Victory

What I liked the most about this movie is that it was subtle. Nothing was pushed too far, the realistic acting and minimal melodrama made this movie very plausible, watchable and actually made you more in tune to the story, setting and characters in their feelings, where as some movies pour it on too much.

In the early 1900's in Sourabaya, Java, a man (Dafoe) rescues a beautiful violinist (Jacob) from indentured servitude, taking her to his desolate island home while being followed by larceny, treachery, and madness. "Victory" is a middle-of-the-marquee film which takes on the challenging elements of love, intrigue, suspense, betrayal, murder, etc. in an exotic location shoot but, in spite of good work from a good cast, never seems to be all it could have been. Hampered by ordinary cinematography, a superficial melodramatic execution, and less than sterling direction, "Victory", appears destined to die a slow death among the cable channels. (C+)

I've loved most Willem Dafoe films. Sam Neill was a joy in "Reilly, Ace of Spies" and "The Hunt for Red October". Irene Jacob is one of the most alluring and talented women in movies, magnificent in Kieslowski's film "Trois Colours-Red"--and good in "US Marshalls". Simon Callow was hilarious as the "Master of the Revels" in "Shakespeare in Love".

Alas, in "Victory", the four leads don't have the the screenplays and directors from their better movies. They become too wooden, one-dimensional, and more like caricatures rather than fleshed out characters.

The story may be based on the work of the late, great Joseph Conrad, but he was unavailable to improve the movie's dialog and pacing. Had Shakespeare been alive, he'd have loved "Shakespeare in Love". Would Conrd have loved "Victory"? I doubt it--except for the Java Sea scenery.

If you watch, ask yourself why it is called "Victory". Except for a minor line of dialog, does the title have anything to do with the movie?

Victory is one of my favorite books. Victory is not one of my favorite movies. The film sticks pretty close to the original plot, but all the feeling is lost. In the novel, the relationship between Lena and Heyst is heartbreaking. In the film, it's just another bland romance.

Also, Mr. Jones in the book is an extremely thin, spectral character, while Axel Heyst is a solid businessman. So, to me the casting of Dafoe as Heyst and Neill as Jones is completely backwards.

This isn't a horrible picture by any means, but it could have easily been far better.

6/10

My wife and I finally got around to watching this R1 purchase we made a couple of years back of an ambitious film that sank without trace in both cinemas and on DVD.

Has anyone seen it? It really is worth seeking out. My better half thought it was excellent, and while I'm just too much of a fan of Conrad in general and this novel in particular to share her view, I definitely enjoyed it.

Willem Dafoe and Irene Jacob are actors who always leave me cold, but Sam Neill and Rufus Sewell (whom I cannot abide normally) are both great as the villains. The production detail is flawless in conveying Indonesia just before the First World War, and the scenery and photography is beautiful. particularly effective is the island where Dafoe's character lives as a recluse with its tropical villa and abandoned wharf and coal mine. The score, too, is very strong.

There's rather too much narration (from the always excellent Bill Paterson, though) and Simon Callow gives a performance that is hammy even by his standards, but, mercifully, is hardly in it.

Richard Lester and Harold Pinter were developing a version of this in the 1980s, which was never made.