Hi, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab...
I’m a huge John Irving fan, and A WIDOW FOR ONE YEAR is one of his best recent books. I missed a screening of this one this morning, though, and hope I get a chance to check it out in the next couple of weeks. This is the first review of any kind that I’ve read for it, and it doesn’t sound like this guy liked it very much at all...
Hey Harry,
I saw the American Museum of the Moving Image's preview screening of "The Door in the Floor" yesterday. The film was adapted from the first third of John Irving's novel "A Widow of One Year" and is supposed to be released in July. Jeff Bridges stars as Ted Cole, author and illustrator of creepy, unpleasant childrens' books. A boozy, manipulative, philandering misogynist, he is married to Marian, played by the still lovely and glamorous Kim Basinger. Their two teenaged sons having died together in a gruesome accident several years before, blonde moppet Elle Fanning is now their only child, Ruth. A strange brat, she is quite unhealthily obsessed with the many pictures of her late brothers that decorate her home. Poor Marian is so broken up over the tragedy that she cannot manage even to pretend to be an adequate mother. Ted generally behaves abominably towards women, but tries to be a good father.
Sick of his wife's endless grief, Ted humiliates another woman, played by Mimi Rogers, for his "art," which involves degrading nude portraiture. Shortly after the film begins, we find out Jeff and Kim are separating. They will have to take turns spending nights away from their shingled oceanfront cottage with acres of lawn in Southampton, L.I. (the most improbable thing about this movie is that the Coles could afford their spread, especially considering the ugliness of his childrens' books, which are a reflection of his horrible personality and psyche). Ted's driver's license was revoked, so he hires Eddie O'Hare, a 16-year student at Philips Exeter, where his father once taught English to the two dead sons, as his "assistant." Eddie is an aspiring writer and is supposed to be learning or whatever, but his main task is to chauffeur his boss to his trysts with Mimi Rogers. Of course, he immediately falls in love with his boss's wife. Jeff Bridges gives a very good performance - narcissistic, flamboyant and grandiose with a cruel streak, yet still sympathetic.
Kim Basinger on the other hand, what can I say? Tennis rackets used to be wooden like her acting; now they are plastic like her face. Her part is nothing to write home about, but "opaque" does not begin to describe this performance. She has a limited range and while she can convey vulnerability to some extent, she needs much more sensitive direction to convey a character like Marian Cole, who is supposed to be paralyzed by loss, trauma and grief. Kim Basinger fails to convey the motivations behind her character's actions, which are rather strange. Nor do we have any idea how she feel might feel about her horrid husband.
Jon Foster's part is really a lead, and he is excellent, a real find. As I watched the movie I thought that he looked rather like a young John Kerry, albeit better looking. Elle Fanning is one of those mannered, annoying child actors peculiar to the more pretentious Hollywood films. She would be much better in Children of the Corn XVII or whatever. Also, the score is trite and annoying. The film would be a more pleasant experience without it. Also, if you have a low tolerance for anachronisms, this is not the film for you. Eddie's relationship with his rigid pedagog father, his manner in relating to adults, Ted as a writer, and everything about Marian's character come straight from the 1950s. Furthermore, there is no way in hell that any sort of writer would be able to afford that house, which might cost $10 million. However, probably for cost reasons, the filmmakers set it in the present day with Eddie a member of Exeter's class of 2005. Otherwise, it was quite watchable. Jon Foster has the most screen time and is sufficiently appealing and interesting for the film not to drag on too much. He does not overract and maintains a certain remoteness that is appropriate, because as it turns out the film is not about him anyway.
Or at least that is what John Irving said at the question and answer afterwards. I have never liked John Irving as a novelist, not that I have read all of his overlong, rambling, sentimental novels. He said something that stayed with me though. He said that once someone has gone through the pain of outliving their offspring, if anyone should judge their behavior, f••k them. I was amused at his moral judgment of those who would judge his fictional characters, whose loss is just as much contrived for its masochistic fascination as that of Harry Potter's parents, simply because that's the easiest way to steal empathy from the audience. Otherwise Irving and the director mostly talked about how marvelously gratified they were with their decision to only adapt that part of the novel.
Ben
Thanks, Ben. I appreciate you taking the time to review it, and you’ve certainly piqued my curiosity.
"Moriarty" out.
