Very enjoyable. Perhaps flawed but very beautiful. The acting quality from character to character was uneven but most of the principals were outstanding. The sets and cinematography were very pleasing to the eye. The story was more like we would see a few years ago when offbeat tales were not mostly told to shock but to enlighten. I hope Yan Luo will have the opportunity to present another story and I hope we will see her in more pictures soon.
29 Reviews
Culturally revealing but shy of high marks
davidscruggs8 February 2002
The story and set behind Pavilion of Women were grist for a powerful movie. It's about an American priest (Willem Dafoe) running an orphanage in Asia who becomes entangled with a proud Chinese family's tugs of war over love and duty. While Pavilion is engaging enough to keep you awake, it didn't project any of the majesty of greater love-versus-duty romances that come to mind. Its characters cried, but not amid enough conveyed tragedy for its viewers to join in sympathy. Dafoe seemed to absorb his role, but not wholely, for soft-spoken and even-keeled as Dafoe can be, the priest in this movie would have been better portrayed by someone as unknown in the U.S. as the movie's Chinese cast members, whose anonymity aided their credibility and certainly carried the show. There are several wonderfully intense scenes that might even take you back to a love-struck moment in your past. The cinematography gave me pans of the city and garden life now and then, but it left me wishing it had lingered on Asia's beauty and austerity long enough to arouse a connection in me with these people living in 1930s China.
I wouldn't say give it a swerve, because the performances of the local cast was often great. But neither would I recommend making it a late-night movie, if you want to see it before nodding off.
I wouldn't say give it a swerve, because the performances of the local cast was often great. But neither would I recommend making it a late-night movie, if you want to see it before nodding off.
All love stories end in tragedy
Quinoa198428 May 2001
Pavilion of Women is a romantic drama about tradition in a Chinese family that is started to get shacked up by a generous priest (Willem Dafoe) and his American ideas and ideals. From what the plot says, it sounds like a corny movie, and at times it is laying it on a little thick (the score by Conrad Pope and the ending add to the sometimes lameness). But the film is also well done with fine performances, notably by Dafoe who turn in yet another remarkable performance. B+
Director/producer should have read book
connorblake28 January 2002
Am I the only one out here who read 'Pavilion of Women'? This film took a great book and what would have been a fantastic female role and turned them both into porridge. In the book, the relationship between Brother Andre and Madame Wu was that of a wise teacher and a brilliant pupil until, literally, the day he died: it wasn't until that day that she realized that she loved him. Pavilion of Women is not a 'romance': it is the awakening of a woman to her own humanity, and, through the transforming power of love, to the humanity of others, whom she has previously regarded only as problems to be solved or duties to be performed. To turn it into a 'romance' is an insult to the author, Pearl Buck, who, for the record, did not write Harlequin-level trash, and the audience, who would have been quite capable of understanding the story as it was originally written. Whoever's responsible for foisting this 'dumbed-down' mess on the universe should be ashamed of themselves.
Missionery Faces Big Challenge
whpratt19 August 2009
This is a film which will appeal to a very large group of people because of old customs of a man in China being able to choose a second wife after years of marriage.
The local Missionery has his hands full trying to find ways in order to keep the families from breaking up and at the same time keep himself from being tempted into a sexual relation which is very powerful.
There is plenty of romance and lots of explosions and you name it, this film will keep you interested right to the very end of the film.
Found the film rather long and not produced as well as I expected for a 2001 film. Give it a try.
The local Missionery has his hands full trying to find ways in order to keep the families from breaking up and at the same time keep himself from being tempted into a sexual relation which is very powerful.
There is plenty of romance and lots of explosions and you name it, this film will keep you interested right to the very end of the film.
Found the film rather long and not produced as well as I expected for a 2001 film. Give it a try.
Really awesome
meta4-128 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Well, I grant you that the film could have been much better with Chinese dialog, but since I do not speak Chinese, English worked fine for me. I found the colorite of the periode just great. Costumes, interior, culture - but than again - I'm not Chinese and are probably not able to see the flaws and am very happy for it. I liked the film, that I by chance came by, and would not have seen if my sister had not tipped my off. I found that it was portraying the eara between old and new time quite believable as it take place around the Japanese invation of China. The lead man is an American and the one bringing change with him. The female lead is a strong Chinese lady who plays her role most brilliantly. The only drawback that I could see was the end that was too yacky for me knowing what Mao did to his country in the years that followed. If you like films about China this one could well be your thing.
Hollywoodish love story -- light years from Pearl Buck's book
cbloomer6 June 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Pavilion of Women was billed by People's Daily, China's official newspaper, as the "first Chinese-made Hollywood film", and indeed was jointly produced with Universal Pictures, and shot in both English and Chinese.
If you never read the book, and come to this movie cold, and accept it as a Hollywood-style romantic epic melodrama set in 1930s China, then you probably won't be disappointed especially if you know nothing about Chinese society at the time. The film has high production values and compelling narrative elements in terms of western values that heroicize transgression: the irresistible romantic attraction between a Chinese wife and Western priest transgresses both social and religious propriety; the attraction between Chinese son and his father's concubine transgresses generational lines.
The problem is that the film is a contemporary love story masquerading as an historical drama that seeks to accrue legitimacy by referencing Pearl Buck's novel of the same name. The entire plot, the setting, the characters, their motivations, and their interrelationships are all utterly at odds with Buck's novel. The filmmakers took Buck's thoughtful story of a women's personal spiritual and philosophical odyssey in the context of traditional family relationships, and transformed it into a fairly ordinary story of physical and material lust to which is lent false importance through the crutch of sensational scenes of fire and war, and the pathos of orphaned children. Buck must be turning over in her grave.
The movie is set in Suzhou (rather than in an area remote from the war); it has omitted characters (two of the four brothers, one of their wives, and Fengmo's wife), changed the personality of every major character (Mr. Wu, Madame Wu, Andre); and created events that never occurred in the book (the orphanage fire, the Japanese invasions), manufactured encounters that would have been impossible in Chinese society of the time (e.g. conversations and meetings between Madame Wu and Andre, between Fengmo and Qiuming), and falsified the very social structure and gender relations that the novel sought to critique and explore.
The mutilations are legion, and surface right away, in the first moments of the film even before the credits. 1) In the movie bringing in a concubine is presented as the mother-in-law's idea whereas in the book it was Madame Wu's idea for freeing herself from childbearing (which makes Mr. Wu's fixation on oral-sex in the movie pure lasciviousness). 2) In the book, Madame Kang's birth difficulty occurs many months after Madame Wu's birthday and follows a series of conversations between the women about age and births. 3) In the book the priest Andre plays absolutely no part in Madame Kang's birth crisis; instead Madame Wu commandeers Mr. Kang to assist in the birth as a way of demonstrating to him the consequences of his sexual appetite so that he will leave her friend alone. Madame Wu emerges the hero, but the movie makes the white male the hero (surprise!). 4) The movie presents Mr. Wu as a domineering husband, whereas in the novel he is actually quite compliant and loving and resistant to the idea of a concubine. 5) In the book the concubine's arrival in the Wu household is discreetly maneuvered not proclaimed with a wedding, and absolutely not publicly revealed as a face-losing surprise to Mr. Wu. 6) The necklace in the movie is complete fabrication. The only thing Qiuming (correct transliteration for "autumn brightness") brings with her to the Wu household is the embroidered jacket in which she was swaddled as a foundling -- in the novel this later leads to a reuniting of Qiuming and her daughter (where is the daughter in the movie?) with her birth mother (the movie just sends her off all alone on a boat with some silver coins). 7) The novel's Andre was born in Italy, not the U.S., had a full beard, and was hired to teach foreign languages to Fengmo. It would have been prohibited for Qiuming to participate; even Madame Wu herself had to eavesdrop from another room. Because of the domestic and social controls on interaction between the sexes, the conversations and encounters in the movie could never have taken place. 8) The orphans in the book are all girls (basically only daughters are abandoned). And 9) in the book no one was directly involved with the army, the Communist Party, or the Sino-Japanese War.
There are many, many more discrepancies, and I could go on and on about them. But suffice it to say that this movie should not have been given the name of the novel; and indeed, the title makes no sense in the context of the film. The movie should have been given a different name so that it could stand on its own merits instead of cheapening Buck's literary work and inviting the kind of harsh criticism I have felt compelled to give here.
If you never read the book, and come to this movie cold, and accept it as a Hollywood-style romantic epic melodrama set in 1930s China, then you probably won't be disappointed especially if you know nothing about Chinese society at the time. The film has high production values and compelling narrative elements in terms of western values that heroicize transgression: the irresistible romantic attraction between a Chinese wife and Western priest transgresses both social and religious propriety; the attraction between Chinese son and his father's concubine transgresses generational lines.
The problem is that the film is a contemporary love story masquerading as an historical drama that seeks to accrue legitimacy by referencing Pearl Buck's novel of the same name. The entire plot, the setting, the characters, their motivations, and their interrelationships are all utterly at odds with Buck's novel. The filmmakers took Buck's thoughtful story of a women's personal spiritual and philosophical odyssey in the context of traditional family relationships, and transformed it into a fairly ordinary story of physical and material lust to which is lent false importance through the crutch of sensational scenes of fire and war, and the pathos of orphaned children. Buck must be turning over in her grave.
The movie is set in Suzhou (rather than in an area remote from the war); it has omitted characters (two of the four brothers, one of their wives, and Fengmo's wife), changed the personality of every major character (Mr. Wu, Madame Wu, Andre); and created events that never occurred in the book (the orphanage fire, the Japanese invasions), manufactured encounters that would have been impossible in Chinese society of the time (e.g. conversations and meetings between Madame Wu and Andre, between Fengmo and Qiuming), and falsified the very social structure and gender relations that the novel sought to critique and explore.
The mutilations are legion, and surface right away, in the first moments of the film even before the credits. 1) In the movie bringing in a concubine is presented as the mother-in-law's idea whereas in the book it was Madame Wu's idea for freeing herself from childbearing (which makes Mr. Wu's fixation on oral-sex in the movie pure lasciviousness). 2) In the book, Madame Kang's birth difficulty occurs many months after Madame Wu's birthday and follows a series of conversations between the women about age and births. 3) In the book the priest Andre plays absolutely no part in Madame Kang's birth crisis; instead Madame Wu commandeers Mr. Kang to assist in the birth as a way of demonstrating to him the consequences of his sexual appetite so that he will leave her friend alone. Madame Wu emerges the hero, but the movie makes the white male the hero (surprise!). 4) The movie presents Mr. Wu as a domineering husband, whereas in the novel he is actually quite compliant and loving and resistant to the idea of a concubine. 5) In the book the concubine's arrival in the Wu household is discreetly maneuvered not proclaimed with a wedding, and absolutely not publicly revealed as a face-losing surprise to Mr. Wu. 6) The necklace in the movie is complete fabrication. The only thing Qiuming (correct transliteration for "autumn brightness") brings with her to the Wu household is the embroidered jacket in which she was swaddled as a foundling -- in the novel this later leads to a reuniting of Qiuming and her daughter (where is the daughter in the movie?) with her birth mother (the movie just sends her off all alone on a boat with some silver coins). 7) The novel's Andre was born in Italy, not the U.S., had a full beard, and was hired to teach foreign languages to Fengmo. It would have been prohibited for Qiuming to participate; even Madame Wu herself had to eavesdrop from another room. Because of the domestic and social controls on interaction between the sexes, the conversations and encounters in the movie could never have taken place. 8) The orphans in the book are all girls (basically only daughters are abandoned). And 9) in the book no one was directly involved with the army, the Communist Party, or the Sino-Japanese War.
There are many, many more discrepancies, and I could go on and on about them. But suffice it to say that this movie should not have been given the name of the novel; and indeed, the title makes no sense in the context of the film. The movie should have been given a different name so that it could stand on its own merits instead of cheapening Buck's literary work and inviting the kind of harsh criticism I have felt compelled to give here.
Not as bad as you think it is, but not that good either.
PatrynXX26 March 2004
Warning: Spoilers
(spoilers???)
Think we all new he was gonna die. But I didn't entirely care. It was the female Wu, I cared about her and the second sister who fell in love with female wu's son. It certainly is a drama. But parts of the movie and especially the end made no sense whatsoever. Has Dafoe come back as a ghost or what?
I also got confused as to where in the heck the movie was based (I learned later China) They got Japan attacks close enough. Though the special effects were cheap.
The english language was very annoying. Mr. Wu talked like an idiot. We laughed when we shouldn't have. His acting was the weak section of the movie
It was okay as a rental, but I'm not sure I'd buy it.
6/10
Quality: 6/10 Entertainment: 7/10 Replayable: 3/10
Think we all new he was gonna die. But I didn't entirely care. It was the female Wu, I cared about her and the second sister who fell in love with female wu's son. It certainly is a drama. But parts of the movie and especially the end made no sense whatsoever. Has Dafoe come back as a ghost or what?
I also got confused as to where in the heck the movie was based (I learned later China) They got Japan attacks close enough. Though the special effects were cheap.
The english language was very annoying. Mr. Wu talked like an idiot. We laughed when we shouldn't have. His acting was the weak section of the movie
It was okay as a rental, but I'm not sure I'd buy it.
6/10
Quality: 6/10 Entertainment: 7/10 Replayable: 3/10
Silly and obvious
rosscinema2 September 2002
I could not believe how lousy this film was and I tried to think why. Well its co-made by China and a United States film studio and I think thats where the trouble lies. Its americanized. No original angle or aspect into the chinese people. All the characters are one dimensional and act on the most basic of emotions. Only actress Luo Yan has a few decent moments but the rest is all hokey nonsense. It plays out like a mediocre mini-series and I kept expecting one of two things to happen. Either Richard Chamberlain was going to stumble in OR the characters were going to burst into song and sing "Getting to Know You". The last half hour is so overly dramatic that it puts daytime soaps to shame. Bad filmmaking!
Too much modern interferes with the story
sambson18 March 2020
hollywoodized communist propaganda trash
csabarish20 September 2006
Good god has no one read the book? It talks of a woman who wakes up on her fortieth birthday determined to break herself free from her duties to her family but without hurting anyone. This sets off a series of events she had not foreseen and does not know how to tackle. All this is set in a period when China was changing. It is a brilliant story of spiritual awakening. And what have they done to it?
The missionary and the lady never even touch each other before he dies. In fact she doesn't even know that she loves him until that point. The son does not settle down with his father's concubine. And the woman does not turn communist, but becomes free in the true meaning of the word.
It just beats me how any one could dare to call this movie by the name of the book. Blasphemous!
The missionary and the lady never even touch each other before he dies. In fact she doesn't even know that she loves him until that point. The son does not settle down with his father's concubine. And the woman does not turn communist, but becomes free in the true meaning of the word.
It just beats me how any one could dare to call this movie by the name of the book. Blasphemous!
Missionary Drama
dromasca14 December 2002
Director Ho Yim's movie is based on a novel of Pearl Buck. 60-70 years ago, this writer's books were cross-cultural best sellers, bringing to the US and Western audiences the image of the Far East which soon will have become part of the daily lives, when WWII broke. The film story line has all the elements of the time - melodrama, clash between the Western and Chinese traditions, and a missionary message which is probably the most problematic part of the movie.
However, this is a good movie. Certainly, we have seen much better and original ones, coming directly from China without the intervention of the Hollywood producers. Having the film spoken in English may have won some US audiences, but certainly lowers the credibility. However, the filming is exquisite, the historical background is very well re-created, and the acting is fabulous. Is this really Luo Yam's first or second role? This is what IMDB's information says, I simply cannot believe it. She is giving an Oscar level performance, and I am certainly flattering some of the ladies who won feminine role Oscars lately.
Worth seeing. 8/10 on my personal scale.
However, this is a good movie. Certainly, we have seen much better and original ones, coming directly from China without the intervention of the Hollywood producers. Having the film spoken in English may have won some US audiences, but certainly lowers the credibility. However, the filming is exquisite, the historical background is very well re-created, and the acting is fabulous. Is this really Luo Yam's first or second role? This is what IMDB's information says, I simply cannot believe it. She is giving an Oscar level performance, and I am certainly flattering some of the ladies who won feminine role Oscars lately.
Worth seeing. 8/10 on my personal scale.
Good women characters, good start - porridge end
jaakkochan21 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I must say I really like Willem Dafoe. He has charisma and he can convey a lot naturally, without acting too much. The young and adult women actresses were also good in this film. I can't understand why Dafoe decided to act in this movie. Until somewhere in the middle, movie keeps nice pace, although I was constantly bothered by the one dimensional man character, the husband of the wives, and also too simple black and white setting. The husband's and servant's characters were exaggerated and fool. Come on, what do you think we audience are? Dumb? Not to mention to deadly stinky dialog which makes Harlequin books deserve Nobel prize. The way how all the Chinese characters speaking weird English is nearly unbearably superficial. Mostly this bothers the husband's character which is seen as something between monstrous, pitiful and womanizer. And by the way, what is his job? When the movie should have focused on it's promising character development, it delivers patriotic Americanized foolish national message that doesn't tell anyone anything. Only Westerner is seen as some kind of liberator and martyr. Why this movie had to include the war and showing Japanese soldiers raping women in the street? Does that have anything to do with the story? We all know war is hell. One little detail - Japanese soldier whistling "Sakura" song while taking a leak. Sakura song is perhaps most known Japanese folk song. Such a small detail, but if they really wanted to show invasion of the foreign army, why not to do it with gut, not with cheap tricks like that. And, is this a war movie? OK the characters refer to the possibility of war in the middle of the movie too, and some might say it gives this porridge a dramatical end. But gimme a break! If they produce this as a TV movie and cut the unnecessary war part out and also remove the porridge from the beginning it might make a nice TV drama. If you want to see war movie, watch TORA TORA TORA. If you want to see Chinese drama, watch "The Joy Luck Club". Or read the book "Pavilion of Women" rather than watch this flick.
Badly adapted from a great novel
theatercat8 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Having read Pearl Buck's book and being unaware of the screen adaptation, I was pleasantly surprised to see this on the shelf. That pleasant surprised was quickly converted to disappointment and embarrassment. The film's conversion of the husband into a hateful character was evidence that the studio believed its audience could not appreciate the subtlety of the novel's character. More absurd is the delay of the priest's death. In the book, he dies at least in the first half of the book, if not the first quarter. The novel explores her romanticizing of her relationship with the priest, imagining him to be a witness to many of her personal events. In the movie version, instead he saves orphans! I half expected a Gary Coleman cameo.
Read the book. This film is a discredit to Pearl Buck's masterpiece.
Read the book. This film is a discredit to Pearl Buck's masterpiece.
On the Melodramatic Side
Jalea11 May 2003
but it is not bad. This movie seems to play like an opera. There is much exaggeration. Except there is no singing. If there was singing, it would excuse the simplification of the story. Also, there are no scenes were the camera pulls back and allows the viewer to appreciate the landscape and scenery
However, the film is still entertaining. It has some touching moments although the ending was definitely over the top. It is worth watching if you like melodrama.
However, the film is still entertaining. It has some touching moments although the ending was definitely over the top. It is worth watching if you like melodrama.
waste of time
restless-21 September 2006
Having read the entries in the IMDb forum, I was really looking forward to watching this movie--what a disappointment! The movie's cast was mainly Chinese but apart form the very last scene (3 years later) and the banquet scene I could not see anything Chinese in it. Everyone seemed to be talking all the time, rather like in an American movie.
And why does everyone have to speak English? Don't they speak Chinese in China? Not even the pictures were just marginally as powerful as in most Chineese films I have watched.
As the end credits rolled across the screen I realized--Pearl S- Buck. Well, I stopped reading Pearl S.Buck when I was 13 as I couldn't see any challenge in her books. They rather depict the "good old days" the way they never were.
And why does everyone have to speak English? Don't they speak Chinese in China? Not even the pictures were just marginally as powerful as in most Chineese films I have watched.
As the end credits rolled across the screen I realized--Pearl S- Buck. Well, I stopped reading Pearl S.Buck when I was 13 as I couldn't see any challenge in her books. They rather depict the "good old days" the way they never were.
What exactly *happened* here?
ex_ottoyuhr25 November 2006
Warning: Spoilers
OK, I see that someone filmed _Pavilion of Women_. Interesting choice. Then I look at the credits: No Tsemo, no Rulan, and... what in the name of Hong Xiuquan is a Japanese general doing in _Pavilion of Women_!? They seem to have this confused with _Dragon Seed_ or something...
And I was really looking forward to seeing who they cast as those two. The Tsemo-Rulan story arc was easily my favorite part of the book, and with their very good Fengmo, I had high hopes...
In short: this sounds like it's *nothing* like the book. Perhaps I'll get this comment deleted for having been posted without seeing the film, but frankly, with a departure like *this* (not to mention Brother Andre utterly abandoning his original character -- ugh, the fact that the fellow doesn't actually exist doesn't mean that he shouldn't sue), I'd say that seeing the film is probably far too steep a price to pay. Let's hope for a *real* adaptation of _Pavilion_ someday -- or, to be more practical, something like _Kinfolk_, or ideally _Sons_.
(Yes, on that subject, well, a _Sons_ movie would be nothing to stab one's treacherous but extremely beautiful kitsune concubine over, but it would be about as close to that as a film would be likely to get...)
And I was really looking forward to seeing who they cast as those two. The Tsemo-Rulan story arc was easily my favorite part of the book, and with their very good Fengmo, I had high hopes...
In short: this sounds like it's *nothing* like the book. Perhaps I'll get this comment deleted for having been posted without seeing the film, but frankly, with a departure like *this* (not to mention Brother Andre utterly abandoning his original character -- ugh, the fact that the fellow doesn't actually exist doesn't mean that he shouldn't sue), I'd say that seeing the film is probably far too steep a price to pay. Let's hope for a *real* adaptation of _Pavilion_ someday -- or, to be more practical, something like _Kinfolk_, or ideally _Sons_.
(Yes, on that subject, well, a _Sons_ movie would be nothing to stab one's treacherous but extremely beautiful kitsune concubine over, but it would be about as close to that as a film would be likely to get...)
A touching love story
cotu19 February 2003
Somehow I always feel that Willem Dafoe and the films he starrs in are drastically underrated. It is also the case for this exceptional movie set in pre-comunist China. A simple, touching story about tradition and the constrains that it sometimes brings.
The plot outline is simple. When Ailin turns 40, she decides it is time to retire from her husband's bed, the rich Mr. Wu. In order to do so, she finds a second wife, a woman that would take her place and pleasure the oral-sex-obsessed Mr. Wu. But the young new wife has trouble adapting to her role and the old pervert is not satisfied with her. Meanwhile, Ailin befriends her son's teacher, an American priest named Andre (Willem Dafoe). From here on, the story develops in various directions but I don't want to spoil it for you.
Very good acting and directing on a classical subject.
The plot outline is simple. When Ailin turns 40, she decides it is time to retire from her husband's bed, the rich Mr. Wu. In order to do so, she finds a second wife, a woman that would take her place and pleasure the oral-sex-obsessed Mr. Wu. But the young new wife has trouble adapting to her role and the old pervert is not satisfied with her. Meanwhile, Ailin befriends her son's teacher, an American priest named Andre (Willem Dafoe). From here on, the story develops in various directions but I don't want to spoil it for you.
Very good acting and directing on a classical subject.
An Isult to the Memory of Pearl S Buck
johnpelaro-430707 February 2024
When a truly great author writes such a thoughtful and penetrating book , one would hope that screenwriters and producers would render it the respect it deserves , but such respect is sadly lacking in this grossly inaccurate dramatization of a true classic . Whether or not you plan to watch this visually rich piece , Please read the book ! If you have any appreciation or interest in traditional Chinese culture , do yourself a favor and read the book before watching this ! The film's inaccuracies rank with those of BBC's Victoria of 2016-2019 , particularly the respective relationships of the main character of each with Father Andre and Lord Melbourne . Painful to watch if you love the book !
A Wonderful Epic Romance of Forbidden Loves in Traditional China
claudio_carvalho4 August 2003
In 1938, Ailian (Yan Luo) is the forty years old wife of a wealthy man, Mr. Wu (SheK Sau), who belongs to the traditional Wu Family in China. In order to get rid off her sexual obligations with her husband, Ailian gives Chiuming (YI Ding), a very young concubine to him. Andre (William Dafoe) is an American priest and doctor who takes care of an orphanage and becomes the tutor of her eighteen years old son Fengmo Wu (John Cho). Father Andre starts giving classes to Fengmo, Ailian and Chiuming. Then, two forbidden loves will rise: between the priest and the first wife, and between the son and the concubine, having the invasion of China by the Japanese in a big picture.
Summarizing this wonderful epic romance is not fair: it seems that this movie would be a soap opera. But it is not. This Chinese-American production is indeed a romantic drama, dealing with forbidden loves in an old and traditional China and involving different cultures. The screenplay, photography and soundtrack are very beautiful. The cast and direction are sharp. A worthwhile movie that deserves to be watched more than once. My vote is nine.
Title (Brazil): "Pavilhão de Mulheres" ("Pavilion of Women")
Summarizing this wonderful epic romance is not fair: it seems that this movie would be a soap opera. But it is not. This Chinese-American production is indeed a romantic drama, dealing with forbidden loves in an old and traditional China and involving different cultures. The screenplay, photography and soundtrack are very beautiful. The cast and direction are sharp. A worthwhile movie that deserves to be watched more than once. My vote is nine.
Title (Brazil): "Pavilhão de Mulheres" ("Pavilion of Women")
- a fine example of cross-cultural co-production
gt-1414 September 2002
Anyone who liked Zhang Yimou's "Raise The Red Lantern" is a prospect for "Pavilion Of Women". Whereas "Raise The Red Lantern" explores the breaking of merely Chinese cultural taboos, "Pavilion Of Women" centres on a romance between leading characters who flout both Chinese and Western mores. This is a cross-cultural romantic story by the prolific American writer on China, Pearl S. Buck, set in the late 1930s. It has first class cross-cultural direction and acting, and was filmed on location in elegant settings of old Suzhou. It is a fine example of what the Chinese film industry can achieve in co-production.
Totally enjoyed this movie and was left wanting more
oranchapps13 August 2006
I just watched this movie for the first time, August 2006, and was left wanting more. I found Willem Defoe charming and real. I will watch it again and again. I am glad it was "Americanized". I think showing the true characters of the far east would have made it boring and too callous in some situations. I prefer an idealized version for a "Romantic MOVIE", I'm tired of all the Realism in real life and this is a wonderful escape with just enough reality to snap you back. I can get all the reality I want with the news. The scenery was spectacular. The way of life for women showed to some degree how men treat women China. Made me feel that if I were a man, that is where I would want to be living. To be pampered all the time and not have to answer to anyone except mother. I was however, surprised how much respect was shown the the mother. Guess the father was dead? Definitely see this movie if you can appreciate a romantic movie. Excellent chick flick.
Thank you for reading my review. A romantic at heart.
Thank you for reading my review. A romantic at heart.
The power of history fades in front of extreme love affairs
Dr_Coulardeau4 May 2008
Warning: Spoilers
A fascinating film about China in 1938, just before the arrival of the invading Japanese. The film shows the real culture of China in a bourgeois family, how they are divided between respecting the traditions that set women apart, that provide married men with concubines, that marries sons and daughters at birth, but the film also shows how the refusal of these alienating traditions leads the sons and daughters of these families into the arms of the Communists, especially with the Japanese arriving. The film also shows how the Americans are trying to meddle with China via the good old Catholic religion that has nothing to do in China but that provides the poorest, in that case orphans, with a little hope and survival. But then the film turns sentimentalese. To make the elder son fall in love with the young concubine of his own father is far-fetched, and to add the mother falling in love with the American priest is even more far-fetched. And that makes the film mushy about good and evil and it forgets a country can only change from inside. It tries to impose onto China a change that comes from outside, from a foreigner who breaks the traditions instead of at the most helping them change all by themselves. It also shows that China in 1938 needed a big break, a big change and that this was going to come from the Communists prompted into taking the control of China by the absurd invasion from Japan. Some beautiful scenes, particularly the fast visions of the play telling the doomed love affair of two young people. Beautiful theater, beautiful drama.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines
A wonderful journey to another culture and a love story
filopez5 January 2008
Pavilion OF WOMEN (2001) A WONDERFUL JOURNEY TO ANOTHER CULTURE I was pleasantly amazed by this film. When I read the title and saw the poster for the first time, I thought it would be about some kind of sordid story between a western man (Dafoe) and an eastern chinese- woman, above all because I associated "pavilion" with a jail. Of course, when one watches the film, it becomes clear that it indeed refers to a jail, although in metaphoric terms
.
So, first of all I think the landscapes shown are really beautiful. On the second place, one can realize without doubts the role women played in Chinese society and family, the absolute lack of consideration for love in marriage, and the fulfillment of the married woman duties towards her husband.
The discovery of real love by this woman, who, after 25 years of serving her husband, decides to call for a young girl in order to better satisfy him and to relieve herself from her conjugal duties One could say that she was lucky that her society allowed her to give another wife to her husband although it wasn't all she needed to be happy, of course. On the other hand, the fact of love growing between her and the western Priest, it was so subtle, she wasn't "searching" for anyone at least in a conscious way, in my opinion-. The hint of a search for freedom in a society where women were under men's rule is shown in the fact of the two women attending the Priest's classes . I think they discovered that the world was more than sewing and serving a husband....
I must admit that I bought the movie just because Wilem Dafoe was there .his particular features and ways have always attracted me. After watching the movie I can say that this is an excellent performance from him. One has to consider that he and the Chinese woman are the most important characters around who the story develops, and they both catch the audience's attention, her performance is excellent too.
Well, as I don't want to be a spoiler, I won't write about the end, but I only want to say that it provoked in me a sort of impotence and sadness, for a while I thought about the relevance of a feeling, a caress, a glance, I mean, as a still photograph and without looking forward for much more and about the vulnerability of human life.
There are several superior values expressed : boldness, courage, respect for tradition, but in the same way the conflict between a too closed ancient tradition and freedom of choice, or free will, arises, as in the young son's decision of leaving home in order to pursue his political ideas and the woman he did love; the Chinese woman's choice of not going with her husband and the rest of the family when the war exploded, among others.
There's only one detail : I think there wasn't any conflict shown between the fact of Andre being a Priest and consequently, a celibate- and his love for the Chinese woman perhaps only when he prays "God, forgive me, because I have sinned", but it was all. I wonder if he would have left his religious position, married or at least lived together with her . Well, but these are only speculations of mine, which don't add to my review, I guess.
So, first of all I think the landscapes shown are really beautiful. On the second place, one can realize without doubts the role women played in Chinese society and family, the absolute lack of consideration for love in marriage, and the fulfillment of the married woman duties towards her husband.
The discovery of real love by this woman, who, after 25 years of serving her husband, decides to call for a young girl in order to better satisfy him and to relieve herself from her conjugal duties One could say that she was lucky that her society allowed her to give another wife to her husband although it wasn't all she needed to be happy, of course. On the other hand, the fact of love growing between her and the western Priest, it was so subtle, she wasn't "searching" for anyone at least in a conscious way, in my opinion-. The hint of a search for freedom in a society where women were under men's rule is shown in the fact of the two women attending the Priest's classes . I think they discovered that the world was more than sewing and serving a husband....
I must admit that I bought the movie just because Wilem Dafoe was there .his particular features and ways have always attracted me. After watching the movie I can say that this is an excellent performance from him. One has to consider that he and the Chinese woman are the most important characters around who the story develops, and they both catch the audience's attention, her performance is excellent too.
Well, as I don't want to be a spoiler, I won't write about the end, but I only want to say that it provoked in me a sort of impotence and sadness, for a while I thought about the relevance of a feeling, a caress, a glance, I mean, as a still photograph and without looking forward for much more and about the vulnerability of human life.
There are several superior values expressed : boldness, courage, respect for tradition, but in the same way the conflict between a too closed ancient tradition and freedom of choice, or free will, arises, as in the young son's decision of leaving home in order to pursue his political ideas and the woman he did love; the Chinese woman's choice of not going with her husband and the rest of the family when the war exploded, among others.
There's only one detail : I think there wasn't any conflict shown between the fact of Andre being a Priest and consequently, a celibate- and his love for the Chinese woman perhaps only when he prays "God, forgive me, because I have sinned", but it was all. I wonder if he would have left his religious position, married or at least lived together with her . Well, but these are only speculations of mine, which don't add to my review, I guess.
loved this movie
nahender8 May 2006
I love Pearl S. Buck and her book The Good Earth is one of my favorites.
She really has a way of connecting the reader to her characters. In "Pavilion" I felt the same way. The director did a wonderful job of bringing Buck's characters to life. The casting was great and I was so attached to them I didn't want the movie to end. the cinematography of Pre-war china was beautiful without overpowering the story. It has been a long time since a movie moved me like this one did. The love that was between Madame Wu and Andre was beautiful and pure. I cried like a baby at the end.I can only hope that I too will one day find love like that.
She really has a way of connecting the reader to her characters. In "Pavilion" I felt the same way. The director did a wonderful job of bringing Buck's characters to life. The casting was great and I was so attached to them I didn't want the movie to end. the cinematography of Pre-war china was beautiful without overpowering the story. It has been a long time since a movie moved me like this one did. The love that was between Madame Wu and Andre was beautiful and pure. I cried like a baby at the end.I can only hope that I too will one day find love like that.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
