back

Tufts Daily
FILM REVIEW: 'House of Mirth' true to novel
Updated 12:00 PM ET January 17, 2001
By Emily Berger
Tufts Daily
Tufts U.

(U-WIRE) MEDFORD, Mass. -- After six years of raising funds, British director Terence Davies brings Edith Wharton's classic novel, The House of Mirth, to the big screen. The film aims to recreate the world of Wharton's novel with an interesting cast amidst lavish period costumes and sets. Filmed in Glasgow, Scotland, the film profiles turn-of-the-century New York and showcases the story's main character, single socialite Lily Bart (The X Files' Gillian Anderson).

The tragic story involves Lily's internal and social struggle to stay single in an aristocratic society that expects women to marry well, conform to conventions of wealth, and display their husbands' economic standings. Telling this story is a cast that also includes film veterans Eric Stoltz, Dan Aykroyd, Laura Linney, and Anthony LaPaglia as part of a network of New Y ork's social elite of the very early 20th century.

Because these actors' faces and personalities are so recognizable, the film takes some getting used to - it takes a few scenes for the actors to make their characters believable. After this leeway is awarded, however, the film almost feels like the novel is being read to the audience through the on-screen dialogue. The timing of the film is imperfect: some scenes pass too quickly while others drag, and the film as a whole is rather long.

Though these elements may be difficult to overcome, they can in part be credited to the director's desire to retain the voice of the author within the cinematic work. Herein lies the great challenge in creating a period film: to make the dialogue and settings believable for an audience of the modern world. More often than not, Wharton's story successfully shines through in the film.

Terence Davies (director of The Neon Bible) offered his understanding of the film in an interview with the Daily. Davies is a jovial artist who will enthusiastically and openly discusses the meaning of his film and the challenges he faced in its production. He notes thatthe tedious auditioning process was made difficult not only by having to see so many actors but also choosing those who could successfully pull-off period language and clothing. By observing the way the actors sit and move, and the structures of their body language, he recalls that some actors, such as Eric Stoltz, stood out with a "natural elegance," as did Gillian Anderson, whose visage is strikingly reminiscent of John Singer Sargent's portraits of the period. Davies explains that the strength of these actors, as well as their fellow cast-mates, is that they could understand both the sub-textual meaning and formality of 19th century English. Davies does not think of the tedious casting procedure and pre-production processes as obstacles, remarking that they are "not so much challenges as how you can make it work."

An important element in making the film work is the actual adaptation of such a classic Wharton novel for the big screen. Certain dialogue in the novel stands out to Davies as remarkably cinematic, such as a conversation between Lily Bart and Eric Stoltz's character, Laurence Selden, during a walk to church in the woods. In realizing the story's cinematic quality, Davies did not want to lose the distinct voice of the author.

In recreating Wharton's world in a historical context, Davies notes that certain elements of the novel, though historically appropriate, might have hindered the believability of the film. Some of these elements include the 19th century feeling of sentimentality, elements of coincidence so often seen in novels of Wharton's era, and the anti Semitism in the story, which, Davies claims, "disfigure the book." The most major change, however, is the "amalgamation of two characters - Gertie Farish and Grace Stepney." As these characters mold into one, dialogue had to be invented that would preserve the original feeling of the novel.

This invented dialogue is one of the more impressive elements of the film. Even after reading the novel analytically, it is difficult to decipher which dialogue is Wharton's and which is Davies', especially the completely invented dialogue of the servant, Mrs. Hatch. In the novel, Lily describes the actions of Mrs. Hatch, whereas in the film, Mrs. Hatch speaks directly.

Also refurbished is the ending of the story, which in the novel does not state whether or not Lily survives. "I couldn't figure out why I didn't believe [the ending]," Davies remarks. As a result, his version of the story avoids the ambiguous ending that the novel suggests. On these changes, Davies notes, "You have to change things, and the real challenge is to try and be true to the world that [Wharton] has created while trying to be cinematic as well."

To this end, Davies' film is successful. The film is markedly Wharton, but with a Davies flair. As for the adage that "the movie is never as good as the book," one would have to know both quite well to decide.

(C) 2001 Tufts Daily via U-WIRE

THE END

back