Besessen

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.

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.

Two love stories unfold simultaneously in this attractive, sensitive, but not wholly successful adaptation of a popular novel. Eckhart plays an American literary researcher in England who stumbles upon some long lost and completely unknown love letters by a Victorian poet (who just happens to be having his centenary celebrated!) He pairs with an icy doctoral researcher (Paltrow) and they begin to piece together a heretofore undiscovered relationship between the married poet (Northam) and a fellow poetess (Ehle) who is involved in a long-standing lesbian love affair. The stories are presented in turns, often accented by some clever setups in which the same settings reveal jumps in time. Eckhart (an immensely appealing actor) took a lot of heat for his role which was originally intended for a British actor. His presence changes the entire flavor of the story as it was written in the source novel, yet he comes across as endearing as ever. Paltrow (an agonizingly overrated actress and overrated beauty) looks like Carolyn Bessette Kennedy only with a rigid, showy English accent. Her attention to the accent and to what she believes her character to be results in an almost robotic portrayal and nothing resembling a human being. The Victorian couple generates both interest and romance, yet isn't given the screen time of the contemporary couple. If a STAR hadn't been placed in the modern story, maybe the focus could have been more even and the Victorian story could have been given a touch more emphasis. Still, Northam and Ehle (who bears a striking resemblance to Meryl Streep) manage to make an impact. What was apparently quite enthralling and romantic on the page has become rather routine and familiar on the screen, though there are some lovely and thoughtful moments throughout. Some of the location scenery is gorgeous (as is Eckhart.) A host of British character actors round out the cast with results ranging from strong (Headey, Stephens) to campy (Eve) to wasted (Aird, Massey.) Someone needs to inform Paltrow that an accent, a bun and a turtleneck don't provide the performance alone. Some commitment, expression, thoughtfulness and especially realism are also in order!

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.

`Possession' has all the intricacy, mystery and suspense of a classic piece of detective fiction. What sets this film apart, however, is that the object of the mystery does not involve a dead body, a piece of stolen treasure or a missing person, but rather the hitherto secret love affair between two well-known 19th Century English poets. The clues come in the form of journal entries, love letters and snippets of enigmatic poetry that, when pieced together, afford a glimpse into the inner yearnings of these two young, but essentially unrequited lovers.

As a narrative, `Possession' runs on two parallel tracks, one set in modern times (that's where the detective story aspect comes in) and the other set in 1859, as we learn the details of the romance that took place between the writers. In the contemporary plot strand, Aaron Eckhart stars as Roland Michell, a handsome young American research assistant who has come to England to study the work of famed poet Randolph Henry Ash, a writer with a certain misogynistic strain who nevertheless enjoys the rather unique reputation among poets of having been utterly faithful to his wife. As the story begins, Ash has become something of a cause celebre within British literary circles because the year 2000 happens to mark the centenary of the discovery of his work. While poring over a first edition copy of one of Ash's volumes, Roland stumbles across some original letters of Ash's that hint at the possibility that Ash, contrary to the public impression of his marital fidelity, may actually have had an affair with another famed poet of the time, a Miss Christabel La Motte, a woman believed by her biographers to have been a lesbian. Confronted with this startling, revolutionary and, perhaps, priceless piece of information, Roland sets out to unravel the mystery, accompanied by Maud Bailey (Gwyneth Paltrow), an expert on the life and work of Miss LaMotte (and a distant descendant of that famed poet in the bargain).

`Possession' earns points automatically simply by providing us with a unique storyline and a fascinating glimpse into a world we have rarely if ever seen portrayed on screen - the world of literary investigation. We are fascinated by all the behind-the-scene details showing not merely the investigative footwork that goes into unearthing the biographical details of a writer's life, but also the sometimes-cutthroat nature that propels rival investigators to both make and publish their discoveries, even if that means utilizing tactics that can be described as, at best, unethical, and, at worst, illegal.

But `Possession' offers more than just that. It also manages to provide not merely one, but two complex romances occurring at the same time (though a full century apart in the context of the story). Randolph and Christabel are both products - and victims - of their Victorian Era morality, yet at the same time, their struggles are universal in nature and neatly correspond to those experienced by Roland and Maud, who literally follow in the footsteps of the earlier couple. As our modern day investigators travel the same route through England that Randolph and Christabel took a century previous, Roland and Maud reveal much about their own inability to make commitments in the face of possible true love. As they tentatively grope towards one another, then back away out of fear of pain and rejection, Roland and Maud define, in many ways, the métier of modern romantic coupling. Yet, we discover, through Randolph and Christabel, that life in the past really wasn't much different from what it is today.

Based on the novel by A.S. Byatt, the David Henry Hwang/Laura Jones/Neil LaBute screenplay provides highly charged scenes between our two romantic couples, particular those involving Roland and Maud. The dialogue in these encounters is often sharp, intelligent, incisive. The romantic moments between Raymond and Christabel have a slightly more conventional feel to them, but they, too, often ring true in a way that is both deeply moving and strangely exciting. Director LaBute has drawn wonderful performances out of his quartet of first-rate actors. Aaron Eckhart as Roland and Jennifer Ehle as Christabel are particularly effective in their roles.

It's refreshing to see a romantic drama that manages to generate some actual chemistry between its two on-screen lovers. In the case of `Possession,' our pleasure is thereby doubled, since the film accomplishes this with not merely one couple but two. `Possession' may not provide the blood, gore, corpses and hair-raising thrills one usually associates with detective fiction, but its devotion to the drama found in words, poetry, language and romance makes for no less an engrossing experience.