Miss Julie

Adapted from a play, the film does have a very theater-like mood, portraying just three characters, besides a dog (well, and a yellow bird) and an unseen mob (and an unseen and unheard baron), with dialogues that not always fit naturally. The first 40 minutes portray an intriguing cruel game between the daughter of the owner of the estate and a servant, a game where passion, class, deeds, appearances, everything are interwined. However, although the film kept that very uncomfortable atmosphere, the duel became quite inconsistent, and consequently less engaging. Except for the nice lines of his fiancée, at 1h30, characters behave in too contradictory ways, which make no sense in my opinion even considering increasingly appearant madness of Miss Julie. Despite all those problems, I cannot help but mention that Jessica Chastain has a powerful performance in very different moments, in a broad range varying from femme fatale to lunatic.

I had never seen her be this loud, this unabashedly theatrical. But, the character calls for it, and it all somehow works. Farrell doesn't have to go as big, and yet he's the one that comes across as unconvincing. The film only really comes alive when it gives Chastain the space to be as loud as humanly possible. It's not a terrible film, but it just seems like an excuse for such powerhouse acting showcasing, and in that respect it's tremendously glorious to witness Chastain's work. It could've easily gone off the rails with many actresses, but she still manages to surprise me in what she can achieve. Again, it worked for me, but it won't for everyone. Several people will absolutely loathe her (really, any performance of this nature is bound to) but I can honestly say she is probably better here than in Rigby, if only because the material allows it. In that way it's a hard performance to analyze, it's basically "here, watch Chastain ACT!" without really caring if we get the character. But it worked for the 2 hours, mostly.

Jessica's Chastain in particular is brilliant. But really I'm writing this review to say this movie made me hate men forever.

It's double-bill time, two movie adaptations of MISS JULIE, August Strinberg's play written in 1888, with 63 years apart. The 1951 version is made by Strinberg's fellow Swedish countryman, Alf Sjöberg. Shot in dashing Black and White, Sjöberg's film stars Anita Björk and Ulf Palme as the central pair, Miss Julie, the daughter of a Count (Henrikson) and her servant Jean, during the mid-summer night, they test the limit of seduction, passion and dignity between two incompatible classes, it shared the prestigious Grand Prize in Cannes with Vittorio De Sica's MIRACLE IN MILAN (1951).

Empowered by an impactful score from Dag Wirén, the film conjures up the pair's gender-and- class tug-of-war with a phantasmagoria of sequences narrating their dreams and past. The desire for falling versus an ambition of climbing from different starting tier concretes Julie and Jean as perfect specimens to explore their moral and emotional clashes. Outstanding cinematography creates amazing shots where flashback merges together with the present, imagination coexists with the reality. There is no win-win situation in the battle of sex, Miss Julie's paradoxical attempt to patronise her servant and at the same time to be sexually overtaken by him is a self-digging grave for her own undoing, and Jean's struggle between his sexual impulse and deep-rooted inferiority complex is the last nail on her coffin.

Anita Björk embodies a graceful mien of nobility emitting a whiff of recalcitrance that makes her portrayal of Miss Julie a distant, spoiled figure never truly reveals her true emotions, whereas Ulf Palme delicately betrays his insecurity and immaturity out of his pseudo-confidence and prince-charmant appearance. Among the supporting cast, Dorff's Kristin, the cook, takes a less prominent function than Morton in the 2014 film, and we also see a very young Max von Sydow giggling in his plain nature. Overall, this vintage oldie is a pleasant discovery, especially compared to the more lyrical but problematic latest version directed by the acting legend Liv Ullmann.

With a running time around 130 minutes (contrast with 89 minutes of Sjöberg's picture), but maximally axing the bit parts with three characters only (save the two-minutes opening sequence showing a young Julie rollicking in the forest), Miss Julie (Chastain), the butler John (Farrell) and Kathleen the cook (Morton), this austere version is set in Ireland, and is much more loyal to the text's original form with its take-no-prisoners' method to let the acting-trio wrangling in the turmoil with lengthy monologues and dialogues. It is a chancy choice, Ullmann invests a full trust in her cast, and is willing to take the risk of prolonging the takes to let the emotional repercussions permeate, even music is barely used as an immediate mood-mediator, only at times playing in the background with unobtrusive volume.

"The night is long and it is so tiring", the film becomes tedious as the same plot and twist blathering on and on; and "class is class", the invisible barrier strips them down to their inveterate bias and beliefs. However, the trio's whole-hearted devotion is the saving grace of Ullmann's labour-of-love. Morton, her Kathleen becomes a morally righteous yardstick to the scandalous affair, John is her beau, and Miss Julie is her mistress, her inward feeling is given a more detailed vent to show off, and Morton is always excellent to watch, modest in looks, but tremendously engaging. Farrell, portrays a quite different character from Palme, his John is more approachable to read, more pliable to manipulate, also more reprehensible to condemn for his cowardice, the explicit canary-murdering scene makes him more like a perpetrator than a foolish social-climber in the end.

Chastain stands at odds with Farrell and Morton's Irish accent, but her mercurial personae are wondrous to stare, this could be a tour-de-force if it was on stage, yet as a film, her labour (the same can to said to Farrell and Morton) cannot redeem the sluggish rhythm and a length overstays its welcome, in a sense, only true savant of stage play can luxuriate in it, for most people, the 1951 version is more superior.

I kept searching for a reason to care about these people and what they're going through. "It's a classic." "View it in the context of the time." Nothing. Nothing worked. A lot of the problem is how it was shot. At least on stage you can choose to watch the other character's reaction. But here, Ullmann keeps cutting to the person who is speaking, rarely cutting away. The repetitive style does not build tension, but monotony. Even great acting couldn't save it.