The Europeans

Being a James Ivory film, nothing surprising in the seduction of details, clothes, rooms and dialogue. Being a good adaptation of the novel by Henry James, nothing surprising about atmosphere.

In short , a beautiful film.

The colors of autumn as one of basic virtues for me.

The obvious issue that many readers have with Henry James' books is that his characters' motives and desires often seem unclear, despite the extensive dialogues. But this is not the late James where a dozen pages of exposition of thought and motive precede each spoken sentence. The Europeans is only a short, simple book faithfully recreated here. A fine adaptation. In the past, I'd say Henry James has been excellently served by directors such as James Cellan-Jones (The golden bowl, The Ambassadors), Jack Clayton (The innocents), William Wyler (The heiress) and of course James Ivory. Yet neither Truffaut (The green room), nor Rivette (Celine et Julie), or Bogdanovich (Daisy Miller) could keep up with the Jameses. (Not to mention the disastrous version of Portrait of a Lady with Nicole Kidman.) While not on the level of Remains of the day and other Merchant/Ivory films at their peak, this film is where the partnership truly took off in presenting Masterpiece-Theatre-like period films. The visuals are untouchable. The cinematography, wonderful as it captures the New England autumn. The casting, very good: Lee Remick, Faye Dunaway, Jane Fonda, Wesley Addy, Tim Woodward, Tim Choate.

Ok, maybe I missed something, but the movie seemed very odd to me. The actors and actresses were either lethargic or over-hyper, and seemed to lack sincerity. So after the first five minutes, I gave up trying to follow the plot and concentrated on the costuming instead, which was fabulous. Period movies (especially ones made pre-1990) tend to care less about authenticity, and more about what looks good to the modern eye. This one was a pleasant surprise. In fact, the clothes were so good that I even wonder if they didn't use originals. I want to know, where did they get those incredible fabrics?? The hair, which is where most movies trip up the worst, was quite good except on the blonde lady (who looked like she stepped out of a 1979 issue of Vogue). Less black eye makeup would have completed the stunning job. All in all, I would recomend this movie to anyone at all interested in the look and feel of 1850s new england life, as a superb example of authenticity.

Filmed in typical lush Merchant-Ivory fashion, this film left me feeling confused. I wanted to like it, and certainly enjoyed the sumptuous visuals, but it simply failed to lift off the launch pad.

I first saw this movie in a "Henry James on Film" class back in about 1994. I'd just read the novella of the same name and enjoyed it immensely. Not only was it remarkably beautiful and deeply moving but also, at moments, intentionally laugh out loud funny.

MIP, as is their way I later discovered, created a script that fails to recognize the difference between the written word and the spoken word/visual image. The camera work is beautiful, and all the superficial details seem so right (furnishings, clothes, surfaces in general), all of which I've found to be typical of MIP films. What a pity they didn't devote at least some of that time to other matters, such as understanding the characters involved. Lines are lifted directly from the novella, with little or no attempt to adapt them to the demands of the big (or small) screen.

As a result, all of the glorious subtlety of the original is lost, absolutely lost. James' characters are complex, yes, but also thoroughly real, human, and comprehensible, despite what some of his critics may claim. You wouldn't know that from any of the MIP adaptations of his works, specifically THE BOSTONIANS and THE GOLDEN BOWL. I've yet to see HULLABALOO OVER GEORGIE AND BONNIE'S PICTURES, which is, according to certain film critics, and suggested by what I've read about the film, an adaptation of James' "The Aspern Papers." Ivory has been asked about this, but has refused to answer one way or the other.

It doesn't help that MIP films have tended to be shot on such tight time/money budgets that it may be impossible to shoot all the scenes that were scripted, let alone to reshoot a scene when needed. As such, they rely heavily on editing the footage they have. Anyone who studies their films may well find that this approach leads to most unsatisfying results.

I've seen ten or more MIP films since this one, in an attempt to determine if this was an isolated misstep on their part, or the norm for them. I found the latter to be the case. Their films make me think of the children's fairy tale of the emperor who had no clothes. But, in the case of MIP fare, it's just the reverse: it's all clothes -- and no emperor!