Iris. Recuerdos imborrables

"Iris" tells of British novelist Iris Murdoch and her husband as they struggle together with her Alzheimer's affliction. The couple is portrayed in youth by Winslet and Bonneville and in old age by Dench and Broadbent with all delivering sterling performances. The plaintive and wistful story is told through interleaving scenes of the older couple's struggle with moments from the younger couple's life. As far as it goes, the film is an excellent product. What it doesn't deliver, however, is a deep sense of Murdoch, her philosophies and complexities of thought thereby giving greater depth to the character and a sense of the significance of what she is losing. In short, the film dwells too much on the disease and too little on the woman. Recommended for more mature viewers (B+)

"Iris" is an intense character-study that is full of bravura performances, but is also a film that struggles for greatness and never quite reaches the mark. Iris Murdoch was a great English novelist, arguably the greatest of her time, but Alzheimer's would strike the writer and eventually take away everything needed to continue her literary work. The film splits in two between Murdoch's early life (played by Oscar-nominee Kate Winslet) and her latter life (Oscar-nominee Judi Dench). What we see is Murdoch's relationship with her true love and future-husband John Bayley (Hugh Bonneville in the early sequences and Oscar-winner Jim Broadbent in the latter stages). "Iris" struggles as it goes back and forth between the early years and the latter years of Murdoch's life. This makes the film like a jumping-jack that just does not know when to quit. The film is not complimentary to Murdoch in her early years as she is shown as a teasing bi-sexual who basically uses men and women for her own personal gain. She is also shown as a somewhat cruel person who intentionally and unintentionally hurts those closest to her. Dench, on the other hand, plays Murdoch as a woman slowly losing control of those things most important to her. There are definitely flashes and similarities between the four actors who play the two characters flawlessly. Broadbent is best, but his Oscar win is not dominant by any stretch of the imagination. The film also looks somewhat cheap and rushed at times. It is just so British and the production values are not near as high as they really should have been. However, the film does show the Alzheimer's Disease in a very accurate way. Those who have seen it firsthand (I have) will find the film very difficult to get through because the research done for the movie is second-to-none. Those who are not familiar with the disease will find the film intriguing and interesting. "Iris" is a fine effort and the performances save the day on more than one occasion, but overall the film is not quite what the film-makers had hoped it would be by the final act. 4 stars out of 5.

"Iris" is too short.

I wanted more about Iris Murdoch before she descends into Alzheimer's disease (stunningly portrayed by Judi Dench), other than a few lectures, and more explanation on why the young Iris fixed on her husband.

I haven't read the memoirs by the husband; it's possible that because the books and thence the movie are from his view point that we can't get inside Iris's head young, old, or befuddled.

The Young Iris segments mostly point up again that Kate Winslet has a beautiful naked body (was this before or after her baby?) and I didn't see how she did enough otherwise to justify the award nominations.

The Young Husband looks amazingly like the old Broadbent, so that the flashbacks are completely seamless, and both are terrific.

It's nice to see on screen a house as much of a mess as mine, filled with reading material, but I think we were supposed to react negatively at the sight and scream doesn't the British health services provide home health aides?

Altogether a very moving movie, helped by James Horner's music, especially sympathetic to what a caregiver goes through.

(originally written 3/3/2002)

Dench and Broadbent do a fantastic job charting the devolution of Iris' faculties as she struggles with Alzheimer's; the problem with this film is during the flashback scenes. Winslet is average, not great in her portrayal, but that's partially because the script doesn't present Iris Murdoch in her early days as a very sympathetic character. Instead of coming off as a free spirit she's far more of a sexually confused egotistical dilantette who uses everyone around her. Scenes where Iris is supposedly revealing her shady past and her motivations fall completely flat...there's not enough of a sense of vulnerability or that she really NEEDS her husband. Ultimately that takes away from the Dench-Broadbent storyline. I felt badly for Broadbent's character as he clearly was in way over his head trying to take care of Iris, but I was puzzled as to why he stayed with her in the first place as she treated him so awfully when they were young.

The flashbacks also aren't handled quite right, the interaction between the "present" and past scenes is too jarring. I suspect that it was a conscious choice to do it that way in an attempt to describe the ravages of Alzheimer's, but the film really suffers as a story because of it. This film would have been better served as a straight linear narrative without the constant flashbacks, focusing on either the young or old stage of Iris' life.

This film succeeds where the overrated "A Beautiful Mind" fell short. It puts its subject's life into perspective and gives a sense of her worldview and, needs, and desires--as opposed to just focusing on the illness. I think it is also more effective in its use of different actors to portray the main characters at different ages, rather than using distracting age makeup, like in ABM. I came away from this with a profound admiration for Iris Murdock, whereas I felt like I hardly got to know John Nash at all.

But enough with the comparisons. This film stands well on its own as a tribute to the companionship shared by Iris and her husband John Bayley throughout their long, complex, relationship. Broadbent deserved that Academy Award, although I would say he plays more of a lead character than supporting. Seeing Iris through Bayley's loving eyes is what makes the film an enriching experience. He is the one who must adapt to her unconventional lifestyle, and their journey together is a rewarding one.

One person who commented stated that this was "another disease movie." Funny how you never hear a complaints about "another gangster movie" or "another romantic comedy" or "another suspense thriller." SO WHAT? First of all, it is not a disease movie, it is at its heart a romance, and a "meaning of life" film, much moreso than a film about Alzheimer's disease. Secondly, the disease is the device used to illustrate their level of understanding and commitment to each other. And finally, I cannot imagine telling Murdock's story WITHOUT giving the disease its proper weight in the course of the film.

The scenes when the characters are younger are blended seamlessly with the latter day scenes. Kate Winslet and Hugh Bonneville (uncannily resembling a young Broadbent) are very true to their older counterparts' personalities, and add yet another dimension to film. All in all, this is a production of which director Richard Eyre and cast (and Bayley, who wrote the book on which the film is based) should be extremely proud. It should have been seen by more people in 2001. Grade: A