The Golden Bowl

"The Golden Bowl", a period piece circa 1900's, turns a microscope on the innerworkings of the relationships of four people, two men and two women, bound by blood, marriage, love, duty, etc. and scrutinizes them to the exclusion of all else. Sadly, the people aren't sufficiently interesting or charismatic to support such scrutiny for 2.2 hours. Amidst the sumptuous splendor of grand costuming, locations, props, makeup, etc. with some heavyweights behind the film, "TGB" is an earnest effort which comes off as much ado about nothing with the one steamy and passionate relationship underdone while the emphasis lingers on the minutia. Somewhat awkward and staged at times, the film doesn't rise to the level of it better period predecessors but will still be a worthwhile watch for those into films about wealth and aristocracy.

This film is about the complicated love life between four people bound by blood, marriage and lust.

The plot is rather simple and plainly told, but it is made up for by the lush costumes and visuals. It is delightful to see so many extravagant period dresses in each scene, I felt I was watching a fashion show! Uma Thurman's dresses are the most remarkable, her peacock costume and the white curly hat stand out from the crowd. Her heart wrenching performance proves she has great acting skills to parallel her extraordinary beauty.

Scenes in "The Golden Bowl" are thoughtfully constructed and thoughtfully decorated. The palace rooms are maximally decorated with flowers, paintings and sculptures; providing a visual feast of luxury and grandeur.

"The Golden Bowl" is well worth watching just for the grand sets and lavish costumes.

"The Golden Bowl" felt more like recent Edith Wharton adaptations like "Age of Innocence" and "House of Mirth" than its Henry James provenance, because the focus is more on the social criticism of a society that forces the impecunious upper class into marriage with pecunious upstarts than the individual faults of people this hypocritical society produces.

But maybe my mind wandered as this was a bit over-long as I seemed to have missed some crucial epiphany when characters changed their relationships where they find true love a manipulable characteristic -- with the audience responding with sharp intakes of breath.

I was surprised how good Uma Thurman was in a costume drama as I had thought of her only as a modernist, while I thought Nick Nolte far too subdued to be a robber baron.

The costumes and settings were gorgeous.

The audience was typical Merchant/Ivory fans -- the woman on my right chastised me during the opening credits for eating my popcorn too loudly, while the guy on my left was snoring almost as soon as the movie started.

(originally written 5/13/2001)

Ruth Prawer Jhabvala has made "The Golden Bowl" come to life. Henry James's last novel, a rather difficult read, has been told very simply without missing the point of the novel. I have read a lot of criticisms of this movie and cannot understand why a lot of the critics say that it was a difficult movie to understand. The constumes, sets etc. recreated the time most wonderfully. The splendor of the great homes, the decay of the Italian Castle, the history of Amerigo's family, the under currents of feelings between the characters all seemed so right. For some, the movie might feel a little long, but Henry James is a most difficult author to translate into film. I liked the use of old black and white movies for the scenes in New York, it added to the stmosphere.

OK, so we need Henry James for character exposition. That complements beautifully the wonderful cinematography of all these great castles in England and Italy. Of course, the source of all these riches is alluded to with the real grainy film of the coal miners in AmericanCity. I haven't found yet the line in the novel by Thurman: "But the miners would prefer the train to a museum" when Nolte describes to her how he will buy both sides of the street and the train tracks between in order to build his museum. The reason the language sounds stilted is that much of the dialogue was lifted verbatim from the novel.....what little dialogue there is. And of course, the fascinating 'beasts unleashed' flavor of the sexual intercourse scene is NEVER to be found even alluded to in the novel.

By the way, Edward II is buried in Gloucester Cathedral. That question comes up, but is NEVER answered in the movie, and you THINK it is going to be the little point that breaks up their alibi: "We went to Gloucester Abbey, where there is some king buried, Edward II or Richard II." The acting is superb, the scenery gorgeous and the psychological incest between Nolte and his daughter is discreetly and appropriately exemplified. As HJ says, talking together in the castle gardens, they did indeed resemble husband and wife. The adultery of the other two was almost foreordained.

The social habits of this age when women had no independent means of making a living is underlined. See this in conjunction with "House of Mirth" and you'll thank your lucky stars you live in 2001. As much sexism as still exists in the workplace, we have indeed come a LONG way, Baby!!!! Thurman's sense of imprisonment is palpable, and I wonder how many women went stark raving mad over their dependency, a form of slavery all the more odious for it not being recognized.

I wonder if ALice James had any part in the writing of this novel. After reading this, she must have felt much better about her 'plight'. Although I wish for the maiden ladies of that day, that they might have been able to adopt or have babies without the social stigmas of the time......a great joy in life that shouldn't be linked with the social tyranny of 'catching a man'.

Return to a time when people used their minds for things other than writing better software, as their country and Constitution are taken over by greedy ignorant barbarians intent on destroying the planet. It's a great movie.!!!