Spoilers in this comment.
This film is so bad that I don't know where to begin cataloguing its errors. Foremost would be the screenplay, credited to Michael Hasting, which departs significantly from the novel's plot in such a way as to make it clear that Hastings hadn't a clue as to what "The American" was about.
Many of James' novels were serialized, so he needed plots that kept readers coming back issue after issue. This novel's plot exemplifies that: a young man, Christopher Newman, wishes to marry a beautiful young widow, Claire de Cintre. Claire's mother, Madame de Bellegarde, and her elder brother, the Marquis Urbain de Bellegarde (renamed Henri in the film), are against the marriage and influence Claire away from the union. Then Christopher comes into possession of a secret with which he can blackmail Claire's mother and brother into assenting to the marriage. The secret: Mrs. Bread, a servant in the Bellegarde home, has a letter written in the hand of the Marquis de Bellegarde, revealing that Madame poisoned him. What will Christopher do?
On a simple symbolic level, there is the clash of the corrupt European culture and the brash and somewhat naive American culture, but in the novel James allowed his American a special kind of triumph, which is not apparent in the screenplay here.
As in the novel, here Christopher does show Madame the letter and tells her he will disgrace her and Urbain by making the letter's contents known to their friends if they do not remove the barriers from his marriage to Claire. Unlike the novel, here Madame quickly agrees and then takes the letter and puts it on the fire. Here, unlike the novel, Urbain, in an attempt to destroy Claire, reveals to her the secret in the letter. She at first appears to go mad (the usual: cutting off her long hair). But then she tells Christopher that she will stay shut up in the nunnery, where's she taken refuge, for she feels that wherever she goes in the world, trouble follows (that old story).
In the novel, Christopher is about to reveal the contents of the letter to a duchess who will spread the gossip of it and ruin the Bellegarde's reputation, but he does not do so. And later it is Christopher who destroys the letter before exiting the Bellegardes' lives. Christopher's friend, Mrs. Tristram, to whom he tells the story, says that the Bellegardes were counting on his failure of nerve or his good nature, etc. from preventing him from revealing the letter to others. He just wasn't corrupt enough, ultimately, to trump them, so he ends with nothing---nothing, that is, but his own good reputation and character, I think.
The manner of the film is also a betrayal of the novel. For example, the opening sequence looks as if it belongs in a slick but cheap horror film, maybe one of Roger Corman's versions of a Poe tale.
Here, in what is essentially a prologue to the film, Claire is to marry M. De Cintre, an ugly man with a shaved head, a jarring anachronism.
Claire's father is withholding his permission for the marriage, which provides the mother's motivation for poisoning him. Madame wants the marriage to take place for the money M. De Cintre can bring the family. When the father dies, Madame de Bellegarde contemptuously throws a lace sheet over his head, bends her face toward his, and hisses, "I never loved you!" at which point poor Henry James surely began to spin in his grave.
Is this it? No! The next morning, Mrs. Bread, the maid, approaches the dead man, who is lying in bed. As she is about to pull the blankets over him, suddenly--as in a horror film--he stirs. Scream! The dead man lives! And with the aid of Mrs. Bread, M. de Bellegarde scribbles out a letter accusing his wife of poisoning him before he does, in fact, lie back and die, this time for real.
The film is without any subtlety. Everything is spelled out for viewers as if we were all incapable of understanding anything but the obvious. Valentin de Bellegarde, Claire's younger brother, constantly keeps up a run of explanatory dialogue telling us about the traditions of his family and how odd they must appear to Americans.
Aside from dialogue here such as no Henry James characters would ever speak, there is a blatant specific sexuality as never figured in the novel. In fact, I recollect Christopher and Claire exchanging only one kiss in the entire book.
Example: Later in the film, Mrs. Bread whispers to Christopher about "abominable acts that took place in the bedroom" between Claire and her husband, which explains why "she can't bear to touch another." We're led to think that all Claire needs is a good lover who can give her the big O and all will be set right in her world.
It isn't but a scene or two later that Claire and Christopher are kissing, Claire with such fervor that it seems as if she would devour Christopher's entire face. Having seen Christopher undo the buttons of his vest and shirt moments earlier, there is now an implication that Claire has her hand inside his shirt or on his crotch! So much for her not being able to touch another.
Noemie Nioche, a supporting character whom Christopher meets, is turned into a quick lay for Christopher so that we may be treated to a fairly explicit sexual scene with as much nudity as a PBS presentation can show. Here Christopher turns Noemie over to Valentin in return for which Valentin will support his courtship of Claire. And, of course, we're shown another explicit sexual coupling between Valentin and Noemie--a scene presented in such a way that we at first think Christopher and Claire are having sex. A few more scenes like this, featuring bare breasts and butts, and this film could easily qualify for showing as soft-core porn on late night cable stations.
The scene of the duel between Valentin and a man who has been seeing Noemie starts by showing Valentin's stream of urine splattering unto the ground between his spread feet. Very Henry James is that moment!
I'm a fan of Matthew Modine, but it's obvious his career is going nowhere. Now 41, he's past the age when he could have been a young star. He's been floundering badly for a while. Does that account for why he'd appear in trash like this? It's sad seeing him reduced to this level.
What is Diana Rigg's excuse for appearing in this stuff?
The other actors were completely unknown to me, and nothing I saw them do here made me want to investigate any other films they appeared in.
Some critics find it easy to put down Merchant-Ivory films. But, if one stands this trash next to a Merchant-Ivory period piece, he can quickly see the superior talent--almost genius, I am tempted to write--that their productions display in contrast to this.
I've not been watching much on PBS in recent years because the quality of the offerings declined so much. But I had no idea they'd descended to this level. A film like this is good reason not to donate a cent to your local PBS station if this is where the money is going.
Please purchase the novel and ignore this garbage.
