Chez les heureux du monde

I'm not sure how this movie could get a bad review. Of course, there are those people who find its pace too slow. However, one must realize that this is a period drama; it's not meant to be an action-packed suspense thriller. Everything is subtle, but it is so beautifully prepared, thought out, and executed by all.

1. Were it for nothing else, the technical aspects of this film would have kept me watching until the very end. The music was perfectly placed to rise and fall with the internal emotions of the characters - especially Lily and Lawrence - and to express the turmoil of the social downfall of Lily. On top of that, you have phenomenal costumes and set with the most lavish colors. Lastly, and possibly what I found most fascinating about the film, was the lighting. it always seemed just bright enough or just dark enough to reflect the romance or dreariness. In addition, there is just not denying that the way the light fell upon Gillian Anderson in every, single scene is something I have never seen before.

2. The all-star cast! Gillian Anderson. Eric Stolz. Laura Linney. Anthony LaPaglia. Dan Akroyd. Do I have to go on? I can almost guarantee that you'll find yourself, at one point or another, yelling at the screen. These characters are so manipulative and deceitful and malicious. And Lily is so naive and just won't accept love when it's given!! I think the best thing about the cast and performances in this film is that watching the film and listening to it are 2 completely opposite experiences. The actors convey one thing with their faces and another with their voices; it's pure talent. I was amazed.

3. If nothing else, this film should watched purely for Gillian Anderson. This project was so different than her 'X Files' persona - and such a success, at that. The way she uses her eyes to express 5 different emotions in a matter of seconds blew me away. Her acting and utter vulnerability was awe-inspiring.

Wow. Terence Davies' "House of Mirth" is a film that is just brilliant.

Essentially, the plot focuses on Lily Bart (Gillian Anderson) a socialite in the early 1900s in New York who, through a series of tragic circumstances, goes from being popular and admired to being a social outcast. Anderson is perfect in the role, and we feel all of her emotions. The superb cast includes Dan Aykroyd and Eric Stolz as two of her suitors, and Anthony LaPaglia, great as always, as a man who tries to help Lily out despite her pride winning over.

Davies' direction is incredible, one scene is simply of an empty house as it rains and it is just mind-blowing. The script, also, feels real all of the time which is a credit to the actors also.

I definitely recommend this movie, but don't expect it to zoom straight by and then be forgotten!

House of Mirth is a richly painted tapestry of a piece of early American Society all but unrecognizable to most Americans. It's a great story and great looking, but the real surprise in Terence Davies' adaptation of Edith Wharton's novel is how deftly Gillian Anderson among others manages to gracefully convey the stilted rigors of the period language. The film is largely about the traps and deceits verbal gamesmanship and class one-upsmanship. It is a deadly and vicious internal warfare that goes on with the upper class bourgeois in New York City in the early 20th century. The price one pays – particularly that a woman pays – for straying too far from the unwritten laws of that society can be severe. Lillie Bart's flaw is not really in her indiscretions, but in her inability to compromise at the right time. Her timing is fatally flawed. That the film is so relentlessly tragic, really takes the viewer by surprise, partly because Anderson gives her character such spunk and vivaciousness that you find yourself surprised by the endless bad luck that she brings on herself. Anderson's remarkable beauty, poise as an actress, facility with the dialogue, in my mind, bring her to a whole new level as an actress.

It is also wonderfully cinematic. There are rich colors and textures, beautifully framed scenes, marvellous costumes. Though steeped in tragedy and melodrama, you'll find yourself so swept away in this world that it will seem centuries and not merely decades removed from our time. Perhaps this is why the titles at the beginning and at the end are `New York 1914' – you need this reminder by the end.

With a host of good performances and a rich sense of place you will get emotionally and imaginatively swept up in this world. Just be prepared for the landing.

Reviews of this movie seem to fall into few categories, loved it because of Gillian Anderson, loved it because of the book, loved it because it was dreamy, hated it because I just didn't get it, hated it because of Gillian Anderson, hated it because it wasn't the book, hated it because it had no Arnie and wasn't Armageddon.

If you can't follow Edwardian English, if you can't follow a movie with scene shifts without a subtitle that says "you are now in London", "You are now in New York", if you can't read emotions off of actor's faces even when their words contradict their feelings, well, you're going to hate this movie. If you need a driving soundtrack to tell you exactly what mood you're supposed to be feeling for each scene, you're going to hate this movie. If you can't accept the fact that flawed characters develop but don't always overcome in the end, you're going to hate this movie.

OK, now that the summer action flic viewers have stopped reading this review in disgust (just as they left this movie early), we can get on with the review. I think Gillian Anderson was a good pick for the part, and did a very good, if not quite excellent performance. Part of Guilded Age/Edwardian upper-crust behaviour was the semblance of civility under the most trying of circumstances, such as saying "Thank You" when you've just been fired or otherwise dissed. Add that to the stylized English and you end up having to PAY ATTENTION to understand what is going on to get it.

One of the brilliant aspects of casting is the Gillian Anderson pick. Instead of a brilliant blonde or smouldering brunette, you have a non-conventional look (short, voluptuos and red-headed) that jolts (and excites) the modern eye, but actually better fit in to the pre-Chanel standard of beauty of that time.

At its heart the novel is a morality tale, describing the pitfalls of being beautiful, manipulative and shallow while failing to be cunning and wise. Lily Bart is callous to her suitors at first, only to fall into multiple social traps. In the end she relies solely on her integrity and dignity, which is insufficient to extricate her from her circumstances. This may offend many who expect the heroine to prevail in the end due to a simple basic morality (which is there in Lily), perseverance (which is also there), a clever plot twist and a 40mm grenade launcher (both missing).

Lavish sets, beautiful backdrops, gorgeous costumes, good acting (with the possible exception of Akroyd), all make this a surreal, if sad, journey for the cognitively aware and patient. I say "possible exception" because of one subtext of the novel & movie is the interplay of the American Nuveau Riche and the old nobility of England and Europe. Thus the wealthy American Entrepeneurs are depicted as brutish and obvious, though this is tolerated in society because their path was already blazed in the 1890's by the first wave of gold miners, oil drillers and electric company tycoons that swept through Europe and married into storied, if not monies, bloodlines. Thus, Akroyd's blatant and crude manipulations and language are somewhat justified.

But, if you don't like period pieces, costume dramas, and identifying with wealthy people who have never worked a day in their lives, all this will be lost on you.

I haven't read "The House of Mirth" by Edith Wharton yet, but I intend to now. This movie interpretation captured Wharton's acidity towards NY society more than Scorcese's "Age of Innocence" did, which focused more on personal failings.

Here a magnificently beautiful Gillian Anderson's character is stupid and stubborn, but doesn't really do anything wrong that society manipulates and revenges on her. She is absolutely superb with a very wide-ranging performance and it's a real shame she's being overlooked in end of the year awards.

The costumes are absolutely gorgeous. Having worked at a Hudson River estate museum I thought the movie absolutely captured the feeling of those hazy summers out of the city then was astounded to see it was all filmed in Scotland (which would explain the rocky coasts that were the only thing that confusingly didn't look like the Hudson).

The long movie is a bit slow and I think my mind wandered such that I missed a crucial plot point here or there - not sure we needed all the twinkling on the water shots.

Laura Linney plays against type as a practically evil duplicitous friend (worse than her wife in "The Truman Show").

It was interesting to compare this to Jane Austen interpretations which tend to emphasize the humor of her pot shots at silly society figures, but those folks were in small towns, not the big leagues where raised eyebrows affect fortunes. For society types, this is The Show.

Ebert (and my mother) gave it negative reviews because they absolutely refused to believe that a woman in her social class in 1906 had no other choices besides marriage but I think it was historically accurate, as Wharton was writing, bitterly, about a society she had observed (in a line from George Eliot to Hardy's Tess and Crane's Maggie). The women coming out of the theater agreed that we'd want to see it again.

(originally written 1/28/2001)