उपयोगकर्ता समीक्षाएं

Strindberg's midsummer nightmare to Shakespeare's dream. 'miss julie' has been touted (by its director, at any rate) as a new way of filming works of classic literature. The film begins, however, as almost all adaptations of plays do, with bustle, hyperactive camerawork and editing, and lots of people (and therefore lots of centres of interest), to fool the viewer into thinking they are watching cinema, and to avoid making the next two hours of stagy talk seem so much like stagy talk (a recent example of this nethod is the Nick Nolte/Jeff Bridges film 'simpatico'). And what follows, sure enough, is two hours of stagy talk.

Figgis' current inspiration is the Dogme 95 collective of Danish filmmakers, although when the opening titles proclaim 'A Mike Figgis Film', we realise that it's not going to be THAT radical (Dogme directors do not sign their work (although, curiously enough, we all know who they are)). For all its self-imposed constraints, Dogme is a model of freedom - by banishing shackles of conventional cinema, they are free to pursue other stylistic methods that are not 'allowed' in 'proper' filmmaking.

'julie', however, is only superficially a Dogme film. It has the rough texture and grainy look, the disruptive editing, jarring compositions and unstable camerawork. But everything is so controlled, and the main reason for this is the fact that it is an adaptation of a classic play. Figgis can do all he likes to break the text, and in one way the film is a fascinating exploration of theatre space, as if the play was a tangible, physical entity, and the film was a documentary crew filming around and through it.

In the film's crucial scene, when Jean violates Julie in a dark corner of the kitchen, the screen splits in two, something theatre can't do. This provides a number of functions - it (rather obviously) singles out the scene as important; it visualises the various ruptures (class, sex, power etc.) the play narrates; it jolts the audience out of the piece, forcing us to ask ourselves what Figgis is doing with form, rather than simply follow the content; it gives us alternating views of the same scene, although two is as arbitrary as one, and the differences between the scenes are hardly Cubist.

All of this is good, but the text always intrudes. Figgis, unlike, say, Von Trier in 'the idiots', cannot go one way, because Strindberg goes another. The actors, astonishing though they are, cannot truly free themselves, lose themselves, explore themselves, because they have to remember the next line. The symbols of the play have to be worked in, which requires further conventions; but if the image of the caged bird is a cliche, its fate is truly shocking; even better are the images of water, the mill, the repetition of Julie's life, the sense of hereditary bad blood, linked to sex and virginal penetration and death, all culminating in the brilliant image near the end of bloody water.

'Julie' may not work as a Dogme film, or as a radically different literary adaptation, but it's still a good movie, largely because Strindberg's play is so brilliant. Often seen as the source of modern drama, its austere study of power and sex, its sado-masochistic rituals, the magnificent trap it sets for its characters, can be seen in its influence, not only on playwrights like Genet, Ionesco and Beckett, but directors like Sirk, Bergman and Fassbinder. Played 'straight', the piece could be stiff and RADAstifled - Figgis' style does create greater immediacy, so that you genuinely cringe and even feel for two not particularly likeable characters. Figgis doesn't have to do much to draw out the modernity of Strindberg's play - it is all already there - but his screenplay is pungently fruity.

If the film had been less cinematic, more theatrical, some of Strindberg's metaphors would have worked better - the running motif of the theatre, of playing roles (the events are overlooked by a scarecrow of the count), the masque-like intrusions of the servants, and Julie's final appearance, like a shabby old actress with her make-up mussed, lose their effect, although the servants-scene is very frightening and potent in its carnivalesque overturning of the social order.

Strindberg is literature's most famous misogynist, and yet his women are often highly sympathetic, or their plight accurately described - Saffron Burrows' humiliating decline is harrowing to watch, but I think Figgis avoids exploitation. what is most interesting is the nationality of the casting: the aristocratic English heroine attacked and undermined by her Scottish and Irish servants. it is the unseen Count who pulls the strings though; when he goes away, chaos reigns, servants become counts, countessess whores; when he returns, order is restored, deviants expelled. But for how long?

It's very hard to do much to muck up August Stringberg's original play, which has for over a century been one of those landmarks in theater that keep it a good item for drama classes and the occasional revival. If Mike Figgis does anything particularly strikingly with his Miss Julie, it's to try and capture the emotions that would have made it so controversial in its original release. It's intense work that Saffron Burrows and Peter Mulligan pull through, even if the end result almost makes the material seem about as cheerful as that little bird in the sod end of the darkest chimney in Sweden. It's also the kind of stage adaptation that stays fitfully faithful- hence without being too far-reaching with style (like, for example, Alf Sjoberg's strong and exciting adaptation of the 1950s)- and it's perfectly watchable drama all the way through. The terror and danger in this saga of two souls caught in a doomed situation is caught on well, even if there is something lacking to it that I can't quite put my finger on...

Sexual and power politics get a late Victorian Era workout in `Miss Julie,' Mike Figgis' bleak, rather stagy adaptation of August Strindberg's classic play. Saddled with what is essentially a one-set, two-character chamber piece, Figgis has chosen, for the most part, not to open-up the work cinematically very much, but rather to concentrate on the stark human drama at its core. This editorial decision keeps the film more faithful to the spirit of the original author's intent perhaps, but it also, by necessity, limits the possibility that we will see Strindberg's work in a new and exciting way.

In his tale, the Swedish author strips the age-old theme of the eternal class struggle to its barest, bleakest essentials. Miss Julie is a beautiful young countess who feels trapped by the stifling provincialism of her privileged position. She yearns to climb down off her well-guarded pedestal and experience life in all the rawness and vigor with which she imagines the lower social orders live out their days. During a Midsummer celebration, in which she attends the raucous revels of the servants in her employ, she begins to make sexual overtures to Jean, a man whose position in the house is that of her father's loyal footman and who, in a parallel of sorts to his mistress, feels just as strongly as she does the stifling demands of his less-than-privileged position. In direct opposition to Miss Julie, Jean has always yearned to gain acceptance in the very social world from which she is trying to escape. Together, they attempt to bridge the unbridgeable gap between gentry and peasant on the common ground of mutual sexual attraction. They discover, though, that some gaps exist never to be filled and that the interjection of the sexual element into their relationship can result in at best only a temporary reversal in their power positions before the much stronger forces of the societal caste system reassert themselves and restore the `normal' balance.

Strindberg's characters and the relationship between them are very complex in their nature. Although Miss Julie and Jean appear to be groping for a safe middle ground where the two of them can find a level of stasis and equality, mostly they end up constantly shifting positions of power in a class struggle that can never be ended in the time and society that has entrapped them. We sense the futility of their aim all throughout the play – and the bitterness and harshness of their love/hate relationship imply that the characters sense it as well. This is why `Miss Julie' must inevitably end in tragedy for all involved. The world at that time offered no alternative endings for such a situation.

By bringing a raw physical intensity to their roles of the would-be lovers, Saffron Burrows and Peter Mullan help to modernize the characters, emphasizing the sexual passion that holds them in its grip.

It is difficult to know how Figgis, as director, could have expanded the play beyond its claustrophobic theatrical limitations without violating the spirit of the work. For his refusal to in any way really open it out in cinematic terms, `Miss Julie,' for all its intensity of theme and character, ends up as a rather static, talky film. Thus, it is left to future directors, I suppose, to take up the challenge of making a real movie out of `Miss Julie.' If they can only figure out how!

Mike Figgis' 'Miss Julie', an adaptation of a Strindberg play, tells the story of a relationship struggling in the face of class divisions, and protagonists torn between their obsessions and ambitions. Figgis gets intense performances out of his cast, the music (written by himself) is excellent and in spite of its origins on the stage, he avoids an overly static feel; and the language (rendered in English) seems fresh. But the characters themselves are a little too archetypal, their feelings theatrically contrived into dialogue; personally I couldn't care too much about their ultimate tragedy. An immaculately made film, but somehow less than the sum of its parts.

August Strindberg is one of Sweden's most important writers from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. ‘Miss Julie' is one of Strindberg's plays written around the turn of the century. This is a powerful story of anger, hate, lust and class envy. The play revolves around two main characters. Jean (Peter Mullan) is a footman, a servant to a Count in northern Sweden in the late 1890's. Julie (Saffron Burrows) is the Count's shrewish and self loathing daughter.

Jean is tormented by his attraction to Julie and his simultaneous hatred of her class. The play focuses on an encounter they have one midsummer's night in the servants' kitchen. Jean takes his resentment out on Julie with sarcastic remarks and open disdain for the gentry of which she is a part. She responds sometimes docilely and contritely, and at others with condescending vitriol. This open antipathy belies their sexual attraction and the embattled conversation leads to a seduction, which is really less of a seduction than a mutual ravishment. Afterward, as Julie is more vulnerable, Jean attempts to manipulate her into stealing money from her father and running away with him so he can indulge his secret ambition to own a hotel and become a part of the upper class he now so despises. The film ends on a decided downbeat, which is no surprise given the characters' deeply disturbed personalities.

The story is intense, intelligent and visceral. It is has more the feel of a play (one set, crude props, only one or two costumes per actor). However, though the acting is more that of a theatrical production, it is shot more like a modern motion picture. Director Mike Figgis does a good job with the camera, using some innovative techniques to keep it from looking like you are watching a play through a window.

The story is likely to be appreciated by only a very small audience. Not only is it very dark, but all the characters are distasteful. Jean is angry, sardonic, obnoxious and manipulative. Julie is shrewish, condescending, self hating, and insecure. There is really no one with whom the audience can identify. This renders the entire story potent but extremely unpleasant. Also, it deals with themes that were mainstream in 1900, but are generally beyond the ken of today's audiences.

The actors were fabulously cast and the acting superb. Peter Mullen is short, craggy and Napoleonic, while Saffron Burrows is tall, willowy, and graceful. Besides being well cast for their stations, she was at least four inches taller than he, and this worked well with all the allusions to the aristocracy being `up there' and the servants being `down here'.

Peter Mullen played the part flat out. He was pugnacious and full of indignant rage, envy and spurn. The acclaim Saffron Burrows received for this performance was well deserved. She handled the difficult range of emotions deftly, moving effortlessly from whimpering child to haughty bitch and all the complex self torturing emotions in between.

I rated this film an 8/10. This is not a film for everyone. In fact it is a film that most people will probably dislike. I would recommend it for the ardent theatergoer who is a battle tested veteran of microscopic character studies involving flawed characters. To like this film you have to be one who can appreciate trying and disturbing emotional portrayals without a need to like any of the characters. For everyone else, it will probably be a harrowing and disagreeable experience.

I have just seen miss Julie for the first time on BBC 2 here in the UK and thought Saffron Burrows performance was quite wonderful! She show such range of emotions along side Peter Mullan who played the role Jean opposite her who also outstanding.A few years ago i had the pleasure of meeting Saffron Burrows over a few occasions and found her quite delightful and a witty lady.I urge who have not seen Miss Julie to rent it out because Mr Mike Figgis has done great creative job bringing this play to the screen. I must see some other work Mrs Burrows has done and hope that some of it is of the same high class as this production showed!! I just wished the Hollywood studios could produce more high value productions as Mrs Juile instead of remaking original cult classics such as The Italian Job and my father's movie The Wicker Man remade by Mr Nicholas Cage! Oh well we can only hope for better things for the future.

MISS JULIE is a film based on a play written by August Strindberg and directed by Mike Figgis . Strindberg was of course a Swedish dramatist who was famous for his unconscious predictions . One of his plays featured a Japanese character called Hiroshima who wanted to be burned alive and watching MISS JULIE any self respecting audience member will notice that the plot predates DH Lawrance's LADY CHATTERLY'S LOVER . This may make the story groundbreaking but it doesn't make it entertaining , erotic or interesting . In fact Figgis seems to have made a pig's ear of the whole thing by casting Saffron Burrows and Peter Mullan as the two protagonists of the story . Burrows is tall , slim and elegant while Mullan is a wee middle aged Scottish guy and the two of them make one of the most unlikely screen couples ever committed to celluloid and their lust filled relationship is very difficult to believe in . Figgis also fails to make the movie cinematic with most of the (in )action taking place inside a kitchen save for a few scenes in a studio exterior . It should also be pointed out that because it's a stage play the dialogue is very important but due to some very poor sound mixing it's almost impossible to hear what the actors are saying . Not that is unforgivable

I've previously commented that I find Figgis to be one of the most interesting directors around. He has his hits and misses, but he's willing to experiment and do something different.

This is no exception. Burrows may have been his bird, but she's excellent in this. And you can always rely upon Mullan to excel. You're aware of the theatrical origins, but the performances override that.

This movie is worthwhile to see due to the powerful performances of Saffron Burrows and Peter Mullan. Mike Figgis once again displays a knack for digging in deep into a story and opening a pandora's box of human emotions; leaving the viewer to make their own conclusions of the politics of a sexist, class conscious society and how it wrecks havoc on the souls of two vastly different people.

Nothing outside of Saffron Burrows and Peter Mullan exists while watching this film. I sadly missed it in the theatre, but rented it just recently. The intensity of the interplay between Julie & Jean, and the play of chemistry between Saffron & Peter, completely absorbs. No room, no telephone, no kitten getting into things, no knock on the door. A physical sex scene that feels like a mental rape. A servant Aristocrat and an Aristocratic servant: how far does a social role penetrate our being? The air of the film brims with violence, loathing, mutual envy and lust but...no gun, no breast. The emotional manipulations between the characters manipulate the viewer's emotions much more than any weapon or nudity could. The performance of Saffron Burrows is absolutely astounding. One moment you loathe Julie, the next you just want to comfort her. Peter Mullan works in perfect tune with Burrows and even when the characters onscreen are at odds, there is perfect harmony within the player's performances. Through the film you feel as though you can see through layers and layers of this character Julie and at the end are left numb, but awe-stuck. Thank You Mike Figgis, Saffron Burrows, Peter Mullan and Maria Doyle Kennedy! (now, to pick up kitten's fun. . . )

One man, one woman, one room, one night. Depending on your mind set, it either sounds extremely boring or like one heck of a good time. This movie isn't exactly either, and it's definitely not for everyone.

I'm a big fan of period movies. I love a good one and probably like a lot of the bad ones too. But don't make the mistake of going into this movie looking for your typical period piece romance. It's more of a psychological drama about class distinctions and gender expectations. And a strange one at that. I was somehow left with the feeling that I was watching a car wreck in progress. Moderately interesting in one way, but decidedly morbid in another. I felt rather bored, but still compelled to see it through and watch it till the end. Which left me with a slightly disgusted feeling for having bothered.

This movie lacks several somethings that I didn't feel like I could quite put my finger on. It obviously lacks the pageantry of all the expected costume changes of a movie of this genre, but that's not it's only problem.

I felt no chemistry between the hero and heroine and found their relationship basically unbelievable. I could find no reason to believe that she would be attracted to such an obnoxious person for even a moment.

Can you say artsy-fartsy filming? Okay, so there were a few moments, like the use of the split screen for one scene and the use of a distorted mirror that were interesting. But that awful shaky camera style is distracting, annoying, and totally inappropriate for the material.

Although the setting of the scenes in the movie are supposedly in Sweden, the actors all talk with English accents. I found this to be rather distracting as it kept bringing me out of the time frame and setting of the movie.

Picture quality: This is not a great transfer for a DVD. In some places it looks rather like a movie taken from old film stock and not cleaned up instead of a film made as recently as 1999.

Sound quality: There are no English subtitles on this DVD (what is MGMs problem with that?!) and boy, does it need it in some places. The accents are only a tiny concern but the recording of the sound in general is awful in some places. And I'm not just talking about the jarring music itself. The volume had to be turned up to hear what the actors were saying but turned down to hear yourself think when the music came on. I ended up leaving the TV speaker on while also using my sound system and just muting the latter whenever the music came on.

I gave it a 5/10 because the actors did a good job with what they were given. But all and all, I think a person's time would be better spent watching something else.

This is a very intense Strindberg play, and a well-executed cinematic rendering by "Leaving Las Vegas" director Figgis.

But this project is "made" by the casting of Saffron Burrows, who gives an extraordinary, harrowing performance as Miss Julie.   Hilary Swank was very good in "Boys Don't Cry" but, if there was a god in Hollywood, Saffron would have taken home a statue for this one. She clearly earned it.

Movies from unreadable books for unwatchable movies was said during the movie True Romance. This hits the mark! It is more of a play then a movie. In this respect, it sould never had been made into a movie. A short play made into a long movie. At least in the moive we know they had sex, but in the play you have to guess. It is hard watching Jean act like a jurk for that long of a time. 3 out of 10

This was breathtakingly simple and powerful. An excellent cast and fantastic direction made for a classic. Had all the intimacy and sensuality of a play with all the aesthetic of a film. Only complaint - if it it is one - is the slightly hammy outdoor set. Indoors is magnificent however - I mean what do you want for the admission price!!! I believe this was all down to the budget. More please Mr Figgis and I agree with the comments from nyc re: Saffron Burrows

This was a play that was turned into a really lousy movie. There was no plot, the camera work was horrible, and it was horribly boring. None of the actors had the least bit of appeal. I wasted my money by renting this, so don't waste yours too.

This play is a stark portrayal of the heavy price that must be paid when social conventions are thrown to the winds. Moral relativism as a topic of cocktail party chatter is amusing, as a guiding principle in real life one discovers that there is nothing very amusing in the bottomless pit to which it can lead. The acting of Peter Mullan and Saffron Burrows is nothing short of electrified and provides a neon lit twenty four hour period in which life changing decisions transport the main characters to levels of existence of which they had not previously even dared to dream. As the play begins, there is not even a hint of the journey that is in store for Miss Julie and her father's valet as their incipient flirtation with disaster rains sparks amid the tinder of an aristocratic manor house.

(1999) Miss Julie PERIOD PIECE DRAMA

Adapted from the very talky Swedish 1888 play "Fröken Julie" or "Miss Julie" for English speaking audiences written by August Strindberg. It's mainly a three actors performance centering much of it down on the kitchen with Miss Julie (Saffron Burrows) involvement with a commoner, Jean (Peter Mullan) after a call off of her recent engagement, even though he's already engaged to the head cook, Christine (Maria Doyle Kennedy) he usually works with. Talky and boring and it doesn't end very well. As far as I know, this is like the eighth Miss Julie movie adaption out of twelve, not including the 50 minute ballet version from 1959.

The word 'Strindberg' enticed me. How close this movie is to the play, I have no idea. But there are a few questions that marred the movie for me: Why would the stablemen take the word of a scullery maid over a footman in giving up the horses for his escape?, Why would the woman want to commit suicide? What drove her mad?

Having had a friend who did commit suicide, I know that in her last stages of depression she fell in love with an ex-con who delighted in telling us how he and his buddies killed another inmate at Kilby Prison with a broom handle. She was highly educated, artistic and giving.....we all should have seen the signs. So this woman's dalliance with an ambitious footman (who at first seems quite virtuous) is to be understood.

See the movie and tell us how close it is to Strindberg himself.

In the late 1990's of Sweden, a young count's daughter is waking up to the fact that her life is consticted. At a servant's party at the family mansion, Miss Julie decides to join in the fun by dancing and cavorting. With her parents away, she even makes overtures to her father's footman, a man named Jean. Although Jean is close to a female servant named Christine, he can not help but respond, for Miss Julie is very beautiful and he has his own beliefs about class and servitude. Throughout a long night, the two exchange ideas and advances. But, given the time period, is a connection between the two of them truly possible? This is a lovely-to-look-at film of a classic, but extremely intricate, play. There is not much action and a plethora of dialogue, making it a difficult view. The actors do their jobs well but it doesn't ultimately make the film a success. If you are familiar with Strindberg, you will want to see this adaption. However, if you are smitten by the intriguing video cover and the possibility of a love story somewhere, you may be in for a surprise. This is a film that is not universally appealing and may leave some viewers out in the cold.

I have to say that I feel sorry for all three characters in this classic tragedy by August Strindberg, one of Scandinavia's greatest playwrights. Jean and Kristin are trapped by their roles as servant. At a time when you are born into your class and will never rise above it, Jean takes advantage of Miss Julie's vulnerability and I felt the cruel song by the servants mocking their mistress was a bit overdone. Saffron Burrows delivers an exquisite painful performance as Miss Julie that was overlooked by awards shows. This film should have considered for some awards including Best Actress, Best Actor, and Best Supporting Actress. The three together really brought the tragedy of their lives on screen.