Hey folks, Harry here with the lovely Elaine who has a film here that needs some help... Allegedly it's being molested by Miramax, the happy home of independents... Well allegedly this particular time... when Merchant Ivory's latest gem didn't seem to gleam as brightly as Papa Miramax wanted, they went to slicing and dicing some 25 minutes... allegedly that doesn't seem to work, so now it looks like us U.S. filmgoers might never receive this Merchan Ivory film that the Lovely Elaine seems to enjoy so. So allegedly that all sucks, so here's Elaine to tell us what we'll be missing...
THE GOLDEN BOWL (Merchant Ivory Productions, 2000)
1. The Henry James Phenomenon
Half a decade ago, American-born, European-bred author Henry James (1843-1916) was proclaimed the new Jane Austen. Filmmakers en masse discovered his works, and a deluge of James adaptations hit the screen - some successful ("The Wings of the Dove"), others less so ("The Portrait of a Lady," Washington Square," "The American," The Turn of the Screw"). So it was only fitting that when Julia Roberts' actress character in "Notting Hill" was playing a period part, it should be in a James adaptation. 2. OK, That Covers the 1990's Fascination with James. What Do Merchant and Ivory Have to Do with It? Or Julia Roberts, for That Matter?
Thankfully, there is no appearance by the teethy Ms Roberts in the latest James adaptation, "The Golden Bowl." It is, however, unmistakably a Merchant-Ivory production. And lest you believe this is Ismail Merchant and James Ivory jumping on the bandwagon, they have actually been into James for a long time. They adapted "The Europeans" back in 1979 and "The Bostonians" in 1984. This time around, they've been a bit more ambitious, trying their hands at a much later (and therefore much more hermetic) James novel. The result may well be the best English-spoken period drama of the year.
3. That Is Not What the Critics at Cannes Said.
True, "The Golden Bowl" was given a rather lukewarm reception at Cannes 2000. Since then, however, the film has undergone a number of changes, and the current version is a definite must-see for period fans. It is easily Merchant Ivory Productions' best film since "The Remains of the Day," and it's up there with the Forster adaptations of the late eighties and early nineties. No wonder, either, given that it was penned by the same Oscar-winning screenwriter (Ruth Prawer Jhabvala, on fine, ironic form) and filmed by MIP's regular cinematographer, Tony Pierce-Roberts.
4. OK, That Sounds Good. What Is "The Golden Bowl" about?
"The Golden Bowl" tells the story of a love quadrangle set amongst Edwardian Europe's upper classes. Under the watchful eyes of meddlesome American Fanny Assingham (Anjelica Huston) and her husband Bob (Edward Fox), innocent Maggie Verver (Kate Beckinsale) hooks up with the impoverished Italian prince Amerigo (Jeremy Northam) and marries him. To make up for the loss of his daughter, to whom he is uncommonly close, Maggie's father (Nick Nolte), a widowed American millionaire plundering European art collections for a Louvre-style museum he dreams of founding in his American hometown, marries a school friend of Maggie's, Charlotte Stant (Uma Thurman). Then it turns out that Charlotte and Amerigo used to be lovers, who never got married because Charlotte's social status was not equal to her lover's. Since their respective marriages, Amerigo and Charlotte have resumed their relationship and are having trysts right under the eyes of their spouses, who are too engrossed in each other to notice.
5. What Happens Next?
Well, that's for you to find out, isn't it? All I will say is that it revolves around the following questions:
- Will the Ververs become aware of what is going on around them?
- If so, will there be a major confrontation, or will the Ververs beat their spouses at their sophisticated social intrigue?
- Will the Ververs leave their spouses and lead the idyllic father-and-daughter kind of life they lived before their respective marriages, or will they try to save their marriages?
- And, on a more cultural level, will Mr Verver's vision of European civilisation in his American hometown hold up, or will it fall flat, as the people around him believe?
6. Ah, a Simple Love Story with Some Comments on American Civilisation Thrown in. How Jolly.
"The Golden Bowl" is by no means a simple love story. Like nearly all of James's works, "The Golden Bowl" (1904) is an exploration of the nature of innocence and experience, more particularly American innocence versus European experience. Consciousness of evil is represented by the titular golden bowl, a gilded crystal with an invisible crack in it which Amerigo and Charlotte consider buying as a wedding gift for Maggie and which Maggie herself later stumbles on. The question the bowl raises is not "is this flawed gem worth the price one is asked to pay for it?" but "does the crack matter if you don't know it's there?" Which in turn leads to other philosophical questions such as...
- Is Charlotte and Amerigo's relationship wrong in itself, or is it only wrong if Maggie's awareness of it begins to make it wrong?
- Should Maggie be made aware of the flaws in her life, or be allowed to live in blissful innocence?
- To which extent does one own others, and can one lose someone he's never really had?
- Is giving one's beloved a lot of freedom a sign of true love or of a fear of commitment?
- How much meddling in other people's lives is acceptable, and when does meddling become manipulation?
- What are the moral implications of the control people have over others?
- What kind of havoc does the triumph of moral virtue wreak upon the victims of its process, or upon the victors?
- Does innocence make a person just vulnerable, or can it make one cruel, too?
Questions such as these are well hidden behind Ivory's splendid decors, refined manners and repressed emotions, but they're there for the intelligent viewer to ponder. Not quite such a simple love story, then.
7. Why Was It So Hard for MIP to adapt "The Golden Bowl" to the Screen?
"The Golden Bowl" is a novel of consciousness, heavy on internal drama and short on events or dialogue. What little action there is mostly takes place in the characters' minds, which are of a supersubtle, highly introspective and incredibly imaginative cast. Such internal drama is notoriously hard to translate to celluloid without resorting to dream sequences, inauthentic conversations and other stuff that wasn't in the book. Screenwriter Ruth Prawer Jhabvala wisely decided to stay away from such artificial flourishes, confining herself to dialogue lifted straight from the book (most of it, anyway) and facial expressions that suggest growing awareness and intricate thought processes without actually transcribing them. This is not necessarily a bad solution. For one thing, Jhabvala couldn't possibly have succeeded in conveying the richness of James's moral musings even if she had seriously tried. It takes more than two hours to do a late James novel justice; I doubt even a six-part BBC serialisation could do the trick. For another thing, there is plenty of good stuff left even without an abundant visualisation of the characters' internal struggles.
8. What's So Good about the Film, Then?
Well, the decors and cinematography are as impressive as they've ever been in MIP films, and the acting, too, is solid. It's hard to say who is best in the ensemble cast of experienced actors, but if I had to pinpoint a particular standout performance, I'd mention Kate Beckinsale's. Beckinsale doesn't look quite as gorgeous as Thurman (she looks better with her hair down than put up, as it is in this film), but she makes a convincing bland American pretty little rich wife who gradually grows less innocent than she appears to be.
9. Any Gratuitous Nudity in the Film?
Gratuitous nudity in a Merchant-Ivory production? You must be kidding me. However, there is a scene involving a fully-clad Uma Thurman wearing a blue dress with peacock feathers and matching blue jewels which is pure Viagra. The audacity of the look is stunning, as is the blueness of her eyes. Someone please tell me these are coloured contacts she's wearing...
10. Does This Film Portray Women as Lust Objects, Then?
No, not at all. Aside from Uma Thurman's Charlotte, a rather less repressed heroine than we've come to expect in Merchant-Ivory productions, the women in the film are remarkably sexless. If anything, they are art objects - walking parts of Adam Verver's immense art collection. Need proof? Look out for the scene towards the end of the film where a parasol-toting Thurman stands in the garden. This is a Monet painting, ladies and gentlemen. You'll know the one I mean when you see the scene.
11. Any Other Interesting Flourishes in the Film?
The film opens with a distinctly un-Jamesian but adventurous and atmospheric blast from the far past and ends with some semi-authentic 1907-style black-and-white footage. The latter had been used before in that other grand James adaptation, "The Portrait of a Lady," but it's done better here - if only because it comes at the end of the film and so doesn't distract from the development of the story, as it did in Campion's film. Apart from that, it's the usual Merchant-Ivory fare - castles, corsets and sophisticated dialogue.
12. So When Can We See This Film?
That depends on where you live. After the film's failure to garner rave reviews at Cannes, the original June 23 release date was pushed back to November 3 to allow for changes, and now Miramax threaten to bump even the revamped "Golden Bowl" off the American release schedule. The matter in dispute? Some 25 minutes' worth of footage which Miramax want to see cut and Merchant and Ivory insist on keeping in the film.
Personally, I hope Merchant and Ivory will stick to their guns, even if it means their latest project won't be released in the US. This is not just because I believe on principle that directors should be given the right to have their films released the way they want them to be released, but also because this particular film would be severely marred by a 25-minute cut. Apart from the very un-Jamesian but beautifully executed opening sequence, there isn't a single scene that could be deleted without the film becoming incoherent, let alone 25 minutes' worth of scenes. Besides, there is simply no need for a cut. "The Golden Bowl" isn't long-winded; compared to such predecessors as "Howard's End" and "The Remains of the Day," whose second acts dragged, it is positively a brisk walk. It takes the viewer through the motions quickly and competently and leaves him little time to think about what he has seen. In fact, it may well leave him TOO little time to think about what he has seen. If anything, then, Merchant and Ivory should be given MORE time to tell their story, not less.
Let's hope Miramax will listen to reason, so that American period drama fans will be able to enjoy this film as well as their non-American counterparts.
Elaine
