The Portrait of a Lady

Theportr

Is this film a shocker or what? Many may recall Stephen Frear's "Dangerous Liaisons", which starred John Malkovich as the evil seducteur, the "Viscomte de Valmont". And here he is again, not only playing the same role, but in exactly the same style. Only his name has changed. Sliding into the Glen Close role ("Mertuil"), though perhaps a little more vulnerable, is the manipulative Barbara Hershey, whilst Nicole Kidman plays the headstrong victim (different in personality to Pfeiffer's "Madame de Tourvel", but the same circumstances really). The terrible thing is, this isn't even a good rehash. The narrative jumps all over the place, skipping the important and dwelling on the mundane, while most of the players behave completely inexplicably. You won't care for them anymore than you will Laura Jones' tale(adapted from the Henry James novel). I cannot figure out what Gillian Armstrong was trying to do here. One gets the inkling she may have been addressing the oppression of women in society. This is not a new discovery however, and Armstrong does not share anything profound with us in this area. I don't believe this was her focus though. Our dear Gillian was either embracing ideals and philosophies too sophisticated for my understanding, or she didn't have a clue what she was attempting to create. Such a shame to waste three solid performances, Wojiechj Kilar's sure music score, not to mention fine costumes and marvelous sets such as those created by Janet Patterson. Stuart Dryburgh was somewhat restricted in the use of his camera. Monday, April 6, 1998 - Hoyts Croydon

...and I've seen a lot of German films. The camera work was over self-conscious. Several entire scenes were shot using only half of the actors faces in close-up, like a bad 80's music video. Nicole Kidman was badly directed. She must have been told to weep in every scene, because that's all she did. John Malkovich was badly contained from his own acting excesses. Barbara Hersey was commendable, but really was buried under more bad direction. There were lots of gratuitous costume shots, which as a seamstress I appreciated, but really did nothing to move the plot along. All the art of the book was totally lost in this movies attempt to capture it. Dismal. I contemplated walking out but kept hoping it would get better. It didn't.

After the cool reception the film received I thought it would be very dull and pretentious. It´s much more interesting and does engage the viewer because of the tremendous acting. It´s wonderful with movies that give actors enough time and space to act out all the emotions in their character -very rare... Nicole Kidman is very talented. (I hadn´t expected that from someone married to a very mediocre actor as Tom Cruise but he must have other qualities...) Barbra Hershey is a revelation! What a tremendous actress, really everything she says rings true. Exceptional acting! She and Nicole should have been nominated for Oscars. It´s a treat to see the 2 Shelleys in film these days. Misses Winters and Duvall bring life to the film....which CANNOT be said of the overhyped John Malcovich. Is he a sleepwalker? With his half closed eyes and droning voice he is supposed to be one of Americas greatest actors. I can´t see it. He was good in "Being John Malcovich" which is just the point : John Malcovich can only play John Malcovich! It is a good film to experience. Have patience with it. Not everything works, like the 90´s girls in the beginning (huh?, was it just to attract a young audience and make the subject matter "timeless"?) The special effects of seeing the 3 lovers evaporate was unnecessary. They could just have walked out of the frame, the meaning would be the same and the scene would have been spookier without the Star Trek effects.

I did not really like the movie, at first. Nice, okay, but that was all, I thought.. Meanwhile I read the novel, watched the film again and again... And I love it more and more! Okay, NOTHING compares to "The Piano", but it's simply stunning. Jane Campion (what a director!) tells the fascinating story of Isabel in unforgettable pictures and very true to the original novel of Henry James. Nicole Kidman is just made to play the main-character and the whole cast is without exception astonishing and powerful. Kilar's musical score... A dream! Ardent, subtle themes, flowing and catchy. But not only that: The film succeeded in picking out the two most beautiful Piano-Pieces Franz Schubert ever composed; and melts story, pictures and music perfectly together. To all the people who don't like or even hate "The Portrait of a Lady": I'd like to point out, it is a masterpiece! Point. Watch it in a rainy afternoon, listen closely to the music and check out the - without a doubt - most beautiful ending of film-history! Thank you.

Isabel Archer is a complex, beautiful character as Henry James created her. She is assertive and a dreamer, if slightly naive. She is slightly uncomfortable in the new setting of England, having just moved there from America after her parents died, and the last thing she would do in front of her uncle is cry! She would also never let Gilbert Osmond (Malcovich's character) know he had hurt her - she kept all this inside. There is a subtle way to show these internal psychodramas, but Jane Campion could not find it. I saw Portrait of a Lady after i read the book, so my experience was heavily coloured by that. The book is filled with sensitive characterisations and delicate psychodramas. One way of dramatising these internal conflicts is voice-over, instead the compromise here was to have Nicole Kidman cry at the drop of a chapeau. Just not at all in the Henry James tradition.

Just three years after `The Piano', itself a well thought out and carefully prepared film, Jane Campion comes up with an adaptation of a Henry James novel that deserves just about the highest possible accolade. `The Portrait of a Lady' not only showed exquisite care in preparing the scenes of fragments of late 19th Century England and Italy and an accurate eye for the costumes, as well as some first class performances from the actors, but also a refined adaptation of this splendid novel. Henry James, North American, but lived most of his fruitful life in Great Britain, was himself an elegant literary figure whose writing easily overcame the frequently insipid hypocrasy of many Victorian era writers. He was able to hold an elegant story-line whilst obeying the formulas of the times, whereas many other novelists of the times could not, or changed literary formulas – for example Dickens, and of course later Joseph Conrad (who was not British, anyway). However, his novels would seem to defy easy adaptation to celluloid: Jane Campion and Laura Jones have pulled off one of the greatest feats ever in the cinematographic world. Very few literary delights are lost as the dialogues are scintillating, witty, or just simply elegant. Added to that, our old friend Sir John Gielgud plays his small part with that extreme tenderness which only old age and experience can lend; John Malkovich in this film shows that in many others he has been miscast: under Jane Campion's orders he offers here a tremendous reading and understanding of the characteriology of Gilbert Osmond which James himself would have enjoyed seeing. Simply superb. Which I imagine is exactly what Jane Campion sought. Barbara Hershey was evidently inspired by this perhaps somewhat feminist interpretation of the novel, though by no means can we say that this was not what James intended; she was magnificent in her secondary rôle and well deserved her Oscar (though if you push me I suppose this film should have won all of the Oscars on offer in 1996……….but it is not important, anyway). And……hm: Nicole Kidman? Forsooth, young man – this creature can actually act; Ms Kidman is not limited to simply being the lovely young lady accompanying the leading actor, whoever he may be, as she has so often been doing in other films: she also needed Jane Campion's inspiration to produce what surely must be her best performance to date. Wojciech Kilar's music is superb, beautifully synchronised with the film, offering rich orchestral tones, and the pieces of Schubert on the piano were well chosen, in line with everything else in this film. There were certain other fragments of music which I was not able to identify and may have been by Kilar himself. The music offered that final touch that elevated some moments to the heights of a poetic rhapsody. Stuart Drybergh's photography joined these sonorous accompaniments, soaring to supreme and wondrous revelations, visual aspects reaching state of the art perfection. Never have I seen so clearly in a film, to give but one example, the real difference in light on a sunny day in England and a sunny day in Italy……….. The New Zealand directress (sic, sorry) Jane Campion has carried out a masterpiece comparable with `Fanny och Alexander' that great film by the unique Ingmar Bergman. She accomplished with admirable precision and style exactly what Martin Scorsese failed miserably at with his `The Age of Innocence' (1993)(qv). I am expecting great things from Ms Campion: she is not yet 50, and in the world of art 50 years of age is but the threshold to maturity. But with `The Portrait of a Lady' she has already reached such heights of perfection that it is seemingly impossible to go much further. Or can she?

This was maybe the most boring film I ever watched. It was dark, nothing seemed to happen, the characters were uninteresting so I did not care at all what happened to them. The worst part was Nicole Kidman who appeared so cold and uninspired in her countless close-ups that I really lost the wish to see her in any movie again. All in all a big flop that everybody who likes to have some plot in the movies he watches should avoid.

I remember going to see this movie with a boyfriend back in 1997. I wanted to see this movie because I thought it would be romantic. I practically had to drag my boyfriend to see it with me, he laughed and slept thru most of it, while I tried desperately to understand the plot of the story. Nothing in this movie captured my interest!! I was so disappointed when I left the theater, I was tempted to ask for a refund!!!! I have even thought about renting the movie, if just to see if my understanding of the plot will become clear, but afraid it will only leave me feeling angry and unfulfilled. I can't give this film a good, not even a mediocre rating.

An interesting film with an undercurrent of sexual repression similar to that in Campion's other films. Nicole Kidman is excellent, given the material, though her transition from likeable, virtuous innocent to a cold and corrupted woman doesn't ring as true as it should--the three years glossed over with a subtitle isn't adequate to show the change. I blame this on the interpretation, direction, and/or editing rather than Kidman's performance, however. Malkovich is not as strong, and one wonders what any woman could see in him as a lover. The ending is cold and unsettling. Most filmgoers prefer to know that their hero/heroine is "safe" at the end of the story. Here, who knows ? Production values are good, and the film is quite stylish with interesting use of camera tilt, lighting, and angles. It's quite artsy. I am glad I saw the film, but acknowledge it's not likely to be everyone's cup of tea.