The Portrait of a Lady (1996) Reviews

• A woman is torn between independence and love in this feminist adaptation of Henry James' novel.

  hommedeplume2001-03-14

  Many people could not warm up to this remarkable adaptation of Henry James' novel, A Portrait of a Lady. The dark, abusive themes and open ending are not part of typical costume drama fare, but both are true to Henry James' novel and to Jane Campion's vision. Henry James originally wrote the novel in the 1880s. Intended as an exploration of what a woman might do if she were given independent means, James' book indicts women as being trapped by a weaker nature. Exploring the same material Campion's movie comes to a different conclusion. The adaptation and direction are superb. The movie maintains the steady rhythm of doom that makes James' novel an enduring classic. There is no place where this is more evident in the film than in its lingering images. The camera holds on to the subject a moment longer than expected, making the viewer a little uncomfortable, and anticipating sudden disaster that never quite arrives. Ms. Campion directs this film like a horror film, which is exactly what it is. The acting in this film is also convincing, from Nicole Kidman's paralyzed Isabel, to John Malkovich as a hypnotically terrifying pursuer. They are backed by a solid cast of major actors in minor roles, all adding to Isabel's complex societal tragedy. Portrait of a Lady, particularly this film adaptation, is a remarkable example of how stories may stay the same, but their meanings change over time. Related films include: Washington Square (1997), The House of Mirth (2000), The Buccaneers (1995)(mini).

• The Best Screen Adaptation of a Henry James Novel

  amileoj2006-01-17

  Given the tenor of some of the other reviews posted here, I should start by making the extent of my disagreements clear. First, this film is unquestionably Jane Campion's best work to date, and it represents, in particular, a significant advance beyond her previous work in The Piano. Second, this film, while unapologetically feminist in point of view, in no sense attempts to shoehorn James's artistic vision into an ideological box for which it is unsuited. On the contrary, James has probably never been more sensitively interpreted on screen. Third, purely as a film, The Portrait of a Lady belongs on a short shelf among the very best movies of the 1990's, of whatever genre. Consider what Campion was up against: A literary adaptation, in the first place (itself almost a recipe for cinematic failure); a Henry James novel, in particular (a novelist who situated most of the "action" in his novels in the invisible social and psychological spaces between his characters, and whose works therefore constitute a kind of standing temptation to focus on picturesque/prestigious historical ambiance at the expense of narrative power); and a story, as James himself pointed out, centered on the seemingly quite confined topic of one very ordinary young woman's working out of her particular destiny. Out of these distinctly unpromising materials, Ms. Campion created a film in which nearly every scene adds depth and color to her story, even after repeated viewings. And her Isabelle Archer (beautifully realized by Nicole Kidman, in possibly her finest performance to date) is as fully tested and tried by life's moral and epistemological ambiguities, and as fully responsive to life's promise, on film, as Henry James's heroine is, on the printed page. One could hardly ask for more.

• Misses the mark, but shouldn't be entirely dismissed

  SKG-21999-09-14

  When I read DAISY MILLER in high school and was completely unengaged, that set me off the wrong foot with Henry James. I also dislike his over-attentiveness to detail, and I must confess a prejudice against any writer who says in 10 pages what they could just have easily said in 2. Yet THE PORTRAIT OF A LADY, once you get into it, turns out to be quite a powerful novel, and given how much I loved THE PIANO, I was really looking forward to what Jane Campion could bring to it. Rarely have I seen a movie version, though, which is so far off the mark but still has worthy parts to it. Let's start with the mistakes. Campion claimed she was re-imagining the story of Isabel Archer, an American woman of character but not of means, who eventually marries unhappily, instead of just giving a straight filmed version. That's all well and good, but what she and writer Laura Jones do is all but gut the motivations behind the story; we don't see Archer's vitality early on, so we have nowhere to go when she falls, and we don't see what draws people to her. And when Madame Merle and Osmond appear, they are so obviously snakes in the grass that we think Archer is a fool for trusting them, instead of feeling empathy for her. It doesn't help that Malkovich is so obviously bored here he does nothing to exude any charm. Hershey comes off better, but what's done with her character is a little strange as well. Nevertheless, this movie can't be easily dismissed. First of all, Campion's gift for imagery still comes through; she visually expresses the passions lying hidden in the novel, which few directors do when adapting period pieces. Also, Kidman grows more confident as the movie wears on, so we do get a sense of Isabel. But as someone already commented, the most worthy element here is Martin Donovan as Ralph, Isabel's sickly cousin in love with her, and whose advice sets the whole story in motion. He doesn't play for sentiment, but earns it instead. The ending also keeps its power. Still, this is quite a missed opportunity for Campion.

• A cool, enigmatic film, but stylish...

  Kiwi-71998-09-13

  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.

• Refined, elegant, exquisite, sublime: a poetic rhapsody

  khatcher-22001-09-19

  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?