The Portrait of a Lady

I have tried several times to watch this film, but I can't even get past the awful beginning before I totally give up.Not that I don't love Henry James or would not love a well-made film of Portrait of a Lady. I have read the novel three times at least over the years, and it is brilliant.But this film starts out badly, and Nicole Kidman does not suit the role of Isabel Archer, in my opinion, at all. Nor does John Malkovich at all suit the character of the Gilbert Osmond. He's often typecast as an evil or dark figure, although his acting range can and sometimes does take him far afield from those types. Although in the novel Osmond does ultimately turn out to be quite a dark character, in this film and story, Malkovich at first appearance throws off a bit too much darkness, which in the novel is not quite as obvious quite so early as it is here.Moreover, he does not fit well with the handsome romantic type that Osmond initially appears to Isabel.The film is slow and excruciating, whereas when one reads James, the slowness is far outweighed by the exultant prose that gloriously weaves every detail and subtlety into its rich fullness. The film comes up so short it is painful.It ought to have been so much better, given the cast. Some parts are played very well, but others (including the parts taken by Kidman and Malkovich) just made me cringe.I was never able to complete the film, despite many attempts, and I can't recommend it.I do recommend reading Portrait of a Lady in all its literate glory and leaving this film to those unfamiliar with James' brilliance.

I had just read the Henry James novel for the first time at age 75. This film version can best be described as a Cliff’s Notes version of the novel. At least 70-80% of the movies dialogue is taken directly from the book, and scenes are presented in the same order as in the book.What is missing are James’ narrative of the feelings, emotions and desires of the many characters portrayed. If I had not been aware of the motives and personalities of the different characters from reading the novel it would have been impossible to make any sense of the movie.Perhaps if director Campion had added a narrator to fill the viewer in on what James narrative was in the book it could have made it more accessible to non readers.Ideally a work of this complexity would best be presented as a mini series.For me the character of Ralph was the strongest and most likable of the book. Action flows around Isabel but she herself does little to move the narrative.I had great hope that John Malkovich could be brilliant as Gilbert Osmond—since he’s shown an ability to portray a menacing intellectual. But he very much overplayed the part.The movie has him striking Isabel and also tripping her so she falls, something the Osmond book character would never have considered doing.And director Campion devotes many precious minutes of screen time to scenes of Kidman simply standing or sitting in an outdoor setting—time which could have been put to better use explaining the plot.All in all a noble but flawed attempt at filming a great novel.

First of all, no adaptation can ever equal the great book by Henry James. He had a gift not only for writing about displacement but also for writing complicated women - women who strive for a better place, a better solution and a better role to fill than the limited one afforded to them by society. Isabel Archer is one of his greatest creations and I thought she was wonderfully played by Nicole Kidman. This is a difficult role and it could not have been easy for her to take it on as Isabel runs the gamut of emotions from start to finish. She inhabits the role of Isabel - of being that woman who longs for something more, something elusive, something different. Her co-stars provide her with the very thing she longed for, to the ultimate sad outcome.Martin Donovan and Barbara Hershey deserve extra accolades for the believability they lent to their characterizations of Ralph Touchett and Serena Merle. Ralph is the unacknowledged heart of the story until his sad demise and Isabel's realization of his unintended contribution to her now sad life. Merle, the consummate American sophisticate and expatriate, is peeled apart layer by layer on screen. She manages expertly to be a mosaic of a person - a different character with every person she encounters - but she is ultimately trapped by the choices she has made. In some ways, she is more tragic than Isabel and in other ways, she is more devious than Gilbert. The hardest roles to fill onscreen are those of the selfless (Ralph) and the complex (Merle). Martin and Barbara were perfectly cast.The direction by Jane Campion was a bit frazzled as she inserted certain dream sequences which I found unnecessary and bizarre. The Isabel of Henry Jame's creation may have been headstrong, but she was never dreamy or prone to such flights of fancy. I also found the ending did a disservice to the story. There was no hope for Casper and Isabel and she should have been shown in the context of the ending of the novel. At the conclusion of the novel, Isabel was left with two choices - return to Osmond or rescue Pansy. Through Ralph, she had secured a financial legacy, with his passing she had acquired the freedom to make this choice, which were offered as a result of her own choices in life. An ending fitting for a complex tale.

This 1996 adaptation of the book tells the story of Isabel Archer [Nicole Kidman], an naive young woman of independent means who refuses marriage in order to discover ‘life’ and heads for England in 1872, but is pursued by two suitors. At the base of it all is the human craving for monetary gain –especially marriage for wealth not love, a trend Isabel appears to be trying to flee from but ends up becoming ensnared in when her wealthy uncle dies, leaving her a small fortune. Isabel is a bit of a dreamer and fantasist, soon falling under the influence of her new older and more worldly new ‘friend’ Madame Merle [Barbara Hershey] and the devious rapscallion Gilbert Osmond [John Malkovich]. Can Isabel maintain her independence and free-will or will she capitulate to social norms?With a star studded cast this promises much but at almost 2½ hours in length the slow pace and stage theatre feel is somewhat long [lose a *]. Much of the settings are dark and dingy, adding to the oppressive atmosphere, as even the romantic settings they find themselves in are often miserable, but the 5.1 surround sound is truly inspired in some scenes, especially corridors and cavernous buildings.The single disc opens to a 6 language choice screen, which then goes to main menu offering play, scene selection, onus material [trailer and a documentary], audio languages [4 choices, English, French, castellano and Italian] and subtitle languages [English, deaf and hard of hearing, French, Italian, Castellano, Portuguese and Netherlands].As a miniseries it would work, but not as a long film, requiring a 45 minute trim. If you can stick with it, it is a great story, although quite obvious, and I’d like to give more than *** but found it dragged out and too ‘arty’ in approach.

Jane Campion transposed one of Henry James' best novels into a formidable masterpiece.She captured luminously the author's main themes: money and love, Puritanism, innocence and survival.A gift of a fortune by an uncle to a young lady turns into a nightmare: money doesn't buy happiness.She becomes the target of those who need the money for their own `standing' and the survival of their offspring (daughter).Another main theme of Henry James is Puritanism: the rejection of the `physical' body. The innocent lady is captured through the discovery of physical contact, here, a French kiss. It overwhelms her completely and she gets entangled in a web of lies, hard plays of domination and subtle intrigues in order to keep her former admirers at bay. She stays blind for the `real' world of true affections until she is confronted with naked and shattering facts.The performance of the cast (Nicole Kidman, John Malkovich, Barbara Hershey and others) is simply sublime. Rarely have difficult expressions in harsh and deeply pure or malignant emotional confrontations so intensely been interpreted.A must see.

I got this as soon as I had finished the book. I really liked the novel right up until the ending, which I found very hard to understand! However maybe that's just my modern perspective. Jane Campion tries to relate Isabel Archer to modern young women in the title sequence, where lots of contemporary women are seen hanging around, dancing or talking etc. Isabel Archer was trapped by her time though; as much as she was an intelligent and free spirited woman, in the end she just gave in to acting as society demanded of her. I thought the film was very slow despite some good performances. The cast were largely very well suited to their roles. In a way the film itself seems dated as a product of the 1990s, which maybe doesn't help my view of it. It is very dark to look at as other reviewers have said and just really really slow. Maybe it would be hard to make a more dynamic version of this book but I can't say I enjoyed watching it.

to put thos great book in a two hour movie can not work! the casting is pretty much ok buut it all feels pushed and hurried an d one does loose totally the beauty of the book! scorsces "age of the innocence" is a much better attempt 2 catch this period and feeling! maybe a four parter over 8hours could do justice 2 the great henry james!

Like so many films of Henry James's novels, this explains much that is unclear in the writing. But this is also a superb film, beautifully cast, with characterisation that brings out all the Jamesian subtleties of relationships, and much of the seductiveness which James seems not to address directly.