Posesión

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.

It needs to be said; this is not a very good film, but it does keep up the appearance of one fairly well, carrying a facade of mystery, romance and great literature. The director navigates two parallel story lines – one taking place between two secret lovers in the mid-1800s and one taking place between two soon-to-be-lovers in the 21st century – the latter couple finding their romance as they are unlocking the lovestory of the former... through letters. The bad news is that the director only put his heart into one of the story lines, namely the costume one, and as a result, the modern day lovestory between Gwyneth Paltrow and Aaron Eckhart as literary sleuths suffers greatly. Nevertheless, Possession makes for an OK diversion into quasi-romance.

Starting in the positive end then, period-junkies Jeremy Northam and Jennifer Ehle are breathtaking to watch as poets during the Richmond period in England. They are two people who cannot be together, for one has chosen a wife and the other has chosen a life of 'shared solitude' (which is a euphemism for a lesbian relationship). Yet they begin a correspondence of love letters, which blossoms into a fully-fletched romance, embroidered in intrigue and quiet passion. Ehle's beautiful, reassuring smiles conveying the latter. At times their story is achingly romantic, so I think this aspect is very nicely tended to in the film. The graceful words in their letters even invests the film in a lyrical flow of sorts.

For our modern day story, Gwyneth Paltrow plays the icy literary expert Maud Bailey, who is also a descendant of Ehle's character, but clearly lacking in her passion. The film offers no satisfying explanation as to why the chilly Maud suddenly warms up and falls for Roland (Eckhart), other than they they are researching the lost letters together. I love Eckhart, but truly believe he is all wrong for this part. He ends up clumsy and flat and underdeveloped in the film (the novel probably offered more insight into his character, I don't know) and again, Maud's attraction to him seems far-fetched. I really can't stress how bad their storyline is; no description will do it justice.

Otherwise, Possession does a fair job of melting themes of love and love lost as it progresses and it occasionally manages thrilling. In order to get events unfolding, Maud and Roland unlock the mystery of the ancient lovestory by conveniently appearing clues, hidden hatches and notes. It's into Da Vinci Code territory with this approach to plot, but it works to a point. There is also seamless, fluent intercutting of the two parallel stories in the editing process. Neither a very solid nor very interesting template here, but "Possession" does make for a fine pastime.

6 out of 10

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!

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.

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.