Possession - Una storia romantica

I went to watch the movie with a little trepidation...after all, I've had images of these characters in my head for years...but I also went with much excitement, as I have been waiting for this movie to come for some time now.

First of all, Neil LaBute captured the snobbery of the whole academic scene very well, albeit very briefly. However, the British characters make so much comment about the fact that he's an American, that it borders on the ridiculous. Most of the actual British people I've met actually like Americans, and although they make the occasional joke about them, they don't carry on like the academicians in the movie. The point I am making is that the other characters seem to emphasize Roland's brashness so much that Roland doesn't even have a chance to show what he's truly made of, why he's there working with Professor Blackadder, over any dozens of other graduate students (British or not) who could have had his place.

Much has been said about making the character of Roland an American. Actually, I think that the choice of bringing an American into the academic mix not only changes this from something more suited to "Masterpiece Theatre" TV to something worthy of the big screen. Roland is the outsider in the book, a lower-class Brit, but he is also someone who harbors poetic aspirations and more passion for his chosen subject (Ash) than any of his colleagues. The fact that he is an American in the movie helps to emphasize his outsider identity. But the audience is never truly shown this at all in the movie.

This is the true misstep of the movie (and I have a feeling that perhaps some of it is on the cutting room floor): Roland's character is so underdeveloped in the movie that anyone coming to the movie without having read the book cannot help but feel he is a "fish-out-of-water." Sure, they have scenes of Roland reading a book of Ash poetry and a brief flash of Roland writing poetry in a notebook. But the latter scene seemed to exist only for Gwyneth Paltrow's character (Maud Bailey) to have another opportunity to make fun of Roland, and not to help reveal any sort of depth to his character.

As a fan of the book, I did enjoy the movie after all. The Victorian scenes were especially beautiful and I loved the seamless cutting between past and present in the same spaces, the same rooms. Since my only misgiving is that it was too short, I feel that LaBute was successful in his adaptation...I guess I will have to look to the DVD to see if he had intended to flesh out Roland's character more. Unfortunately, Roland is never even given a chance to show what he's made of, except for the fact that he steals a letter from a book -- the catalyst of both the movie and the book. His "American-ness" in this case -- his boldness and his guile -- is a good thing. It's just too bad that we don't see more of why he likes Ash so much and what really motivates him to take up the literary chase with Maud...and this is why I would recommend to anyone who's enjoyed the movie that they should read the book...it will amaze you how much LaBute managed to keep in, and it will astound you to become more acquainted with the quadrangle of characters and their individual passions and motivations.

The ending made up for any flaws this movie had. It made me smile as a viewer. Overall it's a good movie. This is a fine cast. The chemistry between Northam and Ehle was magnificent to say the least. You wanted the movie to just remain with them. Eckhart and Paltrow are fine in their roles. Eckhart is effective in his role although I do understand some people's ire that his character was made into an American. If the intent was to convey that he was an outsider who goes against convention and dares to think of things differently, then I think he was still effective and convincing. Presenting him a foreigner would only reinforce this intention. Paltrow is not bad in her role but I think this is where there is an argument that an actual British actress would have been more effective (i.e. someone like Kate Beckinsale, Rachel Weisz, Catherine Keener, or Emily Mortimer who all have the distinction of having attended prestigious British universities like Oxford and Cambridge) in making the character more complex so we could truly understand the psychology of an ice cold British, female academic. Besides having a British accent which Paltrow seems to do well, the part required an understanding of the woman's psyche that I'm not sure I fully understood. Despite being an American from Texas, Renee Zellweger did this well in Bridget Jones' Diary, although her accent was a bit posh for the character. This is my only criticism of a movie that was still good overall.

The love story of the past is beautifully photographed. Northam and Ehle are excellent and their passion for each other palpable. There are some unclear parts in the plot in the modern story. The modern couple have no reason to even be in the film except to link the writings of the couple in the Victorian romance. And nobody acts like a real archivist with real archivist ethics and beliefs in preservation. The excitement over a find is real for archivists, but none of the archivists or possible purchasers in the film show any of that excitement.

This film offers some gorgeous visuals and some great performances - notably those by Jeremy Northam and Jennifer Ehle (a bit of a casting joke since those two are famous for playing Jane Austen's Mr. Knightley and Elisabeth Bennet, respectively) - but as a literary adaptation, the movie falls short on too many points. Sadly, the filmmakers have missed out on most of the central themes of the novel, without substituting a sufficiently interesting interpretation of their own.

A.S. Byatt's novel examines the shifting relationships between men and women a century and a half apart - to that end, the characters in the two storylines (the Victorian and the contemporary) mirror each other deliberately. For some unfathomable reason, the screenwriters have decided to cut out completely two crucial characters from the modern-time storyline - Val, Roland's girlfriend, and the feminist (and Lesbian) researcher friend of Maud's, whose name I forget - their equivalents in the Victorian period are Ash's wife, and Christabel's lover Blanche.

One of the main interests of the original story lies in the ways in which the relationships between those characters have changed because of the changes in society that the 20th century has brought - particularly the way the main characters relate to each other (significantly, Maud is the stronger and more successful person in the modern-time relationship) - but also with respect to all the other characters involved (Roland and Val's relationship, which is based almost exclusively on sex, as contrasted with Ash's and his wife's relationship, which is entirely sex-less - the point here being that in a truly fulfilled relationship, these two things must be in balance).

Also, the characters, particularly that of Roland, are bent and twisted beyond recognition - I have nothing against Aaron Eckhard or his performance, but he simply plays a completely different character from the Roland Mitchell of the novel - who is *not* brash (nor is he celibate), but has a certain mousy-ness about him that is quite essential to the plot. Also, he is British for a reason, so making him into an American adds a completely wrong dimension to his and Maud's differences. Judging from the director's commentary, the main reason for casting Eckhard was that he's a buddie of director Neil La Bute's - it's a sad thing that the filmmakers decided to twist the character and plot to accomodate the actor, rather than making a more informed casting choice, as I am sure there are plenty of suitable British actors out there that would have fitted the part admirably.

Gwyneth Paltrow offers a convincing enough performance, and is well-cast as Maud Bailey - a woman whose physical attractiveness stands in the way of her being taken seriously as the bright academic she is. But she is not being given enough scope to be the reserved intellectual she is supposed to be, because her relationship with Roland developes far too quickly, and with not enough plausibility (particularly given a certain lack of chemistry between the two actors) - thereby missing another of the main themes (and contrasts) in the novel.

Having said that, the film is worth watching for its final five minutes alone - and incidentally, this is the one scene that catches most accurately the spirit, and the point, of the original novel.

I liked this film; and had no concerns whatsoever about watching it, despite the relatively low financial return, which I don't understand and also, the relatively mediocre percentage on Rotten Tomatoes, which I also don't comprehend - the latter of which I generally check before watching a movie, the former to see whether it's an indie or not.

I guess that this genre is not for everyone; to me it's a Jane Austen with added intrigue or a sophisticated Dan Brown with less intrigue.

There is lots of innuendo and suggestion, which unfortunately is generally bluntly explained shortly thereafter; it would possibly have been more interesting to keep it more mysterious and therefore make the viewer think longer than a few seconds.

I enjoyed it overall and would recommend it to those of a literary bent, it's not a popcorn flick.