zetes I've never been big on costume dramas, and this is no exception. I was mostly bored during this. Based on an Edith Wharton novel, the film stars Gillian Anderson as an independent woman. She's getting close to being out of marriageable age, but she refuses to pick between the many men courting her. She believes she has plenty of time, knowing that she's highly desirable. Unfortunately, her gambling debts are starting to haunt her, and they eventually pull her down to a lower class. Soon she finds that her marriage prospects are no longer available, and she must (gulp!) work for a living. For me, it's the dialogue that really kills it. Perhaps people spoke like this in early 20th Century New York, but I can't hear "I have been foolish to the point of being compromised!" without rolling my eyes a bit. As one might expect, the costumes are excellent, and, as with all Davies films, the cinematography is beautiful. But I found it to be a slog.

Red_Identity I think this was, overall, a successful work. I say that without having read the source material, but as a film it stands alone well and it's able to get across most of what it intends. Of course, that doesn't mean it's not without its share of flaws. Gillian Anderon is pretty great for most of it, but at times her portrayal sort of strains, as if she's just "acting" and it shows. Still, she's mostly effective, as are the rest of the performances. The period drama isn't as stuffy as one might expect, and for some reason it reminded me a lot of Dangerous Liasons. The ending is earned though, and because of it I have to say that I do recommend this.

Chris Knipp The House of Mirth is in some ways a remarkable period film, the story of a young woman's gradual decline from the spotlight of 1905 New York society to humiliation and defeat a couple of years later. Gillian Anderson turns in a compelling performance in the lead as this young woman, Lily Bart. But, as has been noted by others who've read Edith Wharton's novel, this is not a fully successful literary adaptation.The book is over five hundred pages long. To deal with such complexity, the writers have sliced it into tableaux, which give an imperfect idea of the narrative, and many details of character and incident are oversimplified, including the omission of a key figure, Gerty Farish, the humble friend of Selden who represents what Lily fears becoming herself. Still, various characters appear lacking in context. The book is just too complicated to be turned into a feature film. Despite the fact that certain scenes and dialogue are followed quite literally, a great deal of explanatory material has of course been lost. Along with this blunting of the richness of the book, the cast isn't strong enough, and in some places is disappointing. The lovely look of the film, its very authentic locations and costumes, can't make up for these two huge flaws. Davies said he picked Gillian Anderson because she looked like a Sargent painting and at times she does, but unfortunately she has to act; she's not quite capable of conveying all the nuances of Lily's personality, and besides, is not the dazzling and delicate beauty Wharton clearly describes her as being. At times she looks almost plain. Further, the screenplay fails to convey that Lily was not just unlucky in cards and unwilling to do what was necessary to pay her debts but also a lavish spender on clothes and baubles and enormously spoiled.As the all-important Lawrence Selden, the respectable but not wealthy enough lawyer Lily loves but feels she cannot marry, Eric Stoltz is flabby, a washout. All he's good at is looking smart in his period costumes and wavy red hair, and smoking cigarettes. Selden is far too important a character to be so weak: there needs to be strong chemistry between him and Lily and he needs to be compelling and magnetic not vacuous and pretty.For a novel about society, the film is at times badly off on details of manners, which must be conveyed first of all by good casting. Even if this is his "finest role to date" (Hoberman), Dan Ackroyd is nonetheless inadequate. Gus Tremor is a man of high society who is rich, fat, and boorish. Ackroyd as Gus is adequate only for the fat and boorish part; he doesn't suggest a person to the manor born. One of the embarrassing ironies is that while Sim Rosedale's Jewishness, central to the novel and an aspect of Wharton's own conventional anti-Semitism, is suppressed and converted by vague implication into Italianness with the casting of LaPaglia, an obviously Jewish actress is introduced, in the anti-Semitic climate of this narrative, in the person of Eleanor Bron to play Lily's aunt. That might be justified if the actress were good, but Ms. Brun's performance is a crude caricature. She plays Mrs. Julia Peniston, Lily's Aunt as a wicked witch rather than the disapproving prude of the novel. Something seems off in the conception of Lily's cruel nemesis, Bertha Dorset. Laura Linney, who has the role, is a good actress. But in her key scene she seems more gleefully spiteful than coolly calculating, not an appropriate attitude given the gravity of her own situation. This is a weakness in Davies' direction, surely one of many. He captures the big "arc" of Lily's decline effectively and there is drama and shock in Lily Bart's rapid decline as dramatized by Ms. Anderson; but do we ever understand it? As on other occasions when wonderful novels have been adapted into films that capture the outlines but miss the core, we can only recommend: read the book.

b4peace-1 Technically this film was great & it was a good story. The acting was excellent, BUT... it was also an annoying film for the following reasons:1) She seemed so intelligent, how did she also make such a stupid mistake as to leave in the middle of an opera with a married man where everyone could see her go - what was she thinking?! 2) Why was Lily so damn proud as to not accept help from 2 well-intentioned friends, one of whom actually loved her & she didn't have the sense to follow her heart! Was this realistic? (Oh ya, it's a film!) 3) Why didn't she use those damning letters to re-enter the society she craved (tho why quite frankly, when it was by and large so hypocritical, is beyond me!)? 4) And to cap it all, she decides working is just too problematic so she tops herself! What a waste! 5) Why did Lawrence not chase her more if he was really interested in her? What game was he playing at? So he annoyed me!She seemed so clever at the beginning - I thought she'd find a way out of her troubles. Sorry but she was a complex & silly woman. (Yes, it's judgmental.)I'm annoyed that this film has affected me days after I saw it.7/10 from me