Par amour pour Gillian

I can vaguely recall when this movie was released nationwide in 1996. The title struck me as odd and aside from the fact that I wanted to see/hear how James Horner would conduct another exceptional score, I had no desire to see the film. After recently viewing To Gillian on Her 37th Birthday, I am disappointed that I didn't see it in the theater. Peter Gallagher, Claire Daines, and Bruce Altman all deliver marvelous performances. Michelle Pfieffer was a nice surprise (she's always "nice") as she plays her part to perfection! One of the best things about this film is the fact that you're not sure whether or not what you are seeing is real or whether it's just what's in David's (Gallagher) mind. Whichever way you believe, it's an amazingly touching film and at times it's even powerful. Great dialogue, great directing, and a great score from Horner (again), make this a truly GREAT film!

David E. Kelley is a brilliant writer. The early episodes of Picket Fences & Chicago Hope, the later episodes of L.A. Law and just about every Practice & Ally McBeal ever made are examples of his great talent. The only problem he has is trying to convert that TV magic to the big screen. His movie scripts are enjoyable, but lack the energy and excitement of his great TV writing.

To Gillian on Her 37th Birthday deals with a man (Peter Gallagher) who loved his wife so much, he just can't let her go. The wife's ghost seems to appear to him on the beach and he spends hours talking to her while neglecting their teenaged daughter (Claire Danes). The dead wife is Michelle Pfieffer, the best-looking ghost I've ever seen in a movie! The tension between father and daughter grows and the arrival of Gillian's sister (Kathy Baker from Picket Fences) and her husband makes things even more tense.

This movie has a good cast who all give strong performances and there is a memorable scene with Claire Danes and Laurie Fortier in thong bikinis, but the movie is hurt by Kelley's weak script, which is not up to the level of quality we've come to expect from him.

In opening up the play Mr. Kelley has lost some of the intimacy which in turn does not allow the fullest expression of grief. Mr. Gallagher and Ms. Danes seem to know this and so are a bit labored in their otherwise good and consistent performances. Michelle Pfiefer (Mrs. Kelley) seems to be mis-cast and appears also not to be giving her all to her performance of the late Gillian. It would be interesting to know how she might of played it with different direction or what another actress may have been able to do with the role. Still it is an excellent portrait of the ways loss and grief influence our lives and become part of who we are. Supporting cast is fine.

To Gillian is a movie that defines the word uneven. The casting and performances were perfect, but not enough to save the writing. Overall, it wasn't bad, but then again, the fact that it was overlooked at awards shows wasn't about politics (this time). The only thing that makes this movie worthwhile (and yes, it is worthwhile) is Claire Danes. She plays the part of angst-filled, emotion-driven, hormone/peer-influenced teenager to perfection. Also, Michelle Pfeiffer is very good, but unfortunately only for ten minutes. Peter Gallagher was more than adequate, as was the supporting cast. The main problem was that they had no on-screen chemistry, which is often reflective of the writing and/or directing.

David Fincher wrote this one. He should stick to TV. Overall, this film is better than should be expected from a team whose credits include Lake Placid (Fincher) and Ninja Turtles 2 (Pressman-director).

This is actually a good case study for people to see everything that could be done wrong being done in one place :-) Not kidding at all. If you can realize how and why is this movie ridiculous and at least a few things that should have been changed pop up at you you'll learn something from Kelley's failure - and Brady's, since the play is not exactly stellar on it's own.

Like the lack of a real antagonist (Esther could have been that but that requires some writing spine and ideas), the lack of a real dramatic reversal, watering down left and right (starting with long "karaoke" sequences), making all characters lukewarm and mediocre to the point that there are no clear leads, a "ghost" talking about her own non- reality akin to a spineless, self-doubting pseudo-intellectual and loosing even a trace of a mythical etc. etc.

The audience for live theater plays may tolerate some of these things for all kinds of reasons and theatrical directors sometimes do have more spine and artistic bravery to tear a mediocre play apart and bring out some sharpened characters and stronger tension and emotion. In general, theatrical talking heads require some brave intervention in order not to be plain boring.

So this is a rare confluence of a mediocre play, completely spineless adaptation and equally spineless direction. The sole mystery is whether Michelle Pfeiffer did this to make her husband happy of whether he was writing lukewarm to make her happy :-) One of them has to be the principal culprit.