appears Nair is intent on bringing her native India into the film as much as possible from the brightly colored period costumes to the contemporary-looking exotic dance at the Marquess of Steyne's party (with very anachronistic Rai music in the background) to the happy ending atop an elephant in Jodhpur. All these references remain true to the Calcutta-born author's story, and actually they feed into the English imagination of what India meant to them at the time.

At the same time, the images are too overwhelming to make the basic story of Becky Sharp resonate as it should. Her evolution is the heart of the story, as she moves from finishing school outsider to resourceful governess to brave captain's wife to fallen woman in a casino. It's a long, rocky journey, almost too long for a 137-minute movie to bear as it turns out. Nair, however, also has a good handle on the comic banter among the characters, and it certainly helps that she has assembled a "Who's Who" of British stage and film in all the roles except the primary one. As Becky, Reese Witherspoon gives it a valiant effort and perfects her British accent to Gwyneth Paltrow's standards, but she seems to be channeling a hybrid of her Elle Woods (Legally Blonde) and her Tracy Flick (in Alexander Payne's Election) by way of Kate Winslet in Sense & Sensibility. When facing down her opponents in her climb upward, especially in the early scenes, the performance seems right. But when her character takes on Scarlett O'Hara dimensions in wartime suffering and acts of betrayal, she seems young and overwhelmed, and her reactions come across as too modern to be true to the character's evolution as intended.

This anomaly results in a Becky Sharp who is not so much an ambitious social climber but a plucky heroine for the underclasses, a textbook example of a Tony Robbins motivational seminar. This transformation may seem endearing to those looking for nicely wrapped tales of triumph against all odds, but it doesn't lend credibility to the more pointed satire and harsher criticisms that Thackeray had in mind when he wrote the book. For example, Becky's gambler husband, Rawdon Crawley, is really more of a ne'er-do-well whose departure in the story should be viewed somewhat as relief, but as played by James Purefoy, he is a romantic figure who is guilt-ridden over his failure to provide for his family. The change could have been acceptable were it not for the fact that his character is discarded in an almost matter-of-fact way. The same sketchy treatment is given to Becky's only friend, Amelia Sedley, played by Romola Garai, who is set up as a contrast to Becky and comes across as a wet rag for much of the story. But the film transforms her into a brave widow whose romantic resolution at the end strains credibility. Somehow Purefoy and Garai acquit themselves admirably regardless.

There are many fine performances in the smaller roles. Worth mentioning are Jim Broadbent as roguish George Osborne's unforgiving father, Bob Hoskins as the clownishly pitiable Sir Pitt; Gabriel Byrne as the territorially devious Marquess of Steyne, and Geraldine McEwan's helium-voiced Lady Southdown. Best of all is the mordantly witty Eileen Atkins, who seems to understand the tone of Thackeray's story better than anyone else, and lends a dotty authority to the role of Aunt Mathilde, serving as the primary catalyst of Becky's social escalation much to her later regret. Great acting aside, the film's length does have a wearing effect since the climax does not bear the emotional weight of everything that has gone before it, and unfortunately the plot strands get wrapped up much too quickly at the end to make the story truly resonate. That's a shame since there is so much creative energy obviously at work here. As for the extras on the 2005 DVD, the major inclusion is Nair's illuminating commentary, which focuses more on the technical aspects of the film. There are also two featurettes - the first is "Welcome to Vanity Fair", a behind-the-scenes look at the production that appears to be a marketing tool to convince viewers of the contemporary nature of the story, and the second "The Women of Vanity Fair", which focuses on Nair's largely female crew. March 28, 2008

Good production, could be better.

A lot of people criticize this movie for not being faithful to the original book. Personally, having never read the book, I can appreciate this movie on its own merits. I found Becky Sharp to be a fascinating character and the drama that unfolded quickly transported me in time. The sign of a good period piece. Becky's spunk and ambition reminded me of my favorite character, Scarlett O'Hara.. then I learned that Becky was in fact the inspiration for the latter. The supporting cast was equally good, specially James Purefoy and Rhys Ifans (amazing as Dobbin), and fearless 'Aunt Crawley' who surprised me by mooning everyone in one bath scene. That said, this production had a few misses. The script feels very uneven because Becky is played more sympathetically than the story suggests. It's not clear why her family and friends react so harshly to her when Becky seems highly resourcefulness and rather harmless in comparison. Also, in trying to modernize the production, the director went over the top with costumes and make-up making some scenes look rather garish and cartoonish, a bit like the Moulin Rouge treatment. Finally, the last 10 minutes feels very rushed, with characters being thrown together haphazardly to achieve a resolution. That said, this is a story worth watching as Becky Sharp is such a spicy character to meet. March 13, 2008

If You Like this Movie, Skip the Book

I haven't read all of the reviews, so please forgive me if I write something that was already written. It appears that the plot has been minutely dissected by other reviews, so I'll just state my own personal opinion(s).

I really liked this movie ... but then I read the book and saw the other Vanity Fair (A&E, 1998) and now I can't really enjoy the Hollywood version.

This movie is very pretty but that's really all it has going for it. Becky Sharp went from a conniving, malicious social climber to a charming, sympathetic woman who really did love her husband and made attempts to love her child. It made me wonder why Reese Witherspoon was so gung-ho about the part - unless she read the script and not book.

Nearly all of the characters were Hollywood-ized so are far prettier than what the book describes. The ending is a far cry from the book; I actually got excited about the prospect of an alternate ending - until I saw it. I was hoping that the ending would provide a small amount of redemption for the the crappier original. Lo and behold - the alternate ending was a catastrophe and apparently came from beyond left field because the book sure didn't even hint at such an outcome.

Maybe I'm a bit biased due to my love of history, but I was taken aback when I heard Mira Nair state that she was not out to make yet another historical piece. It is all well and good that she feels this way, but to butcher a classic in the process is just cruel. March 9, 2008

More reviews at Amazon.com ...