Another film about a progressive teacher trying to teach her students how to think outside of the box. Fortunately, unlike School of Rock, my views on which were accosted last week, I left Mona Lisa Smile mostly satisfied with what I had seen. No, it's not especially revelatory or surprising. You can more or less guess what's going to happen to each character by the end. But it does leave a little more room for characterization, for slightly unexpected outcomes, and it doesn't telegraph its moments quite so rigidly as the Linklater film. Julia Roberts is an actress about whom I feel nothing; I neither like nor dislike her. I think this is one of her better performances, certainly much better than her Oscar winning role in Erin Brockovich. She plays the progressive art history teacher, who arrives at Welsley to learn that all of her students have already studied the textbook from cover to cover, and can answer any question that might arise from the class's current syllabus. The curriculum and Roberts' superiors are strict in what they want to teach about art, but Roberts veers towards teaching what the textbook will not despite them. The superiors are unhappy with her course, but some of the students are opened up to the experience. Outside of class, Roberts faces as large a challenge. Most of her students have completely resigned to the idea that they are destined for marriage and nothing more. The status quo must be challenged. The students are a nice range of characters. Kirsten Dunst plays the most conservative, who is about to be married when the film opens. She, of course, rejects Roberts' ideals. On the other end of the spectrum is Maggie Gyllenhaal, who is the sexually promiscuous girl who idealizes her teacher. Slightly left of center is Ginnifer Goodwin and right of center Julia Stiles. These four characters are set up very mechanically, of course, but the characters succeed (and this can be said about all of the other characters of the movie, including Roberts', who are all rather mechanical) on the quality of acting. Each of the performers are wonderful. They manage to make you care, which is something that didn't happen with School of Rock, whose performers (with the one exception of Joan Cusack) were adequate or worse. I especially loved Marcia Gay Harden, giving another one of the best performances of 2003, as Roberts' roommate, who teaches etiquette. She's a pathetic, tragicomic image of what some of the girls will become if they insist that the traditional concept of womanhood remain unchanged. The film also boasts exceptional technical qualities. It's simply very well made. 8/10.
Add a Review
-
zetes12 March 2004
-
pancakes275 April 2004I just watched this movie in the theatres as it was released just a few days ago overhere. What can you expect from it? You've seen the trailers... It looks pretty much like Dead Poet's Society doesn't it? But with women instead? :-D.
Well, I had that feeling indeed. It felt like Dead Poet's Society during some periods in the movie. But overall, it was still different. The surface story isn't that complicated and easy to follow. It's nothing new either. But it was displayed very well.
Sure, it's about a teacher... her passion to teach and the way she outwitted the students to get the best out of them... It also shows the way a good teacher cares for their students and so forth... and the way contradicting ideas may blind one's ideas and actions, towards those who they are meant for. Did that sentence sound weird or what? :).
You can't go wrong with the cast here. You've got Julia Roberts, Kirsten Dunst, Julia Stiles, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Ginnefer Goodwin, etc. They played great in the movie.
Julia Roberts is just great at playing these emotional roles. It was believable as well. I at least could feel the frustration which she had. Her character is more of a confused type. She reminded me of Michelle Pfeiffer in Dangerous Minds... There was basically a mixture of confusion and dedication... thus as a teacher, despite how sure of she may be of her teaching methods, you also sense a nervousness in her... a feeling of uncertainty as to whether her methods of getting the messages across to the students or not will work. I thought Julia Roberts did a great job in that area.
Kirsten was just excellent. You could feel the internal turmoil going through her throughout the movie. One might argue that she had a pretty wack role and that she overacted etc. but I don't agree with that. She's practically a heartless b**** through the movie, but you can't help but understand why. The same goes for Julia and Maggie. Just the way they were depicted in the movie, you really felt for them. Ginnefer Goodwin's character was also funny and emotional to watch.
Marcia Gay Harden, as Julia's friend was great. She was a pretty funny character to watch, but at the same time, you just can't help but feel sorry for her.
Times have changed... from those times and now. Many might watch this movie and go, "Uhm, okay, what's the big deal?" But the problem is that women have gone through a great ordeal and struggle to get to where they are today in society. Even today, they still fight to gain respect in many areas in the world today.
I've heard many bad comments about this movie. And funnily enough, most of them come from guys... whilst the females found it a bit better. There were some negative comments but many said that they loved it, but felt that it wasn't a movie for everyone.
The movie tackling the issue of feminism only touches upon a small part of it all of course. One cannot tackle the whole aspect of feminism in any one single movie at all, and I found the focus to be good enough. There are many stereotypes here and I found them necessary to get the points across. If it were not for the stereotypes, people would be wondering what the point really was. But now that there are stereotypes, people will complain about them.
I thought that it was a bit too short. It could have focused a bit more on the other characters in the movie... i.e. the girls in school. A few more subplots and build ups may have been better. There was a little foreshadowing in the movie but one couldn't help but wonder where the movie was going. But what overcame this, from my point of view, was that you just felt that you wanted to get to know the characters in the movie more. The more you knew about each character, the more the characters knew about one another. I thought that was quite nice.
I would advise everyone with an open mind for dramas to go watch this movie. If guys see this movie as a "chick flick"... they really won't know what to expect cause this would be "the most THE chick flick for chicks" if you get my drift. I'm a guy and I found it entertaining... Whether it was insightful or not, I wouldn't say it was, due to experiences and stories throughout my life.
The movie isn't without flaws... There could have been even more character build up if only the director's were given more film to record the picture. But do watch this if you can :). It'll be worth the time, if you're patient enough :). -
claudio_carvalho5 January 2014In 1953, free spirited and non-orthodox art history teacher Katherine Ann Watson (Julia Roberts) accepts the challenge of teaching in the conservative Wellesley College. She leaves her boy-friend Paul Moore (John Slattery) in California and share a house with the teacher Nancy Abbey (Marcia Gay Harden) and the nurse Amanda (Juliet Stevenson).
On the first day, her class fails under the leadership of the arrogant Betty Warren (Kirsten Dunst) and her friends Joan Brandwyn (Julia Stiles) and Giselle Levy (Maggie Gyllenhaal), but Katherine is advised by her mates and the Italian teacher Bill Dunbar (Dominic West) to not fear the students. Soon Katherine learns that the girls are only waiting to catch Mr. Nice Guy and get married and she fights against the status- quo of Wellesley and to keep her independence.
"Mona Lisa Smile" is an entertaining movie about a woman living ahead of time in a conservative environment. The performances are top-notch, highlighting Julia Roberts, Kirsten Dunst, Julia Stiles and Maggie Gyllenhaal. I bought this DVD many years ago and only today I have seen this movie recommended by a friend of mine. My vote is seven.
Title (Brazil): "O Sorriso de Mona Lisa" ("The Smile of Mona Lisa") -
Shakespeare-220 December 2003I didn't expect much going into "Mona Lisa Smile". I figured it was going to be a rehash of all the movies ever made about teachers. You know, from "Goodbye Mr. Chips" and "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie", to "The Dead Poets' Society" and "Mr. Holland's Opus". But "Mona Lisa Smile" pleasantly surprised me, especially the uncompromising, principled ending.
Another thing that pleased me was the film's assumption of an intelligent, educated audience that does not require any dumbing-down of art and culture. "Mona Lisa Smile" rattles off names of artists and their works as if it fully expected moviegoers to be conversant with them. In at least one case, the film names neither the artist nor the work (Picasso's "Demoiselles d'Avignon"). All of these things are taken as givens, as part and parcel of a sophisticated audience's cultural baggage -- quite a change from the usual pap that Hollywood spoonfeeds us!
Moreover, the film sometimes speaks volumes by what it doesn't say but simply shows, taking for granted that we will fill in the blanks from our knowledge of the history of the period (that is, the early 1950s). There is one oblique reference to McCarthyism. A photo of an atomic explosion reminds us of the post-WWII, Cold War era. A game show on TV triggers a memory of the payola scandal. Again, "Mona Lisa Smile" credits us with brains rather than insulting our intelligence.
Mercifully, the title of the film is not simply a reference to Julia Roberts' famous beestung, collagen-enhanced lips. As Kirsten Dunst's character explains toward the end of the movie, Mona Lisa's smile is not necessarily an indication that she is happy and content -- any more than the women of the 1950s with their dream homes and seemingly perfect lives. "Mona Lisa Smile" is ultimately an indictment of those in society who perpetrate and perpetuate secrets and lies, and a tribute to those through whom the truth prevails. -
TheLittleSongbird11 December 2009This was a decent period drama, and while it ticks most of the right boxes it never quite convinces. For one thing, while the story focusing on feminism in the 1950s is on the whole intriguing, there are parts when there is not a lot going on, causing occasional pacing problems. While there are some delicious lines from Julia Roberts and Kirsten Dunst especially, the screenplay wasn't as intricately crafted as it could have been and fell into the danger of being too stereotyped. Mike Newell's direction is able, and while the transition from tradition and progression clashing is well captured, it is sometimes too overly simplistic so the film doesn't quite give enough authenticity.
Despite these flaws, there is still a lot to recommend it. The film is very well made, with dazzling cinematography and picturesque scenery. And the costumes, hairstyles and makeup were beautiful. The music is lovely, very pleasant and soothing. Making the most of their rather stereotypical characters, the actors acquit themselves well. I admit it, I don't often care for Julia Roberts, but here she makes for a sympathetic lead as the unconventional art lecturer and does it more than adequately. Solidly supporting her as the students are Julia Stiles, Maggie Gyllanhaal and Kirsten Dunst especially. The film is ably directed too, and is emotionally manipulative, not in a bad way though. All in all, it is a very earnest and well made film, but as a drama it doesn't quite convince as much as it should've done. 7/10 Bethany Cox -
MovieCriticDave18 January 2005* There are no *specific* spoilers, but some *conceptual* notions that might be considered spoilers* Julia Roberts finds herself at a perplexing crossroads in her career. She's edging beyond the era of the "Pretty Woman" roles, yet hardly ready for the role of matron. "Mona Lisa Smile," where she plays a college instructor heading to the conservative east coast, seems the perfect vehicle for Roberts to make a transition; unfortunately, the result is a bumpy ride in which Roberts herself seems decidedly uncomfortable, and one that becomes only a faint reflection of its opposite-gender inspiration, "Dead Poets Society." Roberts plays Katherine Watson, a liberal-minded west-coast art teacher who finds herself with the opportunity to take over a similar position at Wellesley College, an ultraconservative women's college in 1953. Watson arrives, hoping to "make a difference" in the lives of some of the smartest women in the country by extending the notion of "traditional" attitudes about art to attitudes about life, and the life of women in particular.
Roberts seems oddly intimidated by a role in which she is overtaken by a strong ensemble of classmates (including Maggie Gyllenhaal, Kirsten Dunst, and Julia Stiles), a powerfully dislikeable school administrator, and even the "house mother" at her instructor's dorm, played by Marcia Gay Harden. She seems at ease only in the film's lone romantic scene with her, as she lounges lazily in front of a fireplace with her long hair flowing down her face.
Kirsten Dunst as Betty Warren, spoiled and naive daughter of a Wellseley board member, is the antagonist, the lightning rod for convention and propriety, and wields a pen as her weapon against Watson's enlightened west-coast intrusions. We ultimately see her poison pen serve as foreshadowing of her own anger at the unraveling of her own presumably idyllic life in light of the uncapped potential of her peers. By film's end, she has clearly grown and changed more than Roberts.
The film ends with an attempt at a grand sendoff of the rebellious instructor in keeping with Dead Poets Society's on-the-desk "Captain my Captain", but the characters are not drawn with sufficient depth to make us sympathetic with the loss of their mentor, and the scene is only visually satisfying. If anything, we are more drawn to the strength of the relationships of the students to each other rather than the instructor. Where "Poets" drew Robin Williams character deep into the lives of his students, Watson's student relationship is manufactured at best, strained and intrusive at worst.
The film deserves unexpected credit for not casting itself as a unilateral message of contemporary feminism. It allows Watson, as the enlightened teacher, to offer her message of women's potential in non-traditional roles, yet also allows one of her students to assert the right to choose that traditional role without condescension.
It would be too harsh to cast the film as a failure. It is a decently written story, if too thin - always a risk with a story laden with numerous central characters, but often a masterpiece if done right, as in Dead Poets. "Smile" is wonderfully photographed in the picturesque northeast, and Roberts' supporting cast is arguably the very strength of the film. But for an actress who has made a career out of stealing scenes with a calculated glaze, wilting in the shadow of her co-stars is characterized as nothing but a below-par performance. "Smile" ends up being a "Dead Poets" for suffragettes, but just not done nearly as well.
And that's a shame. -
ma-cortes5 December 2005The movie narrates as an idealist and free spirit(Julia Roberts)teacher graduated in Ucla University who's contracted in an high class prep school ,a college for girls only(Kirsten Dunst,Julia Stiles,Maggie Gyellenhaal) and with a repressive education of the time.The professor tries to redeem them and learn upon the intellectual freedom.Meanwhile she falls in love with an attractive teacher(Dominic West) and gets acquainted with others troublesome professors(Marcia Gay Harden,Juliet Stevenson).
The story is narrated with intelligence and sensibility and are treated morals and ethics issues developed with great sense of ductility and fairness .The professor will must to take on the truth and numerous difficulties ,facing repressed customs and confronting with the director college as extreme defending the traditional habits. The motion pictures takes part of the school genre that that maxim representation is ¨Dead poet society¨and continuing ¨The Emperor's Club¨.The film is cleverly displayed throughout with enjoyable and agreeable style.Lively and romantic music is composed and conducted by Rachel Portman,the first female composer to win an Oscar. Glimmer and coloristic cinematography is by Anastas Michos. The picture is well directed by Mike Newell. Rating : Awesome,above average. Worthwhile seeing. -
secondtake6 May 2013Mona Lisa Smile (2003)
I had no idea the theme of this movie but I teach art history and the main opening scene is a true nightmare for an art history teacher--the precocious students knew everything before the teacher said anything, and then they sweetly got up and went to study hall because, of course, they might actually learn something there.
This is 1953 at a rich private and elite college for girls (a real one--it's called Wellesley). The writing is a little strained and forcing some of the sexist themes of the 1950s on the audience. So even the stellar cast--Julia Roberts, Kirsten Dunst, Maggie Gyllenhaal--can't give this the sincerity it needs. But the period looks terrific, the music and the dresses are fine, so the whole atmosphere frankly becomes the compelling center of the movie.
Not that the plot isn't worthwhile. Roberts is a "progressive" art teacher who for some reason has been hired at this ultra-conservative place. She automatically is lost at sea, but gradually wins over her students with such daring subjects as Van Gogh, who is presented as radical somehow, though conservative enough to become paint by numbers, too. The movie is filled with these conflicts of what we think of as normal modern art (an overdone scene with Jackson Pollack is one example) and with the proper world these women are really supposed to inhabit.
And it's true, lots of women were encouraged to be housewives even at good colleges. They went to get their degree, but also their Mrs., as they used to say. And then with the best credentials in the world they would become housewives. Happily. Mostly.
There is a rivalry right away between Roberts and a goody-goody Dunst, who is pretty good at being an evil brat, and a sensuous modern student played by Gyllenhaal, who wants the same man Roberts seems to want. Seems to. The romances are not very vivid, the housewifery is canned and uncomplicated (almost drawn from the magazine ads that they keep showing in lectures on a big screen), and the characters themselves are simplified to the point of simplicity. Even Roberts, who is supposed to be discovering her mixed up feelings about art and life on the east coast, is thinly drawn and barely fleshed out.
Of course, movies succeed on some level with stereotypes and this one does, too, so by the end we love all the feel good happiness even as we know it's ludicrous and manipulative. Such are the movies. This could have been a better movie with the same basic story but lots better writing and directing. The ambition was kept in check, and so the movie does the minimum here, and not always so badly if the minimum will do.
On a final note, there are a number of women behind the scenes here (though not the director or writers, sadly): music, art direction, set decoration, and casting. And of course nearly all of the cast. -
jwbeller12 October 2004My granddaughters like to watch movies over and over. With Mona Lisa Smile, I'm with them. This is a movie that will lift you up and make you smile.
Some reviewers on this site claim the movie has a liberal agenda. Well, if its liberal to want young ladies to consider all their options and be able to reach for the stars - if they choose, then who can disagree. Label me with an "L".
Recent movies that I will watch again include Groundhog Day, In America, The Emperor's Club, and In & Out. If you liked most of these, watch this movie.
You won't be disappointed. And be sure to watch the credits at the end, the part done to the song "The Heart of Every Girl." The older generation will really relate. -
The movie is good and for what I saw as an IMBDb rating, underrated. The dialogue between the characters was interesting, the styling was aesthetically pleasing and the acting game was good. But what I liked the most was the characters. I liked the diversity of different personalities. But that's also what I hated about the movie. See, every girl was pretty stereotypical (the insecure one, the smart one, etc.) even though every one of them was different from the other. Which is why I don't understand why they were friends in the first place especially when we see how Betty treats Giselle amd Connie. The movie never shows why they are even together as a friend group. And aside from that, I wish we saw what happened to them. Maybe it would have been better if one of them went to an university or found a job. So, yeah, I had problems with some moments in the movie but overall I think it's worth the watch.
-
lwhaley4 January 2004As a graduate of Wellesley College, 1952, I was eager to see the movie. For a while I thought maybe it was supposed to be a satire. I had read reviews but no one mentioned satire. It was so ludicrous, so over the top, so busy giving us stereotypes, and so far from my experience that it was depressing. I didn't mind the Julia Roberts character although she is probably anachronistic. Certainly those young women, so well dressed for classes, talking back to her in well thought out sentences full of vitriol were figments of Hollywood's imagination. I remember no courses offered, either in classrooms or rooms in dorms or faculty housing, on "poise," proper table setting, etc. And nowhere in the movie did any of the girls discuss ideas (except in the art class). The nighttime dormitory sessions were all about men, getting husbands, and pointing fingers at Giselle, the "whore." In actuality, we used to stay up late discussing ideas, and we were passionate about such things as academic freedom.
The plush dormitory rooms were more figments of Hollywood's imagination. Our rooms were of the bare bones variety. I remember bringing a comfortable chair of my own from home.
I loved my art history and music appreciation courses. They changed my life. I had known nothing of art before Wellesley and only the Warsaw Concerto for classical music. But those two courses informed my life and have stayed with me all these years, enriching my experience. I had a career as a high school English teacher and my literature courses were wonderful for that purpose and for expanding my reading. But the art and music courses were special.
Good acting; good costumes for the most part; the people looked authentic for the times (except too dressed up for class; we wore skirts and blouses, no blue jeans). It was nice to see some of the beautiful campus. I don't remember ever taking part in hoop rolling, daisy chain, the opening day ceremony in front of the chapel.
Finally, what was the point of making such a movie today? To suggest how far we've come from the 1950s? To ridicule what was then? After all, there was much that was good. I mean I feel so lucky to have been able to go to a place like Wellesley even if it was for the privileged. It certainly was not as conservative as the movie depicted; nor was it a "finishing school." Professors were continually opening our minds to more and more knowledge. The canon then may have been mostly men (we read almost all male writers in our English courses, but that's how it was). What was wonderful, however, was being with all women, being able to speak up freely in class, being able to win positions of authority in extra curricular organizations like the college newspaper. Not having to compete with men.
I was really disappointed, In the Women's Room after the movie, I questioned everyone there...there were a couple my age or a little younger and then a few a generation or more younger. Everyone had liked the movie! One young woman tried to tell me it wasn't just about Wellesley; they were depicting the 50s in general. But the fact is the 50s in general were not that dismal! -
smc628721 October 2006It appears in many of the reviews that this film lacks a grounding in reality. I would like to point out that the majority of these reviews have been written by individuals who live in every corner of the United States except for the region of which the film is about. Coming from someone who actually lives in the town of Wellesley, Massachusetts, I am inclined to make a few comments about suburban Boston that might enable one to better understand the context of the film before they so strongly criticize it.
Boston and its suburbs are among the oldest communities in the country. The Pilgrims landed in Plymouth in 1620, followed by the Puritans in 1630, the year in which Boston was founded by the Massachusetts Bay Company. For anyone who knows anything about the Puritans, they were very strict when it comes to moral and ethical behavior. Rules were set according to the beliefs of these people. Massachusetts towns are rooted in the traditions of their past - traditions that influenced the founding of this country. Anyone who ridicules tradition undermines the values for which the United States of America was founded.
To continue, many Boston families are descended from the Puritans and thus have been in their communities for generations spanning nearly four hundred years. Although I am not saying that tradition should be strictly adhered to, it must be considered and appreciated to some degree. This is the view held by many of the "old" families of Boston, my family included.
For anyone who feels that this film over-exaggerates Wellesley in the 1950s, take it from someone whose family has been in the area for generations, this is not as much of an exaggeration as you might think. One cannot generalize that this is exaggerated just because the region in which they live differs. Lifestyles of the east and west coasts differ immensely. California, for instance, is a relatively young state compared to Massachusetts. Tradition most likely is not nearly as deeply rooted as it is in suburban Boston.
Therefore, when considering the reality of "Mona Lisa Smile" take the time to understand the community and the time period. Do not generalize. Furthermore, for those who claim that this film is an exaggeration, open your minds and consider the possibilities. -
clairepeek7 January 2007MONA LISA SMILE is a painting of the American society after war. More than that, it shows in a quite brilliant way, though not to heavy, what women's lives were supposed to become after their college graduation. The movie begins with Katherine Ann Watson (Julia Roberts), young Art History Instructor, who arrives at Wellesley College (for young ladies) for the new Academic Year of 1953/1954. As it is said in the movie, she is not coming to "fit in" but rather to make a difference with the brightest women of America. Wellesley College is a very conservative school where Katherine will have to face disappointment toward the school itself, the law of Massachusset, and also her own students. Through this movie, we lightly follow the stories of Betty Warren (Kirsten Dunst), Joan Brandwyn (Julia Stiles), Gisele Levy (Maggie Gillenhaal) and Connie Baker (Ginnifer Goodwin). At Wellesley, these young women are learning how to become good housewives, and as so, how to give up on their dreams (if they have ones except to get married and raise children).
When Katherine arrives, she is seeking for open minded women, who through Art History should be able to start thinking by themselves outside the conventional way. Unfortunately, Katherine is dealing with a wall. Of course, this is a movie ... so Katherine will get reactions from her students. Some will be bad reactions, especially when Betty publishes her editorial about Katherine and her way of thinking. Some will be good and will guide the characters to hope and sometimes to happy endings.
While following the main characters along the movie, some sensitive subjects are pointed out like how unconceivable contraception was ... how is it nowadays ? Is it really different ? But also, the place of television at home. Have things changed drastically nowadays ?
Anyway, this movie shows how women were meant to save appearances. At the library, Betty shows a picture of the painting Mona Lisa and asks her mother :"she is smiling ... does it mean she is happy ?" Change takes time because teachers have to deal with more than the wills of students, but also with conservatism. And when change comes, for instance, when women allow themselves to work and to have a family, is it the only way to behave ... is it really freedom ? It is also what the movie shows ... make your choices according to what you want, it is how you will be happy. It is a bit simple, but you have the picture I guess.
This movie opens a lot of interesting discussions, you just have to be open minded to see beyond it ...
I really like Mona Lisa Smile in its simplicity and this is the reason why I will see it many other times. -
edlk14 January 2004http://chronicle.com/daily/2004/01/2004011403n.htm
Wellesley's President Isn't Smiling Over College's Portrayal in Film
By SARA LIPKA
The president of Wellesley College, Diana Chapman Walsh, issued a statement last week to "set the record straight" about the movie Mona Lisa Smile, a fictional account of women's lives at Wellesley in the early 1950s. Ms. Walsh, a 1966 graduate of the college, said she wanted to respond "as soon as possible" to what she called "the distorted and demeaning portrayal of our alma mater in the film."
She added in an e-mail message on Tuesday that letters from concerned alumnae had prompted her response.
Mona Lisa Smile, which was released last month by Columbia Pictures and Revolution Studios, depicts an arch-traditional Wellesley shaken up by a free-spirited art-history professor from California (played by Julia Roberts) who encourages students to reject conformity in any form and pursue careers rather than settle down as housewives. Colleagues advise the new professor that the trick to surviving Wellesley is to go unnoticed, as too much independence frightens administrators, who she is told have claws under their gloves.
Some people on the campus have fantasized about suing for libel, Ms. Walsh said in her statement, released on Friday, but Wellesley College's name is in the public domain and its use could not have been prevented, she said. Though the movie's writers, both men, conducted archival research at Wellesley, they did not solicit editorial or artistic counsel from the college.
Wellesley administrators read and discussed an early version of the script, one that Ms. Walsh said emphasized students' intelligence and their close relationships with faculty advisers, before granting permission to Revolution Studios to film on the campus. But the movie, "to a far greater extent than the screenplay we originally read, characterizes the college as rigid and hidebound and the students as rich and spoiled," Ms. Walsh said. Wellesley College supports those alumnae who speak out to correct the distortions in Mona Lisa Smile, she said.
A spokeswoman for Revolution Studios seemed concerned by Wellesley's position. "We did not set out to make a documentary," the spokeswoman, who asked not to be identified, said on Tuesday. "We sought to take a snapshot of a time more than an institution and to illuminate the lack of choice available to most women in the country at that time. ... Everyone associated with Mona Lisa Smile is proud that the film has renewed the discussion for many women of how difficult the balance of career and family can be."
Ms. Walsh acknowledged in her statement that the film "does attempt to raise genuine questions about women's life choices," and "is unlikely to do us any lasting harm." She noted that the number of applications for admission is higher than usual this year.
Discussion of the film will continue at Wellesley, she said, on the campus, on an online message board for alumnae, in a special feature in the next issue of the alumnae magazine, and in a series of programs planned for the spring. One of those programs will take place at the 50th reunion of the class of 1954, the fictional members of which graduate at the end of the film.
Copyright © 2004 by The Chronicle of Higher Education -
This is the kind of movie that is easy to pan, but deserves better. Yes, the premise is familiar, the plot is formulaic, the characters seem like you've met them before.
But...
"The devil is in the details," as they say, and this picture has just enough surprises, just enough charm, just enough fine acting to make it worth watching. Movies do not have to be real to be worthwhile, they just have to be about real things. The questions "Mona Lisa Smile" covers are still very much with us, and may provoke considerable discussion in your house. This film is respectful enough of its subject matter and well-enough executed to make it a much better way to spend your time than most of what's out there now. Don't believe the sourpusses, this one's a good'un. -
ilovedolby15 January 2004Sometimes movies ask their characters and the audience to question themselves relating to life choices. In `Mona Lisa Smile,' Julia Roberts portrays a college professor of art determined to change her female student's minds about their lots in life. The film takes place during the 1950s and it was generally believed that a woman's place was in the home. The film has that conventional Julia Roberts feel where she is the pretty woman that all admire and she will change everyone's life with her simple wisdom. However, `Mona Lisa Smile' is still unconventional enough to actually be meaningful. Roberts plays Katherine Watson, a graduate of UCLA looking for a position as an art professor at Wellesley College for young women. When accepted, she is astonished to find out the conformity that the college runs under. Girls are there to get degrees, but not to use them. As Watson says, `Imagine that. It is a finishing school disguised as a college for girls!'
When Watson tries to teach the girls about non-conformity and about the spirit of following their own hearts, she faces many incredulous people. One of which is a student named Betty Warren (Kirsten Dunst). Betty writes in the school newsletter about Watson's unorthodox teaching methods, which land Watson into some problems. However, the school will not dismiss Watson because her class turnout in the highest that the art department has ever had. As such, Watson teaches her girls to see beyond the limits of a future household and to follow their dreams. Roberts is a talented actress who can bring an entire theater to tears with the emotional depth that she brings to the characters. Her performance here is just as good as ever, although there is really nothing all too impressive about it. She gets the job done with minimum fuss-it is no wonder that she really is America's sweetheart. Beyond Roberts, `Mona Lisa Smile' has some of industries finest and most talented actresses to date. First off, Marcia Gay Harden who plays Nancy Abbey. Harden is absolutely gifted and she gave one of the finest performances of her career in one of 2003s most critically loved films, `Mystic River.' She plays a sad woman here, following what society's vision of a woman should be as she teaches finishing classes and taking it quite seriously. In one scene, she watches TV alone as she is reminded of a former lover whom she no longer has any ties with. She reminisces about him often and we feel the loneliness that she goes through. Other fine actresses here are Dunst (`Spider-Man'), Julia Styles (`Save the Last Dance') and Maggie Gyllenhaal (`Secretary'). These three young women are the cream of the crop when it comes to young actresses in Hollywood. Each gives a dignified performance that proves their talents once again.
An important message to take away from `Mona Lisa Smile' is that even if you try to impart wisdom to others, in the end, the answers will come from themselves. Watson seems determined that her students should continue their education or pursue work after completing their studies at Wellesley. But what about her student's wants? They made plans of their own. In the end, Watson and her students had something to learn from each other-the pursuit of happiness according to themselves. As the old saying goes, to each his own,' or her own, in this case. All in all, `Mona Lisa Smile' is a good movie about following the path that is right for what that person holds true, not what the standards of society say. *** -
mwendel25 January 2004Not unlike Dead Poet's Society or The Emperor's Club, we once again find ourselves on an ancient campus glorified in its old school ways rooted to the past by equally ancient traditions. Instead of over bred boys, there are over bred girls. Instead of the progressive male professor we have a progressive female professor. The all-star cast of this movie must have been the real reason this movie got made. Julia Roberts supported by Kirsten Dunst, Julia Stiles, and Maggie Gyllenhaal make for an amazing ensemble and do a solid job playing the somewhat typecast roles they have been given. Ginnifer Goodwin is someone we will hopefully see more of as this film introduces us to another young up and coming female actress who somehow managed to get one of the less straightforward parts in this movie. But, sadly, as I said "You've seen this somewhere before." Nice movie. Good acting. Decent ending. Sad testament to the way a lot of people did and do think in this "free" world.
-
songbird288210 September 2006If you liked Dead Poet's Society, The Emperor's Club, Music of the Heart, Mr. Holland's Opus, or if you are in love with the 50's, you will like this movie. If, like me, you have experienced the camaraderie of all-girls school, you will love it. The acting is fairly poor, especially on Julia Robert's part, she is the same character as in countless other Julia movies, and Julia Stiles disappointed me in comparison to her other performances, which are usually quite good. Marcia Gay Harden is wonderful, as well as Kirsten Dunst and the supporting cast. But while this movie is not amazing, it completely captures the essence of all girls school, growing up and becoming a woman, female friendship and love. Embarrassingly enough, it touched me to the point of tears. So if those sorts of stories interest you, this movie is beautiful. And watch it by yourself if you're embarrassed about crying during silly movies. By the way, this movie has nearly nothing to do with art.
-
rulistenin14-13 February 2006I attended a women's college and found that even though this movie takes place in the early 50's, I could relate to it. Women are still struggling with finding their place in society and this movie speaks to all generations, not just those of the 1950s. The relationships that the students had not only with each other but also with their teachers were portrayed very realistically. This movie is not without flaws though, I didn't particularly like Kristin Dunst, but that is because I believe she overacts in many of her movies, but I was very moved by Julia Stiles, Maggie Gyllenhaal and especially Ginnifer Goodwin. Worth watching.
-
aruki726 February 2020I just read the first review in the metacritic section and felt compelled to comment. Written in 2003, it starts: « the fight against traditionalism has long been won ».
Seriously???!!!!
What an underrated film, ahead of its time. Had it come out 15 years later, I m sure the response towards it would have been quite different.. -
quibus10 May 2006The setting in Massachusetts with its 4 seasons, lakes, forests, wood panelled floors, fireplaces and blueberry pancakes can't get any better. The teachers and students, the college and the upper-class atmosphere are close to reality. The times - the '50s, big bands, swing, synchronised swimming, hairstyles and veterans homes are almost melancholic. The story itself is the weakest link, in vain trying to separate career from marriage, at times confusing one with the other. A little less sentimentality would have improved the picture. Fortunately Julia Roberts straightens things out in one of her more convincing roles. The class on Van Gogh is a gem.
-
darkangel-526 January 2005I wasted two hours of my precious life to watch this movie. I was actually mislead by the Hungarian title of the movie, thinking it was a remake of Playing Mona Lisa (with Alicia Witt). Watching this movie I realized it was truly, though an unofficial, remake, but to another movie: Mona Lisa Smile is de facto a boring feminist chick version of Dead Poets Society. But while Dead Poets Society has a good story, great acting and Robin Williams, Mona Lisa Smile is a low tempo whining pointless flow of celluloid starring probably the most overrated actress in Hollywood: Julia Roberts. The whole movie just falls flat in every single aspect of movie making: a slow-paced and uninteresting plot, empty and sometimes exaggerated characters, the whole story just seems fake and unbelievable, and a message which is pointless and outdated in the 21st century. Maybe this movie could have been revolutionary if it had been made in the 50's, but it says nothing nowadays.
I only give you one piece of advice: if you are thinking of watching this movie, try Dead Poets Society instead. It'll be like driving a Mercedes instead of horse carriage. Both are cars but not the same league. -
tj6966209410 August 2004Mona Lisa Smile is a movie about how women used to see their roles in society in 1953.
The movie is worth seeing by anyone who thinks women have everything granted. With women's boxing, the WNBA, women's rights, its good to remember the way it was in 1953.
Its good to remember Susan B. Anthony and the rest of the great women who fought for women's rights during a time that even women themselves had a mind set of what they "had" to do in society.
Mona Lisa Smile wonderfully takes us to a trip to the past while keeping us with a present set of mind. Which enforces two beliefs of mine: Numero uno, don't listen to critics, numero dos , don't listen to everyone else's opinion of movies. You must see the movie yourself to decide if you like it, and I loved this one.
If the actresses, as it was rumored, hated making this movie, it certainly didn't show. Julia Roberts and Kristen Dunst should have earned Oscars for this movie.
That itself takes me to another subject, Julia is my favorite actress, so once again, you must see by yourself.
I definitely recommend this movie and gave it a ten, although you don't want to watch it with little children because you'd have to explain a lot. The movie shows you how society has changed as far as women's rights in 51 years. Trust me, I tried to see it with my six year old niece, after 20 minutes of explaining and re explaining I had to turn the DVD off until she was asleep.
She, of course, didn't mind cause she found it boring. For grown ups, on the other case, and if you're reading this I expect you to be at least, over 10, the movie is a must see.
I wouldn't classify it as a chick flick. Thelma and Louise is a chick flick. This is more of a rather historically important film about women's roles.
National preserve future film? I wouldn't bet against it! -
=G=10 March 2004"Mona Lisa Smile" is all about Roberts as a 1950's art professor at a prim and proper girl's college who struggles to breathe women's lib and independent thinking into a classroom full of snobbish boomer brats who want little more than an "Ozzie & Harriet" future. A sort of testament to the societal oppression of 50's women, this flick wanders drunkenly between storylines serving up plenty of squeaky clean drama, pathos, and Kodak moments in a contrived Hallmarkish presentation which never really makes up its mind about what it wants to be. With subpar critical reviews and a so-so reception by the public, "Mona Lisa Smile" will work best as a night-at-home small screen chick flick. (B-)
-
lovinrr25 October 2020As a female, I am of course already aware of the injustice and oppression that my gender has suffered throughout history. This movie adds nothing of substance. I appreciate some good acting, but the story is predictable and dull. Not Julia Robert's finest work, and her character is quite frankly boring. This movie could've been somewhat saved if more focus laid on Maggie Gyllenhaals character, which was the only interesting role.