User Reviews (184)

Add a Review

  • Along with Scorsese's, The Age of Innocence and Iain Softley's, The Wings of the Dove, Terence Davies' The House of Mirth forms a triumvirate of modern period drama for a discerning audience. Davies is not interested chiefly in either scenery or costume - that is, in history as a heritage theme-park - but in the story, its themes and characters, and in teasing out good performances from his cast. The modest budget of this film works in its favour. Most of the best scenes and shots are framed in intimacy, not lost amidst panoramas of superficial grandeur or the shallow aesthetics of Merchant-Ivory-style film making.

    At the heart of Davies' film is Gillian Anderson's brilliant performance as Lilly Bart. Since she is on screen almost all of the time the film really stands or falls by her performance. She sheds her "X-Files" persona in moments and conveys an enormous range of subtle emotions as her character vacillates between an almost involuntary avarice and moral scruples, foolishness, charm, fortune and tragedy. The affect of Anderson's performance is lasting and deep. Indeed, this film lives on long in the memory and continued to trouble me for weeks after I had seen it.
  • janet-559 August 2005
    This is a slow paced mesmerising film. If your only knowledge of Gillian Anderson is as Dana Scully in the X-Files then you are in for a big surprise. Firstly the lady can act, and secondly with great subtlety. If you have read the book then clearly the writer/director Terence Davies has taken a few liberties. But so much script has been lifted word for word from the novel that I think he can be forgiven any eccentricities. This is a story of manners in early twentieth century New York and environs. Everyone seems so decent and 'proper', but each plays their own manipulative game. No-one (with the exception of Sim Rosedale) tells the truth. As a morality tale it seems as relevant today as when Edith Wharton wrote it. Davies has succeeded in losing none of its mood or punch by transferring it to screen. Unfortunately I think this is a film that requires watching more than once as some explanatory scenes appear to have ended up on the cutting room floor. Generally the acting is excellent throughout though I felt that at times Davies's enthusiasm for detail hamstrung some actors where others appeared to have relished the close direction. This is a film to add to your personal collection.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This year has been an annus mirabilis for the period drama, a once-dessicated, inert, bourgeois-pampering sop enlivened by intellectual and formal rigour, cinematic innovation and visual beauty. Now that 'Le Temps Retrouve', 'Mansfield Park' and 'In the Mood For Love' have set the stakes, certain famous practitioners (or embalmers) of the genre for a lazy, cinema-hating, I-don't-have-to-read-the-books-to-be-classy audience have been made redundant.

    'House of Mirth' belongs to this iconoclastic group. If the period film is traditionally concerned with offering pleasure - costumes, big houses and estates, decor, dialogue etc. - than 'Mirth' is not traditional - it is a relentlessly observed depiction of one not particularly remarkable woman's fall from grace, lingering particularly on her decline into the working classes (quelle horrible surprise!). It is a rigorously austere film - the surface trappings are minimised, made deliberately artificial or obscured by dull lighting; the use of music is economical, what little there is comes from over a century before the drama is set, less lush, less wallowing, more ascetic, brittle, thin than contemporary late Romantic music would have been; there is no witty dialogue - the dramatis personae are either bores or monsters, all speak with elaborate stiltedness.

    Moments of epiphany or beauty are rare; what few there are usually end in artifice, banality or irony. This is a gruelling film to watch, especially in the second half; this doesn't mean that it isn't very moving, or beautiful in a non-superficial sense (much of the emotion comes not from the plot or characters' reaction to it, but Davies' subtle camerawork).

    Edith Wharton's story is basically an elaboration of Henry James subject matter, a showing of what he conceals or implies. There is the same horrified fascination with the machinations of class - a viewer has to be quick and alert to catch what's going on, the rules and transgressions only acknowledged by a look, or a seemingly irrelevant sentence, but which have devastating, life-threatening consequences.

    Davies doesn't offer us a traditional fall from grace narrative - it is clear from her opening scenes that Lily is no grande dame about to be felled; she is barely hanging on to a hierarchy that barely notices her. Her first appearance announces Davies' intentions as she emerges from the dense steam of a railway engine in a dank railway station. As she walks in the centre of a perfectly symmetrical composition against a neo-classical background to neo-classical music, she looks out of place, almost out of time, a dark silhouette, with no visible features, like the shadow or ghost she will eventually become, or like a strange, mocking figure of 18th century Venetian theatre, with her strange, birdlike hat.

    This sense of weightless rootlessness also makes us enquire about her elusive background - Lily literally seems to emerge from nowhere. She is slowly, but definitely, thrown from the unwritten laws of society to a very real material social order, reduced to making hats badly for a living. Her sense of time altars radically too - although society life seems a distinct realm from the 'real' world, there is a noticeable narrative flow, in spite of all the gaps (and this is a film so full of narrative holes, you often think you've been nodding off) and temporal elisions.

    But when Lily joins the world of work and time-keeping, narrative time seems to suspend - narrative events don't seem to follow coherently, but in a blur; when Lily first takes laudanum, and the camera floats out the window to the babble of voices from Lily's life, we assume she is dead. Of course, in a sense she is, and this painful second half is like a nightmare hallucination, as Lily floats away from whatever tenuous moorings she ever had.

    Her opening scenes with Sheldon have a brittle, nervous quality that initially seems false and irritating, until we realise the full extent of Lily's plight, her ineptitude for the role she is required to play - Gillian Anderson's performance is remarkable, as quietly tragic as those great actresses of the 30s and 40s, her face doing all the acting as she registers the horrors she cannot verbally acknowledge.
  • This is such an evocative and moving film. A must see.

    In all honestly Davies direction does take some getting used to. No quick editing for him! Yes the pace was slow, it concentrated on the actors faces longer than usual. However I felt this was necessary in order to show the tension of the people and the lethal nature of the words spoken

    The cast were wonderful. Stoltz was ideal as Seldon. He was cool and suave and attractive. I also enjoyed Laura Linney as Bertha -she really sold me on being a very nasty woman. The main star, Gillian Anderson, performed with grace, poise and charisma. This woman can convey emotions - just look into her eyes. She does not need to speak to tell you how Lily is feeling. She was mesmerizing. For example, when Lily was flirting with Seldon you somehow could feel her discontent.

    Her descent into hell was heartbreaking. One scene, when Lily is at her lowest, will stay with me for a long time. The hopelessness was obvious, as if she was slowly dying. She was beyond caring for anything - and it showed in her eyes - dulled and weary.

    Gillian Anderson brought Lily through a myriad of emotions. We loved her, pitied her, wanted to slap her! She was cynical and manipulative, a total flirt and then she fell. The gamut of emotions Anderson went through was incredible and to take the audience with her was a miracle.

    This movie leaves an impact. It will not be a blockbuster (too intelligent and too wordy for that.) God forbid should we make an audience pay attention and think in a movie. The movie, unlike most period dramas, really brought home how nasty life was. Vicious and unforgiving to those who did not play the game.

    If you can, go and see it. I promise it will be worth it.
  • House of Mirth is a richly painted tapestry of a piece of early American Society all but unrecognizable to most Americans. It's a great story and great looking, but the real surprise in Terence Davies' adaptation of Edith Wharton's novel is how deftly Gillian Anderson among others manages to gracefully convey the stilted rigors of the period language. The film is largely about the traps and deceits verbal gamesmanship and class one-upsmanship. It is a deadly and vicious internal warfare that goes on with the upper class bourgeois in New York City in the early 20th century. The price one pays – particularly that a woman pays – for straying too far from the unwritten laws of that society can be severe. Lillie Bart's flaw is not really in her indiscretions, but in her inability to compromise at the right time. Her timing is fatally flawed. That the film is so relentlessly tragic, really takes the viewer by surprise, partly because Anderson gives her character such spunk and vivaciousness that you find yourself surprised by the endless bad luck that she brings on herself. Anderson's remarkable beauty, poise as an actress, facility with the dialogue, in my mind, bring her to a whole new level as an actress.

    It is also wonderfully cinematic. There are rich colors and textures, beautifully framed scenes, marvellous costumes. Though steeped in tragedy and melodrama, you'll find yourself so swept away in this world that it will seem centuries and not merely decades removed from our time. Perhaps this is why the titles at the beginning and at the end are `New York 1914' – you need this reminder by the end.

    With a host of good performances and a rich sense of place you will get emotionally and imaginatively swept up in this world. Just be prepared for the landing.
  • Director Terence Davies has done a magnificent job of recreating the turn of the century in "The House of Mirth," a 2000 film starring Gillian Anderson, Eric Stoltz, Dan Ackroyd, Laura Linney, Anthony LaPaglia, and Terry Kinney.

    Anderson is Lily Bart, a beautiful young woman of good social standing, traveling in the best circles, who throws away her opportunities for a good marriage because she wants something more meaningful. However, her reputation begins to suffer due to her circle's misreading of an innocent situation, and things go from bad to worse for her as she descends down the social strata. She has it in her power to win back everything she has lost but refuses to stoop that low due to her love for one man.

    It's obvious that Davies took a great deal of care with this film. It is not infused with modern sensibilities, the period look is authentic, as is the look of the cast. By that I mean, Gillian Anderson's sumptuous red hair, full beautiful face, and lovely figure are much more period than, say, Gwyneth Paltrow's -- and yet films are rarely cast with an eye toward capturing the period in that way. The casting of Dan Ackroyd as Trenor is unusual but very right - he's not truly of the class he travels in and a real glad-hander. Eric Stoltz is Selden - handsome without being drop dead gorgeous, gentile without being effeminate, who has good chemistry with Anderson.

    The villainess of the piece is Laura Linney as the awful Bertha Dorset, a cunning witch, and as usual, Linney is perfection -- smiling, subtle, and you can just see the knife going in. In the book she is more responsible for Lily's troubles than in the film. In the film, we see her making initial trouble for Lily; in the book, she continues to work on destroying her with a whisper here and word there.

    What makes the story of Lily so frustrating is that she can ruin Bertha in five minutes but refuses, suffering instead, which drove me crazy. That's not the film's fault.

    This was an era where no one expressed emotions, so when someone says, thank you or I understand, there is a world of meaning to be read in the eyes. It's a world of artifice, and Davies obviously worked at getting this from his actors. Everything is in what lies beneath.

    The acting is uniformly excellent; only Gillian Anderson falls a little short of the mark. Lily is an extremely difficult role, and Anderson at least in 2000 did not have all the necessary skill to completely pull it off. She has the look, the bearing, and the intelligence. What she lacks is the ability to actually become someone of that era, rather than putting it on like an overcoat. She does much better in the latter part of the film, which calls for a different set of acting muscles than in the beginning.

    Reminiscent a bit of "Sister Carrie," "The House of Mirth" points up the difficulties of women in that time period to make their way, of the boundaries of class, and the rigidity of the upper class. Highly recommended, but not an easy, cheerful film by any means.
  • This is my favorite of all the Wharton novels adapted for the screen. The precision and depth with which the director and actors go is absolutely true to the novel in almost every respect.

    Gillian Anderson is a revalation here, she perfectly captures the repression and pain of being a woman stuck in that time and place with no way out. You can feel her pain and torment in every quivering close up, and the passion contained in her kissing scenes (or to be more precise, her NON kissing- kissing scene) with Eric Stoltz is something to behold.

    Eric Stoltz is equally amazing in one of the most complex and difficult roles for a man to play. I must disagree with the viewer from China, Mr. Seldon is NOT meant to be terribly "masculine" or "deep voiced" or "unbearably handsome"- those are modern readings that perhaps we expect from the role of the 'male hero' in modern films- but here Mr. Selden is written exactly as he is played- walking a fine line between what is correct behaviour for the time, and what he was or wasn't allowed to do in regards to her rescue. He is torn by love of Lilly Bart and the realization that he is not the right man for her, as the all important social scene would frown on their union. The actor portrays this ambiguity perfectly, and I for one found it a relief that the man didn't ride in and save the day in that cliched movie way.

    I also must commend the supporting players of Anthony LaPaglia (whose role "Sim Rosedale" is originally written as a Jewish man, one of the few changes made to the n script adaption of the novel) and Laura Linney as Bertha Dorset, the 'bad girl' of the story. They both bring a life to the story that is rare to see in a period film, most actors seem to be too afraid or respectful of the material to really bring it to life.

    I even enjoyed Dan Ackyroyd in a role that I didn't see him in or expect to like him in. I suppose my feelings about him are coloured by old Saturday Night Live shows, or Driving Miss Daisy, but I think he was terrific in a role that is not the most explored in the novel or the film.

    Everything about this film held my interest and moved me, and I'm a very tough audience as far as Wharton goes. The pacing is indeed slow, but if you give yourself over to it it is like taking a warm bath in a quick shower world.

    Very well done!
  • I haven't read "The House of Mirth" by Edith Wharton yet, but I intend to now. This movie interpretation captured Wharton's acidity towards NY society more than Scorcese's "Age of Innocence" did, which focused more on personal failings.

    Here a magnificently beautiful Gillian Anderson's character is stupid and stubborn, but doesn't really do anything wrong that society manipulates and revenges on her. She is absolutely superb with a very wide-ranging performance and it's a real shame she's being overlooked in end of the year awards.

    The costumes are absolutely gorgeous. Having worked at a Hudson River estate museum I thought the movie absolutely captured the feeling of those hazy summers out of the city then was astounded to see it was all filmed in Scotland (which would explain the rocky coasts that were the only thing that confusingly didn't look like the Hudson).

    The long movie is a bit slow and I think my mind wandered such that I missed a crucial plot point here or there - not sure we needed all the twinkling on the water shots.

    Laura Linney plays against type as a practically evil duplicitous friend (worse than her wife in "The Truman Show").

    It was interesting to compare this to Jane Austen interpretations which tend to emphasize the humor of her pot shots at silly society figures, but those folks were in small towns, not the big leagues where raised eyebrows affect fortunes. For society types, this is The Show.

    Ebert (and my mother) gave it negative reviews because they absolutely refused to believe that a woman in her social class in 1906 had no other choices besides marriage but I think it was historically accurate, as Wharton was writing, bitterly, about a society she had observed (in a line from George Eliot to Hardy's Tess and Crane's Maggie). The women coming out of the theater agreed that we'd want to see it again.

    (originally written 1/28/2001)
  • I'm not sure how this movie could get a bad review. Of course, there are those people who find its pace too slow. However, one must realize that this is a period drama; it's not meant to be an action-packed suspense thriller. Everything is subtle, but it is so beautifully prepared, thought out, and executed by all.

    1. Were it for nothing else, the technical aspects of this film would have kept me watching until the very end. The music was perfectly placed to rise and fall with the internal emotions of the characters - especially Lily and Lawrence - and to express the turmoil of the social downfall of Lily. On top of that, you have phenomenal costumes and set with the most lavish colors. Lastly, and possibly what I found most fascinating about the film, was the lighting. it always seemed just bright enough or just dark enough to reflect the romance or dreariness. In addition, there is just not denying that the way the light fell upon Gillian Anderson in every, single scene is something I have never seen before.

    2. The all-star cast! Gillian Anderson. Eric Stolz. Laura Linney. Anthony LaPaglia. Dan Akroyd. Do I have to go on? I can almost guarantee that you'll find yourself, at one point or another, yelling at the screen. These characters are so manipulative and deceitful and malicious. And Lily is so naive and just won't accept love when it's given!! I think the best thing about the cast and performances in this film is that watching the film and listening to it are 2 completely opposite experiences. The actors convey one thing with their faces and another with their voices; it's pure talent. I was amazed.

    3. If nothing else, this film should watched purely for Gillian Anderson. This project was so different than her 'X Files' persona - and such a success, at that. The way she uses her eyes to express 5 different emotions in a matter of seconds blew me away. Her acting and utter vulnerability was awe-inspiring.
  • No doubt the thought of Gillian "Agent Scully" Anderson and Dan "Blues Brothers" Aykroyd in a movie set during the Victorian Era would probably sound like a joke; think of it as Leslie Nielsen meets Merchant and Ivory. It turns out that "The House of Mirth" is worth seeing.* Anderson plays a woman who risks losing her lover. True, how many Victorian-era stories can there be, but everyone brings a certain charm to this one. Watching the movie, one gets the feeling of how unpleasant life was for women back then, and there's lots of tension amongst everyone to add to the story. Also starring Eleanor Bron (of "Help!" fame), Terry Kinney, Anthony LaPaglia, Laura Linney, Jodhi May (of "A World Apart" fame), Elizabeth McGovern and Eric Stoltz.

    *I would actually like to see a Victorian-era movie starring Leslie Nielsen.
  • Oh dear. Throughout this film I caught myself shouting at the screen, in my head of course, "Hurry up!", "Pan that camera quicker!", "Say your line!". Every single scene was drawn out and piled tedium upon tedium. Once lengthy sequence is to show the change from rainy home to a sunny cruise, multiple shots of the outside of a drenched house, pans slowly to rain falling on a pond, then panning across the water it takes almost a minute to change to sunny seas.

    It's all very arty, and looks lovely, but there's no characterisation. You simply cannot get involved with any of these characters, you're never shown anything more than a 2D cardboard image. With character interaction which is both dull and irritating, there's nothing that makes me feel any sympathy for these people. "Welcome Sympathy, may I show you the window now?".

    I must say though, that Gillian Anderson is excellent, not once did I think about X-Files, and she pulls off her role excellently. Shame about Eric Stoltz though. Dan Ackroyd and Anthony LaPaglia are both very good and my score is no reflection on their performances.
  • Reviews of this movie seem to fall into few categories, loved it because of Gillian Anderson, loved it because of the book, loved it because it was dreamy, hated it because I just didn't get it, hated it because of Gillian Anderson, hated it because it wasn't the book, hated it because it had no Arnie and wasn't Armageddon.

    If you can't follow Edwardian English, if you can't follow a movie with scene shifts without a subtitle that says "you are now in London", "You are now in New York", if you can't read emotions off of actor's faces even when their words contradict their feelings, well, you're going to hate this movie. If you need a driving soundtrack to tell you exactly what mood you're supposed to be feeling for each scene, you're going to hate this movie. If you can't accept the fact that flawed characters develop but don't always overcome in the end, you're going to hate this movie.

    OK, now that the summer action flic viewers have stopped reading this review in disgust (just as they left this movie early), we can get on with the review. I think Gillian Anderson was a good pick for the part, and did a very good, if not quite excellent performance. Part of Guilded Age/Edwardian upper-crust behaviour was the semblance of civility under the most trying of circumstances, such as saying "Thank You" when you've just been fired or otherwise dissed. Add that to the stylized English and you end up having to PAY ATTENTION to understand what is going on to get it.

    One of the brilliant aspects of casting is the Gillian Anderson pick. Instead of a brilliant blonde or smouldering brunette, you have a non-conventional look (short, voluptuos and red-headed) that jolts (and excites) the modern eye, but actually better fit in to the pre-Chanel standard of beauty of that time.

    At its heart the novel is a morality tale, describing the pitfalls of being beautiful, manipulative and shallow while failing to be cunning and wise. Lily Bart is callous to her suitors at first, only to fall into multiple social traps. In the end she relies solely on her integrity and dignity, which is insufficient to extricate her from her circumstances. This may offend many who expect the heroine to prevail in the end due to a simple basic morality (which is there in Lily), perseverance (which is also there), a clever plot twist and a 40mm grenade launcher (both missing).

    Lavish sets, beautiful backdrops, gorgeous costumes, good acting (with the possible exception of Akroyd), all make this a surreal, if sad, journey for the cognitively aware and patient. I say "possible exception" because of one subtext of the novel & movie is the interplay of the American Nuveau Riche and the old nobility of England and Europe. Thus the wealthy American Entrepeneurs are depicted as brutish and obvious, though this is tolerated in society because their path was already blazed in the 1890's by the first wave of gold miners, oil drillers and electric company tycoons that swept through Europe and married into storied, if not monies, bloodlines. Thus, Akroyd's blatant and crude manipulations and language are somewhat justified.

    But, if you don't like period pieces, costume dramas, and identifying with wealthy people who have never worked a day in their lives, all this will be lost on you.
  • As another poster commented, some novels are simply not good candidates for film. Alas, Edith Wharton's, "The House of Mirth" was such a novel. Despite an effective screen play that is faithful to the book, and uses much of Wharton's dialogue, the movie is talky and often slow. Despite these failings I give high marks to the cast, particularly the luminously beautiful and charismatic Gillian Anderson, as Lilly Bart, and Anthony LaPaglia as Sim Rosewood.

    Wharton's story is intensely sad and often bitter. It's characters, members of upper class New York Society a hundred years ago, talk in a code that is difficult to understand without Wharton's helpful narrative. I particularly missed this in the film because Wharton was an acute observer of that milieu and was very, very smart, to boot. Despite the absence of Wharton's narrative, however, the film has merit. Lilly Bart is a tragic heroine in the classic sense of the word. Like Hamlet, she is her own worst enemy because she cannot commit to any given course of action, and her problems are exacerbated by ill luck and genuine evil committed against her.

    One note on the quality of the print I saw. The Showtime print had a distressing yellowish caste that made it appear that all of the performers had malaria.

    It's weaknesses aside I recommend this movie but warn that those who have not read the Wharton's novel may not like it as well as do those of us who have read the book. 7 out of 10.
  • If you want to see this movie because of an interest in Edith Wharton's novel- you will sadly disappointed. The film merges distinctly differing characters, changes locations and timings of events, and adds material that Wharton would have found distasteful. The themes of the novel are completely lost within this tragic rendition. I will grant that the costumes were beautiful and the director made some interesting, if not always successful, choices with the mode of acting. If one has no interest in the novel, he or she might very well enjoy this terse yet pneumatic performance. If you have any interest in maintaining the dignity of the original, however, I would suggest spending your time on another film.
  • Anyone with years of experience making or watching film will recognize virtuoso work by Terence Davies, his cast and crew here. This admittedly languorous film rates ten out of ten for me and ranks close to Fanny and Alexander for its emotional control and depth. Get the DVD! With $8.7 million Terence Davies did what Scorsese could only impersonate with Age of Innocence, and which Merchant and Ivory haven't done for a long time. Davies has created the suffocating, cosseted and unforgiving social milieu of New York and Tuxedo Park circa 1905-07. The sets, the sense of place, the stunning cinematography of Remi Adefarasin (Elizabeth), and most of all Gillian Anderson's virtuoso performance combine with Davies' excruciatingly seductive pacing and scoring cues to track in loving detail the missed opportunities and downfall of Lily Bart. Every line Wharton used to describe Lily's inner life is there in Anderson's face and in Davies screenplay and direction. If the film feels stiff to younger viewers, it's because it's deadly accurate socially. That gilded society WAS stiff, unforgiving and precoccupied with keeping out the nouveau riche. Anyone who has tried to gain entry to a social register or the DAR might have a easy time understanding the upper class world of New York in 1905.

    I must commend Davies for the risky choices he made in casting Eric Stoltz as Lawrence Selden and Dan Ackroyd as Gus Trenor. Ackroyd's boisterous girth works here because Gus Trenor is both gatekeeper and gatecrasher of this social circle. He and his wife are major forces in deciding who's in and out. Ackroyd is not the deepest actor, but neither is Gus Trenor deep. In fact he's to great degree, a backslapping facade. Despite his wealth and high standing, Trenor is pragmatic and doesn't turn his nose down at courting filthy-rich newcomers desiring social elevation - men like Sim Rosedale (Anthony LaPaglia) - if it means Trenor makes a buck. And yes, Eric Stoltz is not a "convincing" choice for a romantic lead, yet he's perfect for the role of Lawrence Seldon, since Seldon balks repeatedly at being Lily's leading man anyway. The sexual charge and arch, ambivalent fencing between Lily and Lawrence is intensified by something indescribable that happens between Stoltz and Anderson in every scene played between them. I can't figure out why it works, except that these two fine actors "found each other". Stoltz's tenor crispness - his not quite boy, not quite man-ness - adds to his character's elusiveness, cowardice and vulnerability. Finally, Laura Linney is devastating as Lily's reptilian nemesis, Bertha Dorset. For me, she evokes some of Glenn Close's lethal devilishness and charm. It is Lily's sense of propriety, her fine upbringing, that makes her incapable of finishing off Bertha in when she can, and should.

    Davies' laser accurate sense of place and character sets House of Mirth apart. He's successfully created the last years of Wharton's treacherous gilded world, when carriages were what fine people still rode and automobiles were considered vulgar. Davies' production designer, art director and set decorator have created sumptuous yet stifling enviroments where Davies and his players can move us back one hundred years into a time we can only imagine and smell when we tour a Vanderbilt Mansion. And he did it without Titanic's budget. It's clear from his commentary that Davies had to repeatedly make do and it sounds like this production was a struggle. All I can say is, limitation is sometimes a fortunate mother. I hope Davies, now 57, will soon be up and running with a new film. I'm suprised to see no new project listed yet. If I were a producer, I'd pounce. This director has the magic. And excuuuse me...! No new projects listed yet for Gillian Anderson?

    A short note to the Snatch fans that have dissed this film here: I loved Snatch too, loved it, but where's your freakin' RANGE kiddies? SNATCH and HOUSE OF MIRTH were my TWO FAVORITE films of 2001. Tell ya what. Go back to your videogames and Hollywood spectacles and only comment on classic adult film when you've spent a few more years watching much of the worlds great film literature. If HOM is too slow for you, let your hormones rage for a few more years and come back when you're ready to pay attention to human, not cartoon, reality. Meanwhile, don't drop your smirking, restless, impatient and limited verbiage on films like this one.
  • Wow. Terence Davies' "House of Mirth" is a film that is just brilliant.

    Essentially, the plot focuses on Lily Bart (Gillian Anderson) a socialite in the early 1900s in New York who, through a series of tragic circumstances, goes from being popular and admired to being a social outcast. Anderson is perfect in the role, and we feel all of her emotions. The superb cast includes Dan Aykroyd and Eric Stolz as two of her suitors, and Anthony LaPaglia, great as always, as a man who tries to help Lily out despite her pride winning over.

    Davies' direction is incredible, one scene is simply of an empty house as it rains and it is just mind-blowing. The script, also, feels real all of the time which is a credit to the actors also.

    I definitely recommend this movie, but don't expect it to zoom straight by and then be forgotten!
  • I will be the first to admit that I am quite attached to well-done period films, as well as to classic literature. I found this particular movie to fit my taste fairly well, and Gillian Anderson as Lily Bart makes the movie all come together. The acting was a little off in some parts of the film, but those glitches were usually from the smaller roles. The cinematography in this movie (by Remi Adefarasin) was one of its best aspects, as light and dark and slow camera spans around rooms added greatly to the drama. I appreciated the casting of the lead roles (such as Anthony LaPaglia), and overall my view of this film is moderately high. Definitely a film to be examined more closely by those who also enjoyed it.
  • The book is a masterpiece and this adaptation is almost up to that level, just as richly told and emotional. It is not the kind of adaptation that will suck people in straightaway but the slow pace and how subtle a lot of aspects are actually add to the storytelling rather than distract and shouldn't be reasons to dismiss it. While I can understand completely why not everybody will like The House of Mirth some of how the detractors express their opinion reek of ignorance, like with the I'm-right-you're-wrong attitude. The House of Mirth does have a slow start and Eric Stoltz's performance can seem rather lightweight for such a complex character, though he is not without his affecting moments. The casting does have the "is this going to work" thought initially but the performances come across really well. Laura Linney sinks her teeth into her role and is suitably bitter, Eleanor Bron is formidable, Dan Aykroyd also comes across surprisingly well in a menacing and cunning turn and Jodhi May is charming and sympathetic. Terry Kinney, Anthony LaPaglia, Penny Downie and Elizabeth McGovern are also very good. The best of the lot is Gillian Anderson, whose performance is magnetic and truly heartfelt, her last scene with Stoltz is just heart-wrenching. The House of Mirth is shot very elegantly and the whole adaptation's period detail looks gorgeous. The lack of music is a good choice, allowing the intimate, understated atmosphere of the storytelling speak for itself. The dialogue is distinctively Edwardian and very literate without being stilted, how it's adapted is very thoughtfully done and any observations of the attitudes and classes of the time are sharply done. The story takes its time to unfold which is not a bad thing, period dramas often benefit from this especially when it's adapted from complex source material, and thankfully this deliberate pacing is not done in a self-indulgent way. Narratively The House of Mirth is incredibly touching and rich in theme and character, allowing you to identify with the characters(written and characterised believably) and with the interactions and the emotion it always maintained my interest. The direction is very intelligent and subtle. All in all, a truly beautiful adaptation. 9/10 Bethany Cox
  • This is essentially a soap opera, in the tradition of "Room With A View" and "Remains of the Day". The action consists of conversations, silences, glances, written notes, and so on. It is also about the beginning of a sea change in women's roles in society, fueled by changing expectations of both women and men. While it is fiction, it is of great historical interest. It is also a tragedy of small proportions, made much larger by Gillian Anderson's clever acting of the lead character, a woman who, on the surface, is quite dislikable yet has a vulnerability under that hard exterior that eventually leads to her downfall. Anderson has made an art form out of strong women who burst into sobs, and she is quite good at it. The film is fairly long, and seems quite motionless at times, but that same stillness creates a sense of time and history quite appropriate to the material. If you liked the two Merchant-Ivory productions noted above, you will enjoy this one.
  • From the moment she steps out of the smoke at a train station, Gillian Anderson is amazing as Lily Bart, a woman torn between being true to herself and securing a place in her world. Althought the movie is set in the early 1900's, her struggle with making a life for herself while surrounded by treacherous friends with their own agendas feels completely relevant. Working from a terrific script, Anderson draws nuance, meaning and emotion from her lines and the circumstances in which she finds herself, as she puts it, "doing the wrong thing at the right time". The journey she took me through in this movie was invigorating, thought provoking, engrossing and ultimately heartbreaking. The supporting cast, including Day Akroyd, Anthony LaPaglia and Terry Kinney, hold their own and fill out the movie beautifully. But Laura Linney deserves special mention as Lily's cunning, manipulative rival posing as a friend. Although very much a period piece, the film goes beyond some of the best pictures of Merchant-Ivory in bringing to life Wharton's novel, presenting a darker movie about the consequences of choices and the cost of guilelessness in a ruthless world. It also pulls Scully out of her basement and into the spotlight where her talents deserve to have her.
  • This is a unique insight into the moral dilemmas of the early twentieth century. A well crafted film, one cannot help but have great sympathy for the main character (Miss Bart) played with much aplomb and subtlety by the mostly underrated Anderson. In truth Gillians' performance carries the whole film, and leaves a long lasting impression. There may be a shortage of events throughout but the discerning viewer will find much to enjoy in this film.

    Recommended for Gillian Andersons' performance (and fans) - BUT NOT FOR X-FILES FANS.
  • Dreary early 20th Century period drama that more than outstays its welcome at the half hour mark.

    Lily (Gillian Anderson) is on the lookout for a husband - one that can help her out with her financial problems and steer her back into civilised society. She is taken advantage of by various suitors, notably a slimy American played with relish by Dan Ackroyd.

    That is pretty much as far as I got with this tepid tale before I walked out on it.

    I pity the people that had to remain for its entire 140 minute running length.

    Does anyone have a job in these sorts of movies? All the woman are either automatically rich or live on allowances handed out by rich rellies.

    We have a world where every conversation is of Oscar Wilde proportions, every stolen kiss an orgasmic marathon, and nobody walks faster than 2 metres per hour.

    A bit more incidental music might have lightened up the proceedings somewhat.

    Anderson however is quite good - any thoughts of her alter ego on the XFiles are quickly forgotten as you are immersed in her part.

    Boring, slow and directionless.

    1 out of 10.
  • "The House of Mirth" is that rare thing, a British film about America. Officially it is an international co-production, but it was not only made by a British director, Terence Davies, but also shot on location in Britain, even though most of the action is supposed to take place in and around New York. (As a keen birdwatcher I have to say that I could tell that it had been shot on this side of the Atlantic from some of the typically European birdsong in the background). It is, in fact, a good example of the sort of costume drama at which the British film industry has traditionally excelled, although there have been some notable American examples such as Scorsese's "The Age of Innocence", also based upon a novel by Edith Wharton.

    The action takes place in 1905. At the opening of the film its heroine, the socialite Lily Bart, appears to be living a charmed life. She is young, beautiful and the niece of the wealthy Mrs Julia Peniston. Yet her position is more precarious than she realises and the film traces her downfall from wealth into poverty and from respectability into social disgrace. The title is deeply ironic; this is a tragedy, not a comedy, and there is nothing about Lily's position that might arouse mirth. Wharton took her title from the Biblical book of Ecclesiastes: "The heart of the wise is in the house of mourning; but the heart of fools is in the house of mirth".

    The implication of this title is that those who live merely for mirth or pleasure are foolish, and certainly Lily's downfall is partly the result of her own folly; she incurs, for example, large gambling debts which she is unable to meet. Yet it is also partly the result of the hypocrisy of American high society in the early years of the twentieth century. Although some Americans tried to pretend that theirs was a classless society, the ultra-rich of New York could be just as ruthlessly snobbish as their counterparts in London, Paris or Berlin, and just as ruthlessly unforgiving of those who fell foul of society's unwritten rules. Lily's reputation is damaged not only by her gambling habit, which alienates her puritanically religious aunt, but also by an untrue allegation of an affair with a married man. (The allegation is made by the man's wife, who wants to distract attention from her own adultery). At times Lily's own good nature works against her; she has the opportunity to revenge herself on the woman who has unjustly accused her, but refuses to take it because to do so would also compromise Lawrence Selden, the man she loves.

    The star of the film is Gillian Anderson, which surprised me when I first saw it in the cinema as I had previously only though of her as "that bird from the X-Files" or the girl who, a few years earlier, had been voted "Most Beautiful Woman in the World" by the readers of FHM magazine. (This aroused some ungallant comments from members of the anti-redhead brigade, who opined that Gillian had only won the title because readers had confused her with her namesake Pamela). "The House of Mirth", however, proved two things. Firstly, it proved that Gillian was a much more versatile actress than I had hitherto supposed. Secondly, it proved (to my satisfaction at least) that she was far more ravishingly beautiful than Pamela Anderson ever knew how to be. Her Lily Bart is one of the great tragic heroines of modern cinema; I was reminded of Nastassia Kinski's performance in "Tess", another period drama about a beautiful young woman who struggles vainly to escape a cruel and inexorable fate.

    There are other good performances from Laura Linney as Lily's accuser, the spiteful Bertha Dorset, from Dan Aykroyd (an actor I more normally associate with comedy) as the financier Gus Trenor who unsuccessfully attempts to seduce Lily, Jodhi May as Lily's quiet but scheming and hypocritical cousin Grace Stepney, who eventually inherits Mrs Penistone's fortune and Eric Stoltz as Selden.

    Like many British period dramas, the film is beautifully photographed and makes use of some sumptuous sets and costumes. My one criticism would be that, in the early scenes it moves too slowly, but the pace gradually quickens as Lily's tragic drama is played out to its climax; the ending is particularly moving. This is one of the finest period dramas of recent years. A film to savour. 9/10
  • "The House of Mirth" is a tour-de-force by Anderson who is cast as an early 1900's New York socialite who wrestles with conflicts between her integrity and her station. Beautiful but without a fortune of her own, Anderson must deny the opportunities for happiness which are numerous but tainted as she is slowly strangled by the protocols of polite society.

    A solid period piece, "House.." is technically and artistically well done with a script which may be a tad too clever and a screenplay which may muddle rather than clarify the archaic notions which will seem foreign to the contemporary audience. A must see for Anderson fans and lovers of period films.
  • clave20 June 2001
    Tragical?, Cynical? The word I'd use would be disappointing. Upper crust hypocrisy revealed? We know that's not what we really expect of an adaptation from an Edith Wharton novel since that's the context of her whole work but rather how a character copes with or uses it. On that premise, I expected a grand tragic figure out of Lily Bart, willing to sacrifice her own social position and even her life for the man she loves and her own principles and dignity.

    What we have in Terence Davies's precious and exquisite vision, is a plain dumb and vain socialité who never actually makes a commitment or is willing to work hard for what's best for her. Some examples:

    1) Wants a rich husband but deliberately misses all her chances to please a suitable candidate. 2) Would like to marry the man she loves but never really becomes serious about it, she'd rather keep the flirtation game but doesn't even play it well. 3) Is aware of a "friend's" betraying practices but never realizes she could be framed. 4) Needs money but never really develops useful skills or work for someone willing to help her. 5) Likes to gamble and to smoke but is to afraid to become a rebel. 6) Would love to inherit the money from her aunt but seldom pleases her.

    DOES SHE EXPECT THAT ALL FAVORS COME FROM HEAVEN JUST BECAUSE SHE EXISTS?

    I know we all could be somewhat fools and fall into subtle traps as the ones presented in the film, but watching her so stupidly fall into them is despairing. The best moral we can get from this film would not be "beware of believing social appearences" but rather "if your a fool, at least be aware of it".
An error has occured. Please try again.