Well meant production from the magical Merchant/Ivory/Jhabvala team. This one was made before they hit their stride, however. The first mistake was casting Christopher Reeve in the lead. He always looks like he's acting, there's nothing natural about it. His performance here is in par with cheap 70's pornography acting. He is supposedly classically trained as an actor, but I guess anyone who pays for and attends acting classes can say the same. Some have it and some don't, he doesn't. The costumes, art direction and sets are all lavish and appealing. The dialog is far too updated to make one believe that it's taking place in another century, it's almost like a high school production in that aspect. Redgrave and Marchand both give good performances, nothing remarkable at all, but acceptable. The rest of the cast is a mish-mash of mostly b-listers. Scriptwriter Jhabvala has proved herself time and again to be quite the artist, but the script here is flat. Perhaps the book it was based on is this dull and unconvincing. I was left simply unaffected by any message they were trying to convey about the period. I'm a fanatic when it comes to Merchant/Ivory pictures, but this one just didn't cut it. It seems they were more in their element with their amazing and opulent European productions. The quality of their American films seems to be quite cheap in production in comparison. I'm simply left wondering what a masterpiece this could have been had it been set in and filmed in England. If you're an Ivory/Merchant fan, stick with their better titles "A Room With A View" & "Sense And Sensibility", they both surpass this effort by leagues.
18 Reviews
Not one of the best Merchant-Ivory films or Henry James adaptations, but while not for everyone there's still a lot to admire
TheLittleSongbird8 August 2015
The Bostonians on the whole is not among the best Merchant-Ivory films, like A Room with a View, Howard's End and especially The Remains of the Day, nor is it anywhere near The Innocents, The Wings of the Dove and particularly The Heiress as among the best Henry James adaptations. However, while it has its problems it is not a bad film and does laudably adapting a difficult work (even for an author that is notoriously difficult to adapt like James).
Are there flaws here? Yes, there are. The changed ending is far too melodramatic and clumsily written as a (possible) attempt to make it accessible to modern audiences (maybe?), undermining any intellectual sensibility that the story or James beforehand show. While Ruth Prawer Jhabvala's screenplay fares very credibly mostly it doesn't come off completely successfully, the savage humour of the book is very toned down (in contrast to the somewhat lack of subtlety, pretty overt actually, in the writing of the Olive and Verena relationship, loved the tension between the two though) and sometimes absent which gives the film a bland feel sometimes, the characters are still very interesting and complex but lack the philosophical depth of the book and that final speech is so cornball and misplaced.
Merchant-Ivory films always did have deliberate pacing, but more than made up for it with slightly more involving drama and characterisation and more consistent script-writing than seen here, sometimes The Bostonians moved along at a snail's pace which made the blander, less involving dramatically sections almost interminable. And despite being devilishly handsome and with the right amount of virile masculinity Christopher Reeve seemed completely out of his depth as Ransom, throughout he is stiff and although his character is unlikeable in the first place there is very little in Reeve's performance that makes it obvious what Olive and Verena see in him.
However, there is much to admire as well. As always with a Merchant-Ivory film it is incredibly well-made, with truly luxuriant cinematography, exquisite settings and scenery and some of the most vivid costume design personally seen from a film recently. There is a beautiful music score as well that couldn't have fitted more ideally, and appropriately restrained direction from James Ivory, and while there were a few misgivings with the script Jhabvala actually adapts it very credibly. It's a very thought-provoking, elegantly written and literate script that has a good deal of emotional impact, it is not easy condensing James' very dense, wordy and actions-occurring-inside-characters'-heads prose to something cohesive for film but Jhabvala manages it with grace and intelligence on the most part. Again, pacing could have been tighter but the story is still very poignant and has a good degree of tension and emotion.
Best of all is how beautifully played it is by a very good cast, apart from Reeve. Madeleine Potter does lack allure for Verena, but plays with gentle winsomeness, intelligence and sweet charm. In the supporting roles, Linda Hunt is dependably very good, Jessica Tandy is moving in her performance and (in particular) Nancy Marchand's verbal cat-and-mouse-game helps give the film some of its tension. Along with the cinematography and costumes, one of The Bostonians' best aspects is the towering performance of Vanessa Redgrave, Olive is more sympathetically written here and Redgrave brings a real intensity and affecting dignity to the role which makes for compulsive viewing.
All in all, much to admire but also could have been better. 6/10 Bethany Cox
Are there flaws here? Yes, there are. The changed ending is far too melodramatic and clumsily written as a (possible) attempt to make it accessible to modern audiences (maybe?), undermining any intellectual sensibility that the story or James beforehand show. While Ruth Prawer Jhabvala's screenplay fares very credibly mostly it doesn't come off completely successfully, the savage humour of the book is very toned down (in contrast to the somewhat lack of subtlety, pretty overt actually, in the writing of the Olive and Verena relationship, loved the tension between the two though) and sometimes absent which gives the film a bland feel sometimes, the characters are still very interesting and complex but lack the philosophical depth of the book and that final speech is so cornball and misplaced.
Merchant-Ivory films always did have deliberate pacing, but more than made up for it with slightly more involving drama and characterisation and more consistent script-writing than seen here, sometimes The Bostonians moved along at a snail's pace which made the blander, less involving dramatically sections almost interminable. And despite being devilishly handsome and with the right amount of virile masculinity Christopher Reeve seemed completely out of his depth as Ransom, throughout he is stiff and although his character is unlikeable in the first place there is very little in Reeve's performance that makes it obvious what Olive and Verena see in him.
However, there is much to admire as well. As always with a Merchant-Ivory film it is incredibly well-made, with truly luxuriant cinematography, exquisite settings and scenery and some of the most vivid costume design personally seen from a film recently. There is a beautiful music score as well that couldn't have fitted more ideally, and appropriately restrained direction from James Ivory, and while there were a few misgivings with the script Jhabvala actually adapts it very credibly. It's a very thought-provoking, elegantly written and literate script that has a good deal of emotional impact, it is not easy condensing James' very dense, wordy and actions-occurring-inside-characters'-heads prose to something cohesive for film but Jhabvala manages it with grace and intelligence on the most part. Again, pacing could have been tighter but the story is still very poignant and has a good degree of tension and emotion.
Best of all is how beautifully played it is by a very good cast, apart from Reeve. Madeleine Potter does lack allure for Verena, but plays with gentle winsomeness, intelligence and sweet charm. In the supporting roles, Linda Hunt is dependably very good, Jessica Tandy is moving in her performance and (in particular) Nancy Marchand's verbal cat-and-mouse-game helps give the film some of its tension. Along with the cinematography and costumes, one of The Bostonians' best aspects is the towering performance of Vanessa Redgrave, Olive is more sympathetically written here and Redgrave brings a real intensity and affecting dignity to the role which makes for compulsive viewing.
All in all, much to admire but also could have been better. 6/10 Bethany Cox
Wife and Mother -- or Career Woman?
rmax30482323 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
Poor Madeleine Potter. She's a faith healer's daughter in 1875 Boston, a speaker for the woman's movement, and everybody wants a piece of her. Her father, Wesley Addy, puts her on display at meetings and rakes in the shekels. Vanessa Redgrave, ardent feminist avant la lettre, wants to use her as a poster girl and also, maybe, bestow on her in muted form some of the love that dare not speak its name. The manly, mustachioed Christopher Reeve wants her for his own and would like to run away with her and turn her into a much-loved icon of delicate femininity who has nothing to say.
I had the advantage of never having read the novel so I can only comment on the raw film. It's a typical Merchant-Ivory movie -- tasteful, lavish, accurate to the period, and marvelously photographed. Some of the images at the Massachusetts beach are Winslow Homerish.
The plot is really too complicated and too subtle to describe in detail. It boils down to whether Madeleine Potter wants to represent a social cause or become a Southerner's housewife. It sounds worse than it is. The viewer is tempted to jump in with both feet because sexism is currently a social issue. That would turn Reeve into the domineering villain and Redgrave into a paragon of virtue.
I saw it less as a question of right and wrong than a clash of the two most prominent cultures on which the country was founded. The intolerant, profoundly religious, fiercely democratic New England Yankees and the aristocratic, gentile, highly stratified, caste-ridden, proud society of Southern planters. We've been fighting this same civil war since the Puritans landed in the Bay Colony and the cavaliers settled in Virginia.
Of course it's not THAT simple. Nothing is really simple. Reeve evidently loves Potter to distraction. Yet he's pushy too. Pushy even by the standards of today. He's a Mississippian, a veteran, a lawyer, who has migrated to New York. But he's not successful. His essays are routinely rejected by publishers who tell him his views are three hundred years out of date. We can imagine what those views are. When some elderly lady remarks that her experiences in the South weren't very pleasant, Reeve replies that it may have had something to do with her attempt to improve the lot of the "Nigra". And when Potter takes him to visit a hall at Harvard lined with the names of the Union dead, watch Reeve's expression.
Best performances aren't by the two lovers, but by Vanessa Redgrave, Jessica Tandy, Linda Hunt, and an ashen Wesley Addy with a crazy fright wig. Nancy Marchand is fine too. She was my co-star in the magnificent art house piece, "From the Hip." I helped the kid get over the rough spots in her performance.
Anyway, the film didn't strike me as so bad as some reviewers have made it out to be. It flows smoothly along. It would have flowed more smoothly if Reeve had been booted out of the picture half-way through, but then there would have been no picture.
I had the advantage of never having read the novel so I can only comment on the raw film. It's a typical Merchant-Ivory movie -- tasteful, lavish, accurate to the period, and marvelously photographed. Some of the images at the Massachusetts beach are Winslow Homerish.
The plot is really too complicated and too subtle to describe in detail. It boils down to whether Madeleine Potter wants to represent a social cause or become a Southerner's housewife. It sounds worse than it is. The viewer is tempted to jump in with both feet because sexism is currently a social issue. That would turn Reeve into the domineering villain and Redgrave into a paragon of virtue.
I saw it less as a question of right and wrong than a clash of the two most prominent cultures on which the country was founded. The intolerant, profoundly religious, fiercely democratic New England Yankees and the aristocratic, gentile, highly stratified, caste-ridden, proud society of Southern planters. We've been fighting this same civil war since the Puritans landed in the Bay Colony and the cavaliers settled in Virginia.
Of course it's not THAT simple. Nothing is really simple. Reeve evidently loves Potter to distraction. Yet he's pushy too. Pushy even by the standards of today. He's a Mississippian, a veteran, a lawyer, who has migrated to New York. But he's not successful. His essays are routinely rejected by publishers who tell him his views are three hundred years out of date. We can imagine what those views are. When some elderly lady remarks that her experiences in the South weren't very pleasant, Reeve replies that it may have had something to do with her attempt to improve the lot of the "Nigra". And when Potter takes him to visit a hall at Harvard lined with the names of the Union dead, watch Reeve's expression.
Best performances aren't by the two lovers, but by Vanessa Redgrave, Jessica Tandy, Linda Hunt, and an ashen Wesley Addy with a crazy fright wig. Nancy Marchand is fine too. She was my co-star in the magnificent art house piece, "From the Hip." I helped the kid get over the rough spots in her performance.
Anyway, the film didn't strike me as so bad as some reviewers have made it out to be. It flows smoothly along. It would have flowed more smoothly if Reeve had been booted out of the picture half-way through, but then there would have been no picture.
Timeless
detleffish-28 September 2011
The other reviews really don't get that this is a very subtle expose on gay relationships in this era. Was Henry James gay? Did he live his perspective through this story of the Bostonians
?. And imagine writing about women's rights movement intertwined with gay women of the day- a man writing in the 1800's! WoW – how progressive even today in 2011 people still debate the legitimacy of gay relationships (not me-please note I am happily married heterosexual). This is in amazing film. Period accurate and an incredible story about the dynamic of class – to be the lover of a women of means but who is really drawn to a traditional marriage – if he has the means to support her. Watch this from that perspective. It's remarkable to think that this was written in the late 1800's and that this film was done in the 1980s – so way ahead of its time. And then look at Christopher Reeve and how he took this movie to break out of his Superman stereo type
. Pretty incredible. I think the naysayers here really didn't get the historical significance of this film. Its an amazing film. Thank you Merchant and Ivory
you are amazing.
Good production/spoilers
awit7210 September 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I don't agree with some of the more in depth reviews of this movie. While the movie is somewhat slowly paced , there is a lot to enjoy and admire in The Bostonians.
It is essentially the story of a repressed and forward thinking lesbian who finds herself in love with a young woman who appears to return her feelings. .Both are constrained by the century they find themselves in. Vanessa Redgrave makes you feel every bit of longing for the red haired suffragette whose winsome ways instantly captivate her. And Potter is quite affecting in her role, making us feel her conflict as she is torn between two people who both seem to want her.
The movie is set in Aruba - just kidding - and the atmosphere impeccably depicts a long gone world of educated individuals who live comfortably. These men and women are allowed to indulge their passions for one another and are not required to toil as servants, who do their bidding for them.
The question of women's rights falls a little flat when the women themselves seem to live so happily, the story of female emancipation submerged within the romantic tensions of the characters. The ending shows how passionate Redgrave has been all along in her desire for women's rights.
Reeve's performance as the man who also longs for the young suffragette is far better than some claim. You can feel his desire, wince at his manipulations. The perceptive viewer instantly recognizes that Redgrave's character views him as one thing, the enemy, both as a man and as a rival for her affections.
I think The Bostonians' pace can be a bit wearing and tedious, but if you are able to go along for the journey, this movie will reward you. The scenes between Redgrave and Potter are affecting, and Linda Hunt's doctor is wonderfully portrayed. Jessica Tandy always seemed to play the same character in her later years, but she adds a touch of elegance to the proceedings. And Reeves looms like a shadow over the proceedings, doing an admirable job of presenting a single-minded man who cares little for women's rights - but a great deal for one woman.
It is essentially the story of a repressed and forward thinking lesbian who finds herself in love with a young woman who appears to return her feelings. .Both are constrained by the century they find themselves in. Vanessa Redgrave makes you feel every bit of longing for the red haired suffragette whose winsome ways instantly captivate her. And Potter is quite affecting in her role, making us feel her conflict as she is torn between two people who both seem to want her.
The movie is set in Aruba - just kidding - and the atmosphere impeccably depicts a long gone world of educated individuals who live comfortably. These men and women are allowed to indulge their passions for one another and are not required to toil as servants, who do their bidding for them.
The question of women's rights falls a little flat when the women themselves seem to live so happily, the story of female emancipation submerged within the romantic tensions of the characters. The ending shows how passionate Redgrave has been all along in her desire for women's rights.
Reeve's performance as the man who also longs for the young suffragette is far better than some claim. You can feel his desire, wince at his manipulations. The perceptive viewer instantly recognizes that Redgrave's character views him as one thing, the enemy, both as a man and as a rival for her affections.
I think The Bostonians' pace can be a bit wearing and tedious, but if you are able to go along for the journey, this movie will reward you. The scenes between Redgrave and Potter are affecting, and Linda Hunt's doctor is wonderfully portrayed. Jessica Tandy always seemed to play the same character in her later years, but she adds a touch of elegance to the proceedings. And Reeves looms like a shadow over the proceedings, doing an admirable job of presenting a single-minded man who cares little for women's rights - but a great deal for one woman.
Can't realistically give any more than six stars
schlichwm15 August 2023
I can't lie, most of this film is pretty boring. The last scene is okay.
Surprised this came out when it did...the ethos seems pretty anti-feminist if you ask me, as the suffergettes are not portrayed in the best light.
You may like this film better than me if you're into costime drama or that period or history or something.
Haven't got anything else to say really. I'm only writing this bit to reach the character limit. Probably won't re-watch this. May try watching another couple of Merchant-Ivory films before writing the sub-genre off completely. Okay seems i've reached the minimim characters now.
Surprised this came out when it did...the ethos seems pretty anti-feminist if you ask me, as the suffergettes are not portrayed in the best light.
You may like this film better than me if you're into costime drama or that period or history or something.
Haven't got anything else to say really. I'm only writing this bit to reach the character limit. Probably won't re-watch this. May try watching another couple of Merchant-Ivory films before writing the sub-genre off completely. Okay seems i've reached the minimim characters now.
Another great literacy adaption.
LW-0885426 December 2023
A beautiful complex film. In this story love and politics collide here. The story centres around a young woman who becomes involved in speaking out on behalf of women's rights during the close of the 19th century America. The cause is one in which she's encouraged to give her all, it's intensity at times feels almost cult like with the leader demand complete loyalty. In fact so strong is the depth of feeling though that you are left to wonder is this purely a platonic friendship or is there something else going on? The young lady though is highly sought after for her charm and intelligence, one suitor a southern US Civil War veteran with opposite views on the place of men and women in life seeks to win her over, and they are mutually attracted to each other despite their different outlooks on politics.
The film has a lovely so burning beauty, with lovely attention played it's camerawork, costumes and production design. This is largely a story about confused feelings and characters struggling to admit their true feelings to themselves.
The film has a lovely so burning beauty, with lovely attention played it's camerawork, costumes and production design. This is largely a story about confused feelings and characters struggling to admit their true feelings to themselves.
Another faltering film from Ivory
r-m-wilby23 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
I have never thought much of James Ivory's direction and The Bostonians does little to change my mind. It was years ago I read the Henry James novel and I'm not one to criticise a film for not replicating the book,but I do recall the stupendous climax James achieved when Ransomemarched backstage at the Music Hall to literally carry Verena off. This has to be the climax of the film, but here it goes for nothing and makes less impact than the jeering audience. In too many other scenes points are similarly missed, the tone is misjudged and the pace is plodding. Nor is the acting distinguished except for Vanessa Redgrave who aims at an intensity that seems to belong to another (and better)film. One compensation is the camera work of Walter Lassally; but even here the carefully framed compositions don't flow.
The World of Henry James
bkoganbing8 September 2011
Henry James has not been an easy author to bring to the screen. The Heiress has been one glorious exception and even with the fine production values that Merchant/Ivory brought to The Bostonians it still doesn't quite measure up to The Heiress in glorious black and white.
That being said The Bostonians is great window on the world of Henry James and the upper class society in which he moved in New York and Boston. James was a great evaluator of human nature even of the love that dare not speak its name.
Stripped of all the trimmings about the emerging women's movement what we've got here is a triangle with a lesbian twist. Vanessa Redgrave got an Oscar nomination for Best Actress with her portrayal as an intellectual leader who feels she hasn't the voice to articulate the issues surrounding suffrage and all the other inequalities women endured back then. She latches on to a protégé in the person of Madeline Potter recently shilling for her faith healer father Wesley Addy. What she cannot, dare not articulate is the physical attraction she's feeling for Potter.
Redgrave is simply marvelous as the frustrated, possibly even latent lesbian. We're never sure if she has or will ever consummate her feelings. This is Boston of the 1870s-1880s where such things are frowned there even more than most places in the USA.
Vanessa's rival for Potter is Christopher Reeve a devilishly handsome young blade from the south who has come north to seek his fortune as a lawyer. As for Potter she's not sure of what she wants or even that Redgrave's interest in her is more than politics.
Linda Hunt and Jessica Tandy have a pair of good roles, The Bostonians is great in terms of roles for women. Tandy is an aged old soul who rejoices in the changes in America she's seen in the 19th century of which she remembers most of. Hunt is her nurse/companion who is a shrewd observer of the events around her and Tandy.
The Bostonians also got a nomination for Costume Design and the shooting in Boston and New York are fine. Boston has kept a lot of the same look Henry James knew in certain areas of the city and James Ivory made great use of Central Park in New York and some of the structures there that were put up in the time of Henry James.
I won't say what happens other than to say that Vanessa Redgrave does find it in herself to articulate her cause. As for the rest you have to watch this very fine production to find out.
That being said The Bostonians is great window on the world of Henry James and the upper class society in which he moved in New York and Boston. James was a great evaluator of human nature even of the love that dare not speak its name.
Stripped of all the trimmings about the emerging women's movement what we've got here is a triangle with a lesbian twist. Vanessa Redgrave got an Oscar nomination for Best Actress with her portrayal as an intellectual leader who feels she hasn't the voice to articulate the issues surrounding suffrage and all the other inequalities women endured back then. She latches on to a protégé in the person of Madeline Potter recently shilling for her faith healer father Wesley Addy. What she cannot, dare not articulate is the physical attraction she's feeling for Potter.
Redgrave is simply marvelous as the frustrated, possibly even latent lesbian. We're never sure if she has or will ever consummate her feelings. This is Boston of the 1870s-1880s where such things are frowned there even more than most places in the USA.
Vanessa's rival for Potter is Christopher Reeve a devilishly handsome young blade from the south who has come north to seek his fortune as a lawyer. As for Potter she's not sure of what she wants or even that Redgrave's interest in her is more than politics.
Linda Hunt and Jessica Tandy have a pair of good roles, The Bostonians is great in terms of roles for women. Tandy is an aged old soul who rejoices in the changes in America she's seen in the 19th century of which she remembers most of. Hunt is her nurse/companion who is a shrewd observer of the events around her and Tandy.
The Bostonians also got a nomination for Costume Design and the shooting in Boston and New York are fine. Boston has kept a lot of the same look Henry James knew in certain areas of the city and James Ivory made great use of Central Park in New York and some of the structures there that were put up in the time of Henry James.
I won't say what happens other than to say that Vanessa Redgrave does find it in herself to articulate her cause. As for the rest you have to watch this very fine production to find out.
Abysmal on all counts
braingrease6 January 2006
With an uncompromising dedication to character, and a flair for graceful, richly-textured storytelling, Merchant-Ivory seemed incapable of mediocrity. And with the recent passing of Ismail Merchant, I've been thumbing through the company's stellar filmography with renewed appreciation. Adoring the costume drama, I donned my comfy slippers and International Coffee and settled into 120 minutes of Merchant-Ivory bliss.
What I got instead was The Bostonians, the MI treatment of Henry James' witty and satirical novel about the earliest days of the feminist movement. This production took a fun and biting social commentary and turned it into gooey melodrama. It failed to show the irony of a headstrong young feminist (daughter of a "mesmeric healer" and a chronic hypochondriac) allowing herself to be manipulated on all sides while falling for a dull, misogynistic Southern lawyer. It turned the classic Plutonic relationship with her feminist mentor into the clawing desperation of an aging lesbian. Script appeal seesawed between eating a mouthful of alum, and blowing butterscotch pudding out one's nose. Editing was at once jagged and lumpy, spending copious amounts of film on innocuous bits of business, only to slam the guillotine so close to some dialog that it made me wonder about my DVD player. And that's only the half of it.
Stiff and lumbering is all I ever expect of the now canonized Christopher Reeve, so this performance shouldn't have surprised me. But it did. Reeve was channeling some kind of Confederate Heathcliff with a little Mary Shelley thrown in for good measure. Reading his lines from crib notes apparently taped to the bottom of the camera lens, he never blinked nor gave the slightest indication of understanding his dialog. He seemed to be forever walking downhill, and was patently incapable of moving his head. On seeing this performance, one could almost believe that the future riding accident might actually improve his flexibility. The heroin, as played by a mush-mouthed Madeleine Potter, showed all the plucky conviction of a plate of cold baked beans (yes, with the little puddles of congealed pork fat floating on top). As for the usually magnificent Vanessa Redgrave (in the desperate aging lesbian role), I say 'let's just forget this ever happened.' The only redeeming performances were two tiny bits sent in by Linda Hunt and Jessica Tandy. I'd be surprised if their scripts totaled more than 150 words. It would seem the director didn't bother to load their bloomers with the 100 lbs of wet oatmeal like he did with everyone else.
In a way, it's a shame I only rented The Bostonians. I'll miss out on the gratification I'd have felt in putting it in the microwave. What a tragic waste of good couch time.
What I got instead was The Bostonians, the MI treatment of Henry James' witty and satirical novel about the earliest days of the feminist movement. This production took a fun and biting social commentary and turned it into gooey melodrama. It failed to show the irony of a headstrong young feminist (daughter of a "mesmeric healer" and a chronic hypochondriac) allowing herself to be manipulated on all sides while falling for a dull, misogynistic Southern lawyer. It turned the classic Plutonic relationship with her feminist mentor into the clawing desperation of an aging lesbian. Script appeal seesawed between eating a mouthful of alum, and blowing butterscotch pudding out one's nose. Editing was at once jagged and lumpy, spending copious amounts of film on innocuous bits of business, only to slam the guillotine so close to some dialog that it made me wonder about my DVD player. And that's only the half of it.
Stiff and lumbering is all I ever expect of the now canonized Christopher Reeve, so this performance shouldn't have surprised me. But it did. Reeve was channeling some kind of Confederate Heathcliff with a little Mary Shelley thrown in for good measure. Reading his lines from crib notes apparently taped to the bottom of the camera lens, he never blinked nor gave the slightest indication of understanding his dialog. He seemed to be forever walking downhill, and was patently incapable of moving his head. On seeing this performance, one could almost believe that the future riding accident might actually improve his flexibility. The heroin, as played by a mush-mouthed Madeleine Potter, showed all the plucky conviction of a plate of cold baked beans (yes, with the little puddles of congealed pork fat floating on top). As for the usually magnificent Vanessa Redgrave (in the desperate aging lesbian role), I say 'let's just forget this ever happened.' The only redeeming performances were two tiny bits sent in by Linda Hunt and Jessica Tandy. I'd be surprised if their scripts totaled more than 150 words. It would seem the director didn't bother to load their bloomers with the 100 lbs of wet oatmeal like he did with everyone else.
In a way, it's a shame I only rented The Bostonians. I'll miss out on the gratification I'd have felt in putting it in the microwave. What a tragic waste of good couch time.
A delicately performed ode to a James Masterpiece
toast-1530 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I'm giving this a 10 because, 1) I think it's a good film and 2) some have not been fair with the rating of this film so I'm balancing it out.
I love this film. Decades ago, I used to read a lot of Henry James. The funny thing about a James novel is that it always leaves you scratching your head. James' brother, William, was a psychiatrist I believe, and it seems that Henry may have been using a little psychological gamesmanship while crafting many of his intriguing characters. For example, The Turn of the Screw is a book that rather famously has an open ending: one chilling, the other supernatural. Which will the reader choose? I bring this up because "The Bostonians" is also up to interpretation and this is where the actors, especially Reeve, give us another dimensional glimpse into their characters. On the one hand, this film can be taken as a love story, and a good one at that. On the other hand, however, one has to wonder if Reeve's character truly loves his target or is he just trying to "possess" her and therefore, keep her from becoming the vessel of all that he despises. Is she a conquest or a lover? Basil Ransom, Reeve's character, has just come from the South in a post civil war era. All that he knew as a child growing up in Mississippi is gone. He visits his cousin Olive played by Redgrave, at her request, only to find that she, unlike himself, is still very well off, her life is remarkably unchanged since the war's end. But she immediately comes to despise him for his beliefs. She refers to him as the "Enemy". Even though the Civil War is over, she is thinking of another kind of war, the war of the suffragettes. And in true James fashion, even this is complicated by Olive's perceived homosexuality as opposed to Reeve's clearly hetero thoughts and ideas. She sees Ransom as a threat to her own happiness with Verena (Potter). So there are layers of motive here for Olive's hatred of Ransom.
Ransom's beliefs, however, are what he clings to relentlessly, purposefully, deliberately, because they are all he has left of his bygone era. His history, his lifestyle, has died. He has already suffered the loss of one war, will he see this new challenge as an opportunity to finally win? Indeed, toward the end, as he puts the black cloak over Verena's head, the look on his face could be that of a warrior admiring, and protecting a hard fought prized possession. Or is it the look of tenderness as that of a lover beaming at his cherished bride? You decide. That's what James would have wanted.
Oddly, Verena becomes, not a human with her own ideas but rather a vessel for other people to live out their own thoughts and ideas. It is ironic because she speaks publicly and passionately about the exact opposite yet everyone that surrounds her, from her parents to a local reporter, to Olive and Ransom... they all want something from Verena, they are all using her but she seems oblivious to it all. In the end she finally seems to make a decision purely for herself but again, perhaps not.
An interesting scene plays out between two characters played by Nancy Marchant and Redgrave, they seem to be brokering the future of Verena but in the end, Olive (Redgrave) decides to hide away with her. The ending could have been quite different but selfishness apparently won out. Here again, motives are not exactly all that they seem. They both agree they are for equal rights of women yet the dialogue is all about using Verena as a chess piece to further their own goals. It is a masterpiece of irony and hypocrisy.
Linda Hunt as the already liberated female doctor who does not particularly care for speeches and the "movement" seems to inhabit the role and without a word seems to highlight the hypocrisy of others. She is remarkably believable and seems to breeze through as if she really does live in the time and place set in the movie. Her character is already liberated but doesn't see the need to preach it from the pulpit, she just lives it. She's very happy, without a man, with her own medical career, but no one seems to notice except Ransom. Ransom gets along very well with her and they immediately become friends.
Christopher Reeve, Vanessa Redgrave, Linda Hunt, and Nancy Marchant did this Henry James novel proud; and that's no easy task.
I love this film. Decades ago, I used to read a lot of Henry James. The funny thing about a James novel is that it always leaves you scratching your head. James' brother, William, was a psychiatrist I believe, and it seems that Henry may have been using a little psychological gamesmanship while crafting many of his intriguing characters. For example, The Turn of the Screw is a book that rather famously has an open ending: one chilling, the other supernatural. Which will the reader choose? I bring this up because "The Bostonians" is also up to interpretation and this is where the actors, especially Reeve, give us another dimensional glimpse into their characters. On the one hand, this film can be taken as a love story, and a good one at that. On the other hand, however, one has to wonder if Reeve's character truly loves his target or is he just trying to "possess" her and therefore, keep her from becoming the vessel of all that he despises. Is she a conquest or a lover? Basil Ransom, Reeve's character, has just come from the South in a post civil war era. All that he knew as a child growing up in Mississippi is gone. He visits his cousin Olive played by Redgrave, at her request, only to find that she, unlike himself, is still very well off, her life is remarkably unchanged since the war's end. But she immediately comes to despise him for his beliefs. She refers to him as the "Enemy". Even though the Civil War is over, she is thinking of another kind of war, the war of the suffragettes. And in true James fashion, even this is complicated by Olive's perceived homosexuality as opposed to Reeve's clearly hetero thoughts and ideas. She sees Ransom as a threat to her own happiness with Verena (Potter). So there are layers of motive here for Olive's hatred of Ransom.
Ransom's beliefs, however, are what he clings to relentlessly, purposefully, deliberately, because they are all he has left of his bygone era. His history, his lifestyle, has died. He has already suffered the loss of one war, will he see this new challenge as an opportunity to finally win? Indeed, toward the end, as he puts the black cloak over Verena's head, the look on his face could be that of a warrior admiring, and protecting a hard fought prized possession. Or is it the look of tenderness as that of a lover beaming at his cherished bride? You decide. That's what James would have wanted.
Oddly, Verena becomes, not a human with her own ideas but rather a vessel for other people to live out their own thoughts and ideas. It is ironic because she speaks publicly and passionately about the exact opposite yet everyone that surrounds her, from her parents to a local reporter, to Olive and Ransom... they all want something from Verena, they are all using her but she seems oblivious to it all. In the end she finally seems to make a decision purely for herself but again, perhaps not.
An interesting scene plays out between two characters played by Nancy Marchant and Redgrave, they seem to be brokering the future of Verena but in the end, Olive (Redgrave) decides to hide away with her. The ending could have been quite different but selfishness apparently won out. Here again, motives are not exactly all that they seem. They both agree they are for equal rights of women yet the dialogue is all about using Verena as a chess piece to further their own goals. It is a masterpiece of irony and hypocrisy.
Linda Hunt as the already liberated female doctor who does not particularly care for speeches and the "movement" seems to inhabit the role and without a word seems to highlight the hypocrisy of others. She is remarkably believable and seems to breeze through as if she really does live in the time and place set in the movie. Her character is already liberated but doesn't see the need to preach it from the pulpit, she just lives it. She's very happy, without a man, with her own medical career, but no one seems to notice except Ransom. Ransom gets along very well with her and they immediately become friends.
Christopher Reeve, Vanessa Redgrave, Linda Hunt, and Nancy Marchant did this Henry James novel proud; and that's no easy task.
Sumptuous but tedious beauty, with tedious subplots
PaulusLoZebra15 October 2022
The Bostonians disappointed me. The subplots of lesbian love, heterosexual love, and suffragette struggles are genuine and nuanced, but tedious, and - at least in this film - pointless. What is highlighted here is the beauty and wealth of a certain segment of society in Boston and New York. The parlor games never reach the clever insight of Jane Austen. The Merchant-Ivory-Jhabawala production is as sumptuous and beautiful and evocative as their other films, but the characters seem distant. Except for Vanessa Redgrave, the acting forced. She, on the other hand, exuded the stress of a repressed lesbian love and her only partially successful attempts to control every aspect of her life a d the lives of selected others.
Escape from Planet of the Women?
suchenwi22 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I didn't know what to expect from this movie, but threw the DVD into the player for good luck. And I was pleasantly surprised.
The very first thing I liked was the backdrop of the opening credits: hands and feet operating an organ, plus the resulting sound. (Two hours later I knew that anticipated a part of the final act).
Then came more surprises - the setting in 1875 New England offered unusual sights, and mostly all in female-dominated surroundings. For a sensationalistic title, I thought of "Planet of the Women" - with a lone alien, Basil, playing his game in the middle.
The basic story was of course not surprising: boy meets girl, they go through assorted troubles, finally girl escapes from captivity, they ride away together. I can't explain the chemistry between them, but that may be because "love" is no natural science. In any case, a strong mutual attraction was amply demonstrated.
In contrast to most other movies, "eye-candy" women were rare, but then there were interesting types, like Dr. Prance and Miss Birdseye. Why Olive came to be how she was, remained a riddle to me.
And then the dramatic final act in the music hall. Strong images that will stay in my memory - and I consider the main purpose of a movie to deliver strong images.
Cost/benefit: most IMDb reviews are negative, and the movie was probably so unpopular that I could pick up a bargain DVD at the shop for 50 cents. Given that an empty DVD box costs 40 cents, the net price was 10 cents - and for me at least, it was worth it a hundred times :^)
The very first thing I liked was the backdrop of the opening credits: hands and feet operating an organ, plus the resulting sound. (Two hours later I knew that anticipated a part of the final act).
Then came more surprises - the setting in 1875 New England offered unusual sights, and mostly all in female-dominated surroundings. For a sensationalistic title, I thought of "Planet of the Women" - with a lone alien, Basil, playing his game in the middle.
The basic story was of course not surprising: boy meets girl, they go through assorted troubles, finally girl escapes from captivity, they ride away together. I can't explain the chemistry between them, but that may be because "love" is no natural science. In any case, a strong mutual attraction was amply demonstrated.
In contrast to most other movies, "eye-candy" women were rare, but then there were interesting types, like Dr. Prance and Miss Birdseye. Why Olive came to be how she was, remained a riddle to me.
And then the dramatic final act in the music hall. Strong images that will stay in my memory - and I consider the main purpose of a movie to deliver strong images.
Cost/benefit: most IMDb reviews are negative, and the movie was probably so unpopular that I could pick up a bargain DVD at the shop for 50 cents. Given that an empty DVD box costs 40 cents, the net price was 10 cents - and for me at least, it was worth it a hundred times :^)
Boston tough in the original style
lee_eisenberg16 June 2020
Throughout the '80s and '90s, producer Ismail Merchant and director James Ivory were probably the foremost purveyors of highbrow cinema, often adapted from classic novels. One such example is "The Bostonians", from a Henry James novel. I've never read the novel - and almost certainly never will, given how long it takes me to get through books - but the movie is as solid as we would expect. It sounds as though Henry James treated his topics with subtlety, which would explain the depiction of what would've otherwise been a taboo topic in the 1800s.
Basically, the combination of the scenery, costumes, music and setting make this the sort of period piece that could only come from Merchant and Ivory. And because I can't resist, I gotta note the cast: Christopher Reeve, Vanessa Redgrave, Jessica Tandy, Nancy Marchand, Linda Hunt and Wallace Shawn.* In other words, it stars Superman, Julia, Miss Daisy, Livia Soprano, the cameraman during the Indonesian coup, and Vizzini/Rex/Young Sheldon's professor/the man who had dinner with Andre.
*Vanessa Redgrave later co-starred in an adaptation of Wallace Shawn's politically charged play "The Fever", co-starring Michael Moore and Angelina Jolie.
Basically, the combination of the scenery, costumes, music and setting make this the sort of period piece that could only come from Merchant and Ivory. And because I can't resist, I gotta note the cast: Christopher Reeve, Vanessa Redgrave, Jessica Tandy, Nancy Marchand, Linda Hunt and Wallace Shawn.* In other words, it stars Superman, Julia, Miss Daisy, Livia Soprano, the cameraman during the Indonesian coup, and Vizzini/Rex/Young Sheldon's professor/the man who had dinner with Andre.
*Vanessa Redgrave later co-starred in an adaptation of Wallace Shawn's politically charged play "The Fever", co-starring Michael Moore and Angelina Jolie.
beautiful
Kirpianuscus29 August 2022
A film with all the chances to be discovered as a sort of experience by viewer. Sure, it is the meeting, a new one, between Henry James and James Ivory .
Sure, the cast is fantastic and Vanessa Redgrave, Madeleine Potter, Linda Hunt and, especially,Jessica Tandy are just admirable. And, sure Christopher Reeves propose one of that roles reminding silverwork masterpieces.
The subject ? It is easy to mentioned the feminist movement in America, the Bostonia relations, the art of show as form of propaganda, the selfishness and forms of vulnerability. But, obvious, it is far to be real enough.
It is a film like a confession. Powerful, gentle, profound honest. So, its beauty is very special. And new proof of the amazing art of James Ivory.
Sure, the cast is fantastic and Vanessa Redgrave, Madeleine Potter, Linda Hunt and, especially,Jessica Tandy are just admirable. And, sure Christopher Reeves propose one of that roles reminding silverwork masterpieces.
The subject ? It is easy to mentioned the feminist movement in America, the Bostonia relations, the art of show as form of propaganda, the selfishness and forms of vulnerability. But, obvious, it is far to be real enough.
It is a film like a confession. Powerful, gentle, profound honest. So, its beauty is very special. And new proof of the amazing art of James Ivory.
"Past endurance"
Cristi_Ciopron28 August 2006
I've always been interested in the James adaptations,and in the Ivory films.
The Bostonians ' first half's calligraphy and distinguished Callophily is pleasing,then the groundless length becomes oppressive,annoying and exasperating,so that finally I loathed this movie.That's no way to treat the viewers!The unjustified and intolerable length does not serve the narration,not the atmosphere,nor the characters' development. Wasted footage!I began by liking The Bostonians ,I finished by loathing this movie that goes nowhere.(James was quite loquacious and blabbed with a senile joy,and the movie gets also very talkative.)
Reeve smiles intelligently and even ironically from time to time,which kind of contradicts his supposed plainness.He acts somehow beside the point,but I guess the idea of introducing him as a tom cat with transient smiles was meant to cheer a little this overlong H. James adaptation,and as a needed antidote for the crabby Mrs. Redgrave.Reeve is almost brave in feigning some real interest for Madeleine Potter's character.
The two actresses I liked are:(1)Nancy New (as "Olive Chancellor"'s far more attractive sister);(2)Nancy Marchand.
Mrs. Redgrave is a broody,headstrong,crabbed,exalted and poisonous,felonious damsel ,as interesting as Lenin's books.As a matter of fact,this poor woman looks rather feeble-minded.One hopes in vain she'll have her fling with "Verena Tarrant".She is here as cranky as ever.
Mrs. Madeleine Potter is very uninteresting, insipid,and as fascinating as a sausage.
Towards the final of The Bostonians ,I swore at the director, at the scriptwriter and at the entire cast.I would seize Ivory by his ears and force him watch many Bruce Lee movies and many Jackie Chan movies,so much that he gets able to make at least something that well-thought.
The whole plot is utterly nauseating.The characters are as viscid as the mollusks.This makes the movie a morass.This is a show,don't ask me to judge it as if it were a novel.I'm talking about Ivory's show,not about James' novel.The most annoying fact is that Mrs. Redgrave seems to enjoy her role;this is unacceptable!(But it is also obvious that no member of the cast is able to get what this show is about.This may serve,though in a paradoxical way,as a justification for them all!These people (Reeve, Nancy Marchand and Nancy New) performed hoping there is a meaning they are not yet able to comprehend.)
The Bostonians ' first half's calligraphy and distinguished Callophily is pleasing,then the groundless length becomes oppressive,annoying and exasperating,so that finally I loathed this movie.That's no way to treat the viewers!The unjustified and intolerable length does not serve the narration,not the atmosphere,nor the characters' development. Wasted footage!I began by liking The Bostonians ,I finished by loathing this movie that goes nowhere.(James was quite loquacious and blabbed with a senile joy,and the movie gets also very talkative.)
Reeve smiles intelligently and even ironically from time to time,which kind of contradicts his supposed plainness.He acts somehow beside the point,but I guess the idea of introducing him as a tom cat with transient smiles was meant to cheer a little this overlong H. James adaptation,and as a needed antidote for the crabby Mrs. Redgrave.Reeve is almost brave in feigning some real interest for Madeleine Potter's character.
The two actresses I liked are:(1)Nancy New (as "Olive Chancellor"'s far more attractive sister);(2)Nancy Marchand.
Mrs. Redgrave is a broody,headstrong,crabbed,exalted and poisonous,felonious damsel ,as interesting as Lenin's books.As a matter of fact,this poor woman looks rather feeble-minded.One hopes in vain she'll have her fling with "Verena Tarrant".She is here as cranky as ever.
Mrs. Madeleine Potter is very uninteresting, insipid,and as fascinating as a sausage.
Towards the final of The Bostonians ,I swore at the director, at the scriptwriter and at the entire cast.I would seize Ivory by his ears and force him watch many Bruce Lee movies and many Jackie Chan movies,so much that he gets able to make at least something that well-thought.
The whole plot is utterly nauseating.The characters are as viscid as the mollusks.This makes the movie a morass.This is a show,don't ask me to judge it as if it were a novel.I'm talking about Ivory's show,not about James' novel.The most annoying fact is that Mrs. Redgrave seems to enjoy her role;this is unacceptable!(But it is also obvious that no member of the cast is able to get what this show is about.This may serve,though in a paradoxical way,as a justification for them all!These people (Reeve, Nancy Marchand and Nancy New) performed hoping there is a meaning they are not yet able to comprehend.)
Suffrage and What Suffering! ** 'Bostonians'
edwagreen28 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Women of Boston committed to the suffrage movement on shown in a picture which resembles the Seneca Falls Convention Meeting of Women in 1848 with Elizabeth Cady Stanton and others participating. The film belonged in 1848. It is thoroughly boring.
The late Chris Reeves was horribly miscast as a Mississippi attorney up from the south who falls in love with one of the suffragettes. In the way, is the dedicated leader, played by Vanessa Redgrave, who wants the woman to remain in the movement. Anyone who marries from her thinking can't be totally committed. The fact that there is a lesbian situation going on between the two women supposedly doesn't enter into her thinking. Right.
Co-star Jessica Tandy is made up to look like Cady Stanton.
The ending where Redgrave makes her passioned speech for the movement after the other lady runs off with Reeve is too late. When the latter didn't speak, most of the people left the auditorium. This is what movie viewers should have done as well.
The late Chris Reeves was horribly miscast as a Mississippi attorney up from the south who falls in love with one of the suffragettes. In the way, is the dedicated leader, played by Vanessa Redgrave, who wants the woman to remain in the movement. Anyone who marries from her thinking can't be totally committed. The fact that there is a lesbian situation going on between the two women supposedly doesn't enter into her thinking. Right.
Co-star Jessica Tandy is made up to look like Cady Stanton.
The ending where Redgrave makes her passioned speech for the movement after the other lady runs off with Reeve is too late. When the latter didn't speak, most of the people left the auditorium. This is what movie viewers should have done as well.
Great Jessica Tandy performance; reflections on Christopher Reeve
gkeith_116 September 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Christopher Reeve not too convincing here. Seems he wanted Verena as a trophy, and as a prize taken from his cousin Olive. Having seen the movie and read some reviews, Verena was perhaps the ultimate mutton-headed dolt. Verena was very sweet, and Olive rightly predicted how Verena would be quite attractive to men.
Jessica Tandy was excellent. She looked so ill as Miss Birdseye, that I figured she would meet her demise by the end of the movie. She was very dedicated to her cause, and knew that younger women would carry on the banner. She seemed to have more sense than many of the other characters.
I had waited awhile to see this movie. I have not read the book. Christopher Reeve did say that "Somewhere In Time" was his most favorite movie that he made. I feel that his love story in that movie was more believable than in this one. Olive reminded me here of William Fawcett Robinson in that movie, controlling the actress Elise McKenna. Elise was adored by the public, ala Verena. It is said that Robinson was himself in love with Elise, and in "The Bostonians" we are led to believe that Olive was in love with Verena. In both cases, Christopher Reeve played the outsider/suitor who was despised by Robinson and Olive.
Jessica Tandy was excellent. She looked so ill as Miss Birdseye, that I figured she would meet her demise by the end of the movie. She was very dedicated to her cause, and knew that younger women would carry on the banner. She seemed to have more sense than many of the other characters.
I had waited awhile to see this movie. I have not read the book. Christopher Reeve did say that "Somewhere In Time" was his most favorite movie that he made. I feel that his love story in that movie was more believable than in this one. Olive reminded me here of William Fawcett Robinson in that movie, controlling the actress Elise McKenna. Elise was adored by the public, ala Verena. It is said that Robinson was himself in love with Elise, and in "The Bostonians" we are led to believe that Olive was in love with Verena. In both cases, Christopher Reeve played the outsider/suitor who was despised by Robinson and Olive.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
