THE GOLDEN BOWL (2000)
The Merchant-Ivory film of The Golden Bowl is only the second dramatization of the 1904 novel. The first was the far superior 1972 BBC mini-series. This film version is visually lush and sumptuous, but a great deal is lost in its concentration on narrative action at the expense of James' dialogue.
In this version the dialogue scenes are drastically cut and blatantly expressive of characters' inner thoughts, which is not the case in either the novel or the BBC version. These characters go out of their way "not" to say what they mean, which is the whole point of the society James is trying to convey.
As with The Wings of the Dove two years later, James keeps the players to the minimum of six. Here there are four major players and two supporting players. Although the role of Fanny is as prominent in this production as in the mini-series, her extensive scenes with husband Bob, discussing the other characters, is reduced to only one interchange. Likewise, Bob's character is cut to pieces. He appears here as a mere appendage, while in the mini-series he was the narrator and central commentator on the plot.
Angelica Huston is appropriately concerned and protective of her match-made marriage of Maggie and Amerigo, though a bit too severe, I thought. Why she has an American Southern accent is quite beyond me.
Nick Nolte is quite restrained and likeable as the millionaire art collector, Adam, and anchors the film as nicely as did Barry Morse in the same role in the mini-series. Kate Beckinsale does as well here as her counterpart, Jill Townsend, in the mini-series, at first playing the trusting innocent and then turning tiger to protect her marriage.
Jeremy Northam as Amerigo gives a much better and more finely nuanced performance in the film than did Daniel Massey in the earlier production. He is much more accessible emotionally and much warmer as a result. We really feel his inner turmoil as he is torn in two directions.
Now we come to Uma Thurman's Charlotte. First, let me note that the plots of Bowl and Dove parallel each other. Both involve a couple who cannot marry due to financial problems. Both feature the woman plotting to keep the couple together while obtaining money through devious manipulation of the life and emotions of a young and trusting innocent. In both the manipulation goes awry. The difference in Bowl is that the young innocent, when roused, proves she can out-manipulate her rival and survive, whereas in Dove, she gives up on life and succumbs to her life-threatening illness.
Gayle Hunnicutt in the BBC production plays Charlotte with grace, sophistication and subtlety, never as it were, "losing her cool." Uma Thurman is a different matter. Her Charlotte seems to live life on the edge, highly emotional and demonstrative, almost fanatical in her selfishness and fury, a true hysteric.
She was obviously directed in this manner by Ivory, which was a big mistake. It throws off the entire feel of the film and makes her an obvious stand-out in her societal role, one which could never be over-looked by those around her, as the plot obviously requires. This is the one sour note in the film and it skews the work badly.
There are a number of additions to this version that were not in the book, nor in the mini-series:
1. Added is a prologue involving ancestors of Amerigo caught in adultery and executed, a rather obvious premonition. If this is not enough, a Turkish ballet half way through repeats the same pantomime - Ivory wanted to be sure we "got it." Both are rather heavy-handed and unnecessary.
2. In the opening scenes, Charlotte and Amerigo tour his ancestral ruins. Obviously there is an affair and it is ending. The book's action begins in the present and only hints at the past.
3. The time period in the film extends from 1903-1908, yet the novel was published in 1904.
4. At the marriage announcement of Adam and Charlotte, they join Maggie and Amerigo in Rome, rather than the news causing Maggie and Amerigo to return from Rome.
5. Maggie's dream of a cracked pagoda, again heavy symbolism.
6. Adam's past jealousy and tendency towards violence.
7. Charlotte accusing Fanny of spreading lies about her as her plans unravel.
8. Charlotte's adamant refusal to return to America.
Missing from the mini-series is the discussion of Adam's plans to bring his European art collection to an American City Museum, which does, as presented in the film, nicely explain Adam's character better.
The pacing is interesting as well. By the time the film is half over, it has covered two thirds of the mini-series. This points out the leisure of the 1972 script over the narrative-driven film.
Production values are of course much higher in the film. The sets and costumes are gorgeous, much grander than was possible in the television production. The golden bowl itself- really a goblet - is much bigger and more beautiful than the tiny, skimpy one used in the BBC production.
Sadly, while more beautiful to look at than the mini-series, the film sadly lacks a heart, a mind, a center that the BBC production delivers in spades. Discerning viewers will want to own both on dvd to compare and contrast.
The Merchant-Ivory film of The Golden Bowl is only the second dramatization of the 1904 novel. The first was the far superior 1972 BBC mini-series. This film version is visually lush and sumptuous, but a great deal is lost in its concentration on narrative action at the expense of James' dialogue.
In this version the dialogue scenes are drastically cut and blatantly expressive of characters' inner thoughts, which is not the case in either the novel or the BBC version. These characters go out of their way "not" to say what they mean, which is the whole point of the society James is trying to convey.
As with The Wings of the Dove two years later, James keeps the players to the minimum of six. Here there are four major players and two supporting players. Although the role of Fanny is as prominent in this production as in the mini-series, her extensive scenes with husband Bob, discussing the other characters, is reduced to only one interchange. Likewise, Bob's character is cut to pieces. He appears here as a mere appendage, while in the mini-series he was the narrator and central commentator on the plot.
Angelica Huston is appropriately concerned and protective of her match-made marriage of Maggie and Amerigo, though a bit too severe, I thought. Why she has an American Southern accent is quite beyond me.
Nick Nolte is quite restrained and likeable as the millionaire art collector, Adam, and anchors the film as nicely as did Barry Morse in the same role in the mini-series. Kate Beckinsale does as well here as her counterpart, Jill Townsend, in the mini-series, at first playing the trusting innocent and then turning tiger to protect her marriage.
Jeremy Northam as Amerigo gives a much better and more finely nuanced performance in the film than did Daniel Massey in the earlier production. He is much more accessible emotionally and much warmer as a result. We really feel his inner turmoil as he is torn in two directions.
Now we come to Uma Thurman's Charlotte. First, let me note that the plots of Bowl and Dove parallel each other. Both involve a couple who cannot marry due to financial problems. Both feature the woman plotting to keep the couple together while obtaining money through devious manipulation of the life and emotions of a young and trusting innocent. In both the manipulation goes awry. The difference in Bowl is that the young innocent, when roused, proves she can out-manipulate her rival and survive, whereas in Dove, she gives up on life and succumbs to her life-threatening illness.
Gayle Hunnicutt in the BBC production plays Charlotte with grace, sophistication and subtlety, never as it were, "losing her cool." Uma Thurman is a different matter. Her Charlotte seems to live life on the edge, highly emotional and demonstrative, almost fanatical in her selfishness and fury, a true hysteric.
She was obviously directed in this manner by Ivory, which was a big mistake. It throws off the entire feel of the film and makes her an obvious stand-out in her societal role, one which could never be over-looked by those around her, as the plot obviously requires. This is the one sour note in the film and it skews the work badly.
There are a number of additions to this version that were not in the book, nor in the mini-series:
1. Added is a prologue involving ancestors of Amerigo caught in adultery and executed, a rather obvious premonition. If this is not enough, a Turkish ballet half way through repeats the same pantomime - Ivory wanted to be sure we "got it." Both are rather heavy-handed and unnecessary.
2. In the opening scenes, Charlotte and Amerigo tour his ancestral ruins. Obviously there is an affair and it is ending. The book's action begins in the present and only hints at the past.
3. The time period in the film extends from 1903-1908, yet the novel was published in 1904.
4. At the marriage announcement of Adam and Charlotte, they join Maggie and Amerigo in Rome, rather than the news causing Maggie and Amerigo to return from Rome.
5. Maggie's dream of a cracked pagoda, again heavy symbolism.
6. Adam's past jealousy and tendency towards violence.
7. Charlotte accusing Fanny of spreading lies about her as her plans unravel.
8. Charlotte's adamant refusal to return to America.
Missing from the mini-series is the discussion of Adam's plans to bring his European art collection to an American City Museum, which does, as presented in the film, nicely explain Adam's character better.
The pacing is interesting as well. By the time the film is half over, it has covered two thirds of the mini-series. This points out the leisure of the 1972 script over the narrative-driven film.
Production values are of course much higher in the film. The sets and costumes are gorgeous, much grander than was possible in the television production. The golden bowl itself- really a goblet - is much bigger and more beautiful than the tiny, skimpy one used in the BBC production.
Sadly, while more beautiful to look at than the mini-series, the film sadly lacks a heart, a mind, a center that the BBC production delivers in spades. Discerning viewers will want to own both on dvd to compare and contrast.