David and Lisa

I had to watch this movie in Psychology class, and I thought it was amazing! It was a movie that I actually enjoyed watching at school, which is a rarity. The actors played their roles expertly. I am so glad they chose Brittany Murphy for the role of Lisa. She had all of the emotions needed for this part. WOW! It was truly a touching story, and I'm glad this movie was remade...I would like to get a copy...My teacher taped it off of TV, and she can't find a copy ANYWHERE! If anyone can help me out I would greatly appreciate it. Please email me at ladylemon2006@aol or carmello2006@hotmail.com. thanks a lot, and everyone should see this movie. You wouldn't regret it. There is never a dull moment!

In hindsight, the death of Sidney Poitier's film career probably began in 1989 with "Driving Miss Daisy". A huge "sleeper" hit for Morgan Freeman, which he capitalised on with later roles in "The Shawshank Redemption" and "Se7en".

As a result, the rare role of "elderly black man" in cinema (matched for obscurity only by the roles of Asian or disabled actors in Hollywood circles) has fallen in favour of Freeman. Not that that's a bad thing, Morgan is a fine actor, but to waste one of the major talents of the cinema (one of the fifty greatest film actors of all time? Twenty? Ten?) on tv movies is a sad waste. Sidney has starred in just eleven films in the last two decades, only five of them for the big screen.

And so, being a huge Poitier fan I rented out "David and Lisa", a love story between two patients at a home for the mentally ill. Lukas Haas and Brittany Murphy do well as the titular characters, while Sidney is, as expected, the greatest performer in the piece.

Yet while Haas gets to do all the real "acting", Sidney is required here to do nothing more than go through the motions, with no material to get his teeth into. Instead, he is called upon to deliver such saccharine lines as "If you don't fall in love with life then you are more dead than alive". His attempts to wade through what is essentially a treacly, self-consciously "heart-warming" story are blighted at every turn. His swift body language and familiar-yet-well-mannered facial array are slowed by the sentimental incidental music that punctuates any "touching" plot development.

For a film that professes to be about mental illness, it can be occasionally sloppy in it's presentation of said theme. The movie is guilty of perpetuating the widely-held myth that "Schizophrenia" refers to multiple personality disorders, while the notion of illnesses than can be cured by love is just too easy an option for a satisfactory resolution.

Ultimately, this is not a bad film, but then neither is it a particularly good one. I gave it average (5) marks, as, like the majority of tv movies, it is a sanitised work, content to sit there and occupy the attention for 85 minutes then go away again leaving no real lasting impression. It's not horrible, it's not bad for your health, but then neither will it alter your life in any great way. The film's undercurrent is the sort of self-aggrandising, pious worthiness that gives liberalism a bad name. In fact, the whole movie walks a tightrope between decent entertainment and preachy sentiment. The only thing it needs to take it over the edge into a swarfegic glob of overstated emotion is a introduction by Oprah Winfrey, where she talks about the film being a "timeless love story" and "love gives us the power to live".

Oh, wait a minute. She does do that, doesn't she? Damn.

This isn't a terrible movie, but to be honest, I'm baffled by all the praise it's received. The dialogue seems artificial and somewhat dated--David in particular has an extremely stilted manner that I'm not sure is actually intentional. In the first half of the movie he stands up abruptly and then turns away at least once a scene, and his various panic attacks are weirdly awkward and artificial. I'm not sure that this is Haas's fault--when I first read the original play about 8 years ago, I was instantly annoyed by David's character. I personally have a good deal of experience with mental illness, etc, and something about him didn't quite click. Once David was allowed to develop a little (and once he wasn't forced into these constant, over-the-top breakdowns), Haas's acting ability shows. I really would have liked to see more insight--more introspection--but because the director insisted on sticking directly to the play, this wasn't possible. The plot is decent; why couldn't they use that as the framework?

He changes as a result of Lisa, but we don't really see how or why. As a result, we end up with this sappy, unrealistic sort of "love conquers mental illness" story. What, is David cured now? He and Lisa haven't even had a real conversation when the movie ends; we're left with the idea that perhaps their relationship will develop into something fascinating...

...and then the movie ends. Damn it.

Murphy does decently as Lisa, considering what she's given to work with. And Poitier does wonderfully despite the dialogue, of course, but everybody else in the film seems vaguely out of place. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that there's still something very 1962 about the thing, and mental illness research has come a long way in 40 years. David and Lisa has its great moments--especially as it progresses--and I suspect that Haas in particular could do better in a different movie.

Even this one could be really good, but it just falls short somehow...probably as a result of the dialogue, which still seems straight out of a 60's play that was revolutionary in its time but has since become distractingly dated. (I am aware that they have made some changes to the slang, but there's more to speech than that.) Anyway, with some modifications in regards to the telling of the story and especially the character development, I think that it could be a much better movie. As it is, it's pretty unremarkable.

"David and Lisa" is a beautifully updated version of this love story by Theodore Isaac Rubin. It shows careful research into modern psychiatry.

"David and Lisa" is a made for TV remake of the 1962 film by the same name. I read in another review that the original film was better, but as I haven't seen it I have no way to compare the two. What I do know is that I liked the film...possibly due, in part, to my history working in the mental health field.

When the story begins, David (Lucas Haas) is brought to a residential treatment program for the mentally ill. It's not a hospital per se, but more of a residential home. Why is David there? Well, he's extremely depressed and obsessed with death...to the point where he's practically non-functional.

At first, David is extremely hostile and guarded. It's obvious he's afraid to have close contact with others...both physical and emotional. Because of this, therapy is difficult for him. However, after he develops a friendship with a disturbed patient who only talks in rhymes, slowly he begins to allow others near him...and he appears to have excellent insight into her problems, though not of his own. Where is this friendship going and do either stand a chance of living a normal life?

Seeing two sick people learn to help each other is very touching. Both seem to have a lot to offer the other. I also appreciate the writing and performances, as I was a social worker and psychotherapist and appreciate the film and its message. Not an easy film to see...but worth your time if you allow it.