When I reached 40, I didn’t hear anything about this creature and it was undeserved. Initially, I watched the film, which hooked ... hooked with the plot, the basis of the story, incomprehensible gaps, heroes. Reviews stirred up interest and read the novel (to find it in our days on sale is also not just turned out).
The film is female, beautiful, melodramatically leisurely, with lovers and benefactors ... in the style of Austin novels. Good old England and Italy... it's incredibly tasty and beautiful (what to see, what to read).
The book looked more for answers, because it seemed to be a story about psychological trauma - a rescuer, a victim, an abuse. ..
But already at the entrance was amazed that Kidman and the heroine in the description, to put it mildly, are not very similar. But Kidman himself conveyed as well as it was possible to play. Same thing happened with Ozmod, Tachit. The actors managed 110 out of 100!!! Dubbing dialogues are often identical to the translation of the novel. And the eventfulness is sustained consistently, reading the book I more & #39; revisited & #39; the film in my head already. Rarely does anyone shoot with such precision. Small digressions, the beginning slightly shifted relative to the book, removed Ms. Stackpol (it is not clear why and why), added scenes with assault (in the book no one beats anyone physically neither Tachit nor Isabella), the devastation of Ralph at the news of the marriage.
But the book turned out to be a little different. Henry James is not my visible author (or translation is not so good).
The story itself deserves attention, the film is worth seeing, the game, the surroundings are amazing!!! It’s been a long time since I’ve had such aesthetic pleasure watching and for a very long time the plot didn’t touch me enough to read a book on it. But still it is a novel, so a lot is idealized and not viable.
But the most amazing thing is that when watching and reading, nothing arises to the main character except observation, but you penetrate Ralph and cause much more interest.
The film is heavy in emotional background and colors, but it is also psychological and serious issues are touched upon in it and even from reviews it is clear that everyone saw something with a closer edge in this film. The aftertaste of the film is there, and it is peculiar. But it's a taste you can't find in every supermarket.
Having removed in 1992, which had great success with critics and the public, the drama “Pianino”, a very murky New Zealand director Jane Campion decided to return to the problems of the ladies’ heart and soul, choosing for the film adaptation of the compositionally and stylistically rather difficult novel by Henry James “Woman’s Portrait”. Indeed, the story of the American Isabelle Archer, a proud and intelligent girl who for a long time refused profitable suitors in order to eventually fall under the influence of a despot husband, the acquaintance with whom was organized by her insidious friend Madame Merle, was a perfect basis for aesthetic reflections on psychosexual complexities, subconscious masochism and the classic conflict between reason and feelings. Campion coped only partially - flirting with different styles, distracted by various inconsequential details, instead of focusing on clear psychologism and drawing images and motivations of the characters' actions, she manifests herself as a very unfocused director, spreading thoughts on a tree and adoring blurred inconcretions, as a result of which the film was recognized by criticism as one of the main disappointments of the film season.
But, what is most hurtful, the positive moments in the picture was very much that it is quite catchy. For starters, acting. Lived all the 90s with the stigma of “red wife of Tom Cruise” Nicole Kidman proved herself as a powerful dramatic actress, on full dedication bringing herself on the screen to a state of incredible nervous tension – it is not surprising that after heavy filming she went down for a week with a nervous breakdown. Very good and Barbara Hershey, with savor, grace and feeling played a kind of conscientious Marquise De Mertheus from “Dangerous Liaisons” Choderlo de Laclo, who fell at one time a victim of the manipulator Gilbert Osmond performed by John Malkovich, whose choice for the role was also clearly dictated by associations with Valmont. A separate theme is a visual series. The magnificent cameraman Stuart Dreiberg perfectly feels not only the picturesque nature and entourage, but also dramatic close-ups, turning glances and touches into the main method of influence, especially under the mesmerizing powerful music of Wojciech Kielar. Alas, the general blurry and nebulous narrative scared off not only criticism, but also the audience, because of which the picture failed at the box office, collecting a pitiful $ 3.6 million. With the awards, too, did not work out - Oscar nominations were awarded only to costume designer Janet Patterson and Barbara Hershey, and Kidman for his efforts did not even receive a nomination for the Golden Globe.
7 out of 10
This film is worthy of attention only thanks to the exquisite costumes, luxurious interiors and cute face Nicole Kidman. Indeed, visually the film is perceived organically, ecstatic, relaxing. The voices of the actors, their refined speech, as well as harmonious musical accompaniment delight the ear. It would seem that watching this movie is a pleasure. If it wasn't for the plot. If you don't think about it.
Girl, you're stupid and naive. You pretend to be a free woman, and you act like a mouse, snotting your face. Maybe this is the beginning of feminism - through fear of angering a husband who lives on your money - still find the freedom he wants?
But it was too boring, uninteresting and old-fashioned. I barely endured those 2.5 hours of tedious dialogue, overplayed emotions and suffering. The picture is so tiresome that there is no strength to even think about what it was at all.
And even the close-ups of Nicole and her thin nose couldn't save this film.
It's like drinking a hemlock infusion, like I'm in the summer.
Right hand with an elbow, head, right knee, another right hand, replaced, not with a scepter, but with a sign of the cross, left shin, right foot, left kneecap, left leg, then the same in reverse order - leg, kneecap, shin, hand, knee, proudly planted on a powerful neck, in a helmet tightly studded curls, with a beautiful, capricious, arrogant mouth head - and again the elbow of the right hand: all that remained of the colossive element of the emperor Marcus-Consertiusiusius in the vacantified asylum of St. Rumbling, chaotically flashing between the gray, dust-covered, tan eras of the wreckage of the colossus, bright ribbons of hats perched on high chignons, checkered frills of winter crinoline, heels with glasses, waists with violins, fresh, washed faces of late Victorian ladies, Victorian richly fed, but bored with self-satisfied virtues, sprung from the spirit of Rome, so as not to live in the puffy world.
And live and flit butterflies between the ruins, and think that communion of Roman glory from Capitoline heights, beautiful creatures, from that generation that — perhaps the only one of all recorded generations — and was not called by all good as interlocutors at a feast, for the simple reason that the fateful minutes of peace they did not fall in their lifetime. They did not visit this world to drink the highest bliss of participation in great upheavals, but to watch the upheavals frozen in marble at the hand of the artist. Which paradoxically makes them proportionate to the imperial colossus.
Because, in Jane Champion’s interpretation, Henry James’ self-directed mannerism, unsympathetic cronyism, starchy refinement, and capricious pettiness, with his evergreen American expats, among the musty beauties of the Old World, turn into something especially valuable to those who survived the twentieth century. Its characters, liberated by history from fear and loss, in the serene time allotted to them conscientiously, desperately even, without putting their hands on it, weave the canvas of civilization - for the future, so that there is enough chaos and destruction for a hundred years. Bring to inconceivable perfection the art of wearing a tournure, sortie de ball, boa, fan, fez, cylinder. They fill their living space with amazing grace with trinkets. The Renaissance palazzo Taverna, mentioned even by Dante in “Purgatory”, repair the mechanism of its multi-tiered fountain, carpet its baroque stairs, clean the frescoes of Sebastiano Ricci and Rosa di Tivoli from candle soot, rub the parquet to shine, let the sound of the waltz be charming, and mazurki, and polonaise, and cavatinas, and barcaroles, and ave of morning a capella. They do not fall in love with money, but with the promise of refined sensuality. They marry money aesthetically, not by pig greed and regurgitation. And they even mock beautifully, without dirt, without petty philistine lies - cloaking with cold, when the soul and body are burning passionately, and unkempt feelings are craving a way out.
Jane Campion recalls more than once in the course of the film that James' favorite poet was Keats, and the favorite tale for the reader from Keats "Love"? - The laziness toy is golden! Motivations for maximum comfortable survival invariably turn out to be a pragmatist-James much more priority than the longings of a vague spirit, and, by and large, do not lose them aesthetically. The young lady's comb becomes a tiara, the arrow of Cupid is a billiard cue, and Mark Antony lives in Brunwick Square, and Cleopatra lives in number seven. But all these metamorphoses are much more picturesque, if Miss is fresh and a skater, the cavalier is an osanist and is trained by horseback riding and boxing, and on her dresses from Worth, and on him frocks from Stultz, and they trample on the Roman bridges of Ponte and Rion Pinha, and are explained in their not the most difficult feelings at the colossal ancient leg that belonged to the once statue of Isis and abandoned in one of the inner courtyards of the Jesuit quarter, legs so ancient, and famous and colored by Renégrene from the artistic association of the Baigrene.
Late nineteenth century. Young and attractive American Miss Isabel Archer comes to visit her uncle in England. There, she excites the secular society with her free-thinking thoughts about women’s freedom, especially, of course, men who perceive this as the youthful whim of a nice person and are not at all averse to getting such a cute woman to be their wife, to boast of her as an exotic curiosity. But Isabel rejects the financially advantageous party, and even the one she cares about, as she hopes to meet something more spiritually. But thanks to the diligent “efforts” of the socialite and intriguer Madame Merle, fate brings Isabelle to the poor but greedy artist Osmond, who skillfully operating sentimental clichés, managed to marry her, shamelessly using her wealth for his own purposes, in addition to everything else turned her into a moral slave. And now, instead of enjoying the fruits of her choice, according to her cousin, Ms. Archer is forced to "nurture the narcissistic selfishness of an amateur." Isabel is sadly aware of the truthfulness of these words, but still courageously holds “defense”, because to recognize how cruelly she miscalculated because of her inexperience and pride is even more humiliating for her.
In the 90s, American cinema continues to master the theme of female rebelliousness, although as a novelty it considers this idea on the example of the “lady” classics of the previous century, where it carefully sews the canvas with the threads of feminism (even our Karenina was not forgotten). Among others, the fashion trend was joined by the New Zealand writer and director Jane Campion, who, after her dizzying success at home with the film “Piano”, which touches on the topic of passionate female longing, decided not to go far from the palpable ground and, inspired this time by the novel of the American writer Henry James, unfolded the colorful and touching film “Portrait of a Lady”, where she updated the old plot with a current focus. However, this did not spoil the perception of the film adaptation, rather, the director managed to preserve the originality of the atmosphere of the prim aristocracy, respectfully withstand pauses on the psychological fluctuations of the characters, but at the same time gave a little dynamics, because of which the viewing process is able to move from a dead point. In addition, in the skillful hands of props, the entourage looks picturesque, but without false pomposity, which is separately awarded the jury award. True, at first, the double-headed curly hairstyle on the neat head of Nicole Kidman is embarrassing, but if you look not at him, but in her deep, pensive eyes, then she can be forgiven.
Considering that during this period, a rather impressive volume of films about female rebelliousness ("Little Women", "Sense and Sensibility", "Emma", "Pride and Prejudice") is filmed, Campion decided to differ a little, introducing shots with our reality into the strict flavor: at the beginning of the film, interspersed with the credits, there is an episode with modern girls who look at the camera meaningfully, perhaps urging not to be afraid of change. The effect of the connection of times is especially clearly manifested in the final seconds of the film, when the heroine literally freezes in doubt about whether the game was worth the candle and if after a long viewing the viewer has not yet forgotten where it all began, then he will see a hint of gratitude to today’s women rebels of the last century, who laid the seed of women’s emancipation, and for good or bad – the question is controversial, although the film dares to give this phenomenon a positive assessment.
If a girl is intelligent, erudite, talented and virtuous, then in order to conform to her, a man also needs to work on himself, but what for the sake of it, if there is a simpler way - to inspire her with the sole purpose of wearing dresses and having children, and to drink tea himself, sitting in velvet chairs, and to parasitize on thoughts derived from two or three books read in a lifetime. But it's not that bad. In the title of the film, the word “lady” has a more generalized character, it is a metaphor for women who do not want to put up with such an insignificant role in the world, aware of the possibility of not only obtaining education, but also its application, self-realization, freedom of choice. Unfortunately, because of the immature mind and feelings, they may have the indiscretion to grab such a “piece” that they are not yet able to “swallow”, plus they can periodically naively sin with radicalism and unjust accusations of men of all mortal sins, while not always being an example of chastity (a vivid example is Madame Merle, who, despite all her shortcomings, is shown in the film only as an unfortunate victim of male deception, and for some reason not of her hypocrisy and greed). But I want to believe that time, experience, reflection and never-ending hopes will help sane women to find a worthy compromise with the strong half of humanity, the main thing is not to be a naive “scream” about their rights, like Isabel, because her misfire is a symbol of stupid pride, at least in the interpretation of Jane Campion.
8 out of 10
I want to start with the fact that without reading the book, this film is contraindicated to watch. The book describes everything incredibly subtle, sensual and interesting. The film also contains a collection of important moments from the book. And without a foundation based on reading the book, the film has no value.
The acting is wonderful. Especially in love young Batman is Christian Bale. His role as Rosier suited him as well as that of Batman. Nicole Kidman played the role of Isabella. Her character felt a lot, worried a lot. And Nicole Kidman sufficiently conveyed all that was described about Isabella's feelings in the book. John Malkovich is the true Gilbert Osmond! All his vices, all his mercantility, are perfectly manifested in his play. And of course, a few words about Aragorn – Viggo Mortensen as Caspar Goodwood. Again experiments with hairstyle, a romantic image of a balanced young man with unrequited love for the main character. At the end of the book, Henrietta made it clear that he was still young. And all is not lost for him.
And a few words about the end of the movie. Jane Campion decided to leave it unknown that Isabella had returned to Rome. Plus the hallucinogenic moments in the film, the diagonal turns of the cameras - all this did not cause delight. And delight caused the soundtrack to the film. That's what was really wonderful.
Overall, the picture leaves a pleasant impression. But it is not remembered as something great and unusual. It was interesting to see how this story was perceived by others. But the film adaptation in my head was much more vivid, vivid and expressive.
England, 1872. 23-year-old American Isabel Archer, of those young ladies who never lose their minds, comes on a guest mission to her elderly uncle, who before his death bequeaths her a solid part of the capital - 70 thousand pounds. Despite being surrounded by three devoted admirers, one of whom is her cousin, Isabelle rejects all marriage proposals. Instead, becoming the owner of a fortune, she goes on a journey around the world, because she fears that early marriage may deprive her of the opportunity to experience and “see a ray of light.”
However, during a visit to Florence, she still does not find the strength to refuse the aristocrat Gilbert Osmond, a failed artist leading a reclusive lifestyle. His declaration of love touches her to the depths of her soul and even after a few weeks leads to such excitement that Isabel loses consciousness when she remembers him. But marriage only confirms and in many ways exceeds her worst expectations.
The work of Jane Campion, at that time the only female director who managed to get the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Festival, was especially expected for four years. During this time, the creative search of the director from New Zealand underwent a characteristic evolution: the winners of the Cannes Vitrins then, as a rule, took on large-scale projects. Campion was no exception and decided to film “Portrait of a Lady” (or “Portrait of a Woman”, 1881) – one of the novels of the American prose writer Henry James.
Moreover, it gave her the opportunity to revisit the main author’s theme: the study of the female character in the process of overcoming its limitations. Following James Campion, he focuses on moral conflicts. Overcoming the narrative of the primary source, it seeks to revive the visual range if possible. For example, that styles the journey of Isabel under the silent black and white melodrama of the beginning of the century, and once even allows himself a bold erotic fantasy in which all three suitors simultaneously squeeze their inaccessible lover.
Campion deliberately abandons key plot twists, leaving them behind the scenes, which the viewer learns every time already retroactively from the dialogues of the characters. In a similar way, she acts with the main character, if possible, muffling the beauty of Nicole Kidman, and pulling the actor’s gut “on the surface”. So well-known tearful eyes of the actress may well become the business card of this picture, in fact, this movie just begins with her eyes shining with tears. In general, Campion does not resort to catchy figurative solutions and looks at what is happening with the cold eye of an outside observer, fearing, apparently, to fall into sentimentality.
But poetic, emotional and, most importantly, metaphorical "Piano" is no longer observed here. Of the few “beauties” of the film that remain in memory, we can single out even the original presentation of the title, written in ink on the female palm. Basically, the director follows not so much the spirit as the letter of the novel, focusing on the throwing and suffering of the deceived and offended female soul, still found the strength not to break down and not to give up. Too academic style of the tape, presented in the competition of the next Cannes festival, left indifferent and the jury, and journalists, and the audience.
The strongest feeling left after watching is disappointment. In my opinion, the filmmakers had a claim to an elegant depiction of the ugly torments of an extraordinary woman. However, the claims appear to have remained claims. Sorry. There was certainly a prospect for this story.
The two main failures of the film, in my view, were the “rawness” of the plot (sprawled where I wanted) and the “rawness” of the images (who is who, and remained a mystery). That is, we can talk mainly about the failure of the script.
First of all, the story. When viewing the picture, it seems that the narrative jumps (at times, limping) from one event to another without any internal connection between them. The thread of history is broken every now and then (as soon as it approaches the place of conflict resolution, when it would seem that it is necessary to “open the maps” of the heroes). As a result, it leads to nowhere. The relationships of the characters are marked literally schematically; their full development on the screen does not occur, the viewer seems to be constantly confronted with the fact that it turned out as a result of “life behind the scenes”. For me, it turned into a picture of the film as a set of scattered photos. You take one, you look at it, you remember the day it was made. However, this does not create a holistic, as such, “portrait of a lady”, the story of the life of an extraordinary woman.
If such a way of narration is a kind of highlight of the film, then the name “Portrait of a Lady” is unsuccessful, which subconsciously adjusts to the monolithic nature of the plot, subordination to the main theme, the main character. (Thinking so, it seems no coincidence that critics have noted supporting roles, the beauty of costumes, etc., but not the work of Nicole Kidman.)
Now for the rawness of images. Let's start with the lady herself. It remains a mystery to me, what is the character Nicole Kidman is special, extraordinary for his time? By refusing a profitable marriage in favor of the desire to see the world, to live, as the heart will tell? Of course, the act pays attention to itself. However, what did the heroine take away from her trips, besides the memories of the hands and lips of the hero John Malkovich? The film doesn't tell us anything about it.
Is the heroine extraordinarily intelligent for a woman of that era? Curious, perhaps, but the mind, even above average, in Isabel Archer I did not notice. Having a mind would rather ascribe to Madame Serena Merle, Ralph Tachita or Isabelle's friend, Henrietta. On the contrary, Nicole Kidman's character appears to me hopelessly naive. She only sees what she wants to see. Isabelle is not only devoid of the talent to understand, comprehend the mind of people who surround her, but also her heart (the desires, whims and feelings of which her fans so zealously idolized) blindly, does not “sense” not only an enemy, but also a friend.
Is the heroine unusually strong in spirit? We are shown scene after scene of her humiliation, crying, fits of hysteria (which cannot be seen without tears...), but what did Isabelle do in response to them so that the viewer could appreciate the extraordinary nature of her character? The only act that somehow pointed to this was a trip to the dying cousin Ralph Tachit, and he was smeared with the impression of revenge on the people around him. Even the stepdaughter is not imbued with the presence of an unusual stepmother. Nothing about Isabelle hurts Pensey Osmond to add a couple of reasons in the fight between his father's favor and his love for Mr. Rosier. Even Mrs. Osmond's endless tears.
I can’t really call Isabelle Archer a lady. Attempts on such a characterization of the heroine were made, but did not lead to anything. She never managed to help her stepdaughter, leaving, in fact, at the mercy of the “loving father”. Isabel could not see anything but betrayal in Serena Merle, neither the bitterness of motherhood, which must be hidden; nor a poisoned genius (she admired her musical talent!); nor her own reflection (a woman trapped in a scoundrel). Nothing stopped her from turning her back on Serena. And the love of the cousin and other fans appreciated the main character only at the last moment, when it is impossible to turn back. The choice of a life partner is not explained by anything “noble”. Ralph was told how exquisite Gilbert Osmond was, the heroine herself remembered only his kisses and hugs.
In general, Isabel appears before me as a naive, capricious, used to indulge her whims girl, in whose hands wealth accidentally falls, and her story is that she failed to successfully dispose of it, as a result of which she found herself in a hopeless situation.
I think Nicole Kidman could have played that role. I can’t say that Isabelle Archer is her image, but she had the potential to embody it (perhaps in her own way). Unfortunately, Nicole Kidman as an actress was stronger than her role. Failure in the embodiment of Isabel is a failure, first of all, of the writer and director.
The following can be said about the other characters. In my opinion, it was a mistake to cast John Malkovich as Gilbert Osmond. The actor is strongly associated with negative characters. The attractive features of Osmond in the film are spelled out so in passing that it is quite difficult to believe: such an unusually positive heroine, and chose a villain, without even feeling the trick!
The image of Pensey Oswald has not been revealed at all, and what kind of internal conflict could be shown! Especially when you see examples of mother and stepmother crashed. Pensey’s favorite, Mr. Rozier, performed by Christian Bale turned out quite well, only, in my opinion, not in moderation aggressive.
Extra, in my opinion, were the characters of Viggo Mortensen, Shelly Duval.
The rest of the characters, in general, turned out well.
The merits of the film include the work of people engaged in “beauty picture”: artists, cameraman, costume designer (deserved Oscar nomination), etc. True, for moments the situation that surrounded the heroes seemed sloppy, conditional, but, in general, made a pleasant impression.
What's the result? The film can be seen for the sake of beauty and Nicole Kidman. You can look and cry, when there is no other reason: in the fate of the heroes there are many bitter moments. But those who are looking for a real “portrait of a lady” are more likely to read “Gone with the Wind” by Margaret Mitchell.
3.5 out of 10
An unusually subtle and sensual film. Campion managed not only to create deep images of extraordinary people, but also to convey the atmosphere of the romantic era with its subtle lyricism and attention to the soul and feelings of a person. Some parts of the film (like shots from the main character’s journey or an insert at the beginning) at the same time somewhat destroy the integrity of the overall picture, although they are very interesting in themselves. With all the attention to the visual side of the film, it does not interfere with the acting work, which is no less delightful here. And despite its explicit feminist context, the film is not just about that. What I see here is not so much the suffering of an oppressed woman as the throwing away of a man trying to know the whole world or find his place in it. Social subtext doesn’t come to the fore, I think.
Gilbert Osborne: It already has a tiny crack.
The main character of the picture is a young American Isabella Archer, a delicate, passionate and sensual nature, unexpectedly receives after the death of her uncle a large inheritance. As a result, she acquires the priceless right to be independent and to manage her own life, which in the XIX century is a rare privilege for a girl. Rejecting two very profitable offers to marry, which she made a rich American manufacturer and then an English lord, Isabella decides to look at the world to draw her own conclusions about it.
Jane Campion, after the success of The Piano (1993), turns to classics through the novel of the remarkable American novelist Henry James. But a considerable difficulty is, firstly, to convey the special style of this writer, to preserve the atmosphere of the novel, without changing its main thoughts, and secondly, to make such a movie attractive not only for the sophisticated viewer, admirer of classics and specifically James, but also for those who watch it not selectively, but by chance.
It would be wrong and unprofitable for the film to compare the novel and the film adaptation, since often works of literature become a kind of foundation on which the director’s ideas are built. It is foolish to do this also for the reason that the pros and cons comparisons will have the character of a protracted tug of war. After all, most readers have long believed that a book is better than a movie. I will not dispute this established opinion, just add that, for example, the works “Escape from Shawshank”, “Woman of the French Lieutenant” or “Pianist” on the screen shone even more than on the pages of the book.
The picture of Campion can be imputed a few minuses. One of them is slowness, even monotony of action. There is a feeling that nothing special happens on the screen, people talk about nothing and do nothing. Sometimes you want to take a special magnifier, and preferably a microscope, because it seems that without special effort, the human eye will not cope with the task of seeing something. So, you need to make this effort, strain your eyes and other senses! Because if the characters do not move much in the frame, then in the soul they have just frantic movements and jumps. The second, in my opinion, is Malkovich’s choice to play Gilbert Osborne. He seems to be a fellahu with impeccable taste and is so similar to Valmon, whom he played 8 years ago, that no other hairstyle or interior can obscure such a bright villain. Moreover, Campion Osborne from an intelligent egoist aesthete turns into an ordinary domestic tyrant who needs eternal piety and is so saturated and dissatisfied with others that he raises his hand on his disappointed wife.
Madame Merle, for all her sophistication (if you forget about coral earrings and brooches in the form of grapes) and beauty is very similar to a vulgar pimp, who, in fact, is. Features of her relationship with Osborne revealed already in the synopsis, which loses some of the intrigue. The viewer simply loses the opportunity to reflect on the topic of her efforts to connect Isabella with an old friend. And apart from Miss Archer's family failure, there is little to think about in the film.
It is unlikely that the fantasy with a film that did not exist at that time and Isabella’s hairstyle in the style of Count Dracula can be placed in the category of strong minuses, except to call them small blunders. In addition, in the film, in addition to the shortcomings, there are advantages. Close-ups of Nicole Kidman with an unusual halo of dark hair, against which blue eyes stand out even more. Wojciech Kielar's music and Schubert's lazy-energy spills partially enliven the bounded movements of the heroes. Entourage of luxurious life and of course, male actors (Malkovich, Donovan, Bale, Mortensen, Grant). For them, Kidman serves as a kind of caryatid, around which these conscientious architects build a beautiful ensemble.
As for the unauthorized ending of the film, apparently, Jane Campion decided that following James’ novel word for word and thereby the desire of the viewer is as ungrateful a job as feeding lions in the zoo: no matter how much you feed, they still strive to eat you. Therefore, for sure, anticipating the criticism in his address, the Director decided, worse will not be, and boldly acted in his own way.
Thus, if we talk about the personality of the main character, then James and Campion’s “Portrait of a Lady” is more of a sketch, a light outline, than a finished canvas. At the end of the film, Isabella is as incomprehensible as at the beginning, which is why it was equally interesting to see how the colors on this canvas change.
7 out of 10