The House of Mirth

This is my favorite of all the Wharton novels adapted for the screen. The precision and depth with which the director and actors go is absolutely true to the novel in almost every respect.

Gillian Anderson is a revalation here, she perfectly captures the repression and pain of being a woman stuck in that time and place with no way out. You can feel her pain and torment in every quivering close up, and the passion contained in her kissing scenes (or to be more precise, her NON kissing- kissing scene) with Eric Stoltz is something to behold.

Eric Stoltz is equally amazing in one of the most complex and difficult roles for a man to play. I must disagree with the viewer from China, Mr. Seldon is NOT meant to be terribly "masculine" or "deep voiced" or "unbearably handsome"- those are modern readings that perhaps we expect from the role of the 'male hero' in modern films- but here Mr. Selden is written exactly as he is played- walking a fine line between what is correct behaviour for the time, and what he was or wasn't allowed to do in regards to her rescue. He is torn by love of Lilly Bart and the realization that he is not the right man for her, as the all important social scene would frown on their union. The actor portrays this ambiguity perfectly, and I for one found it a relief that the man didn't ride in and save the day in that cliched movie way.

I also must commend the supporting players of Anthony LaPaglia (whose role "Sim Rosedale" is originally written as a Jewish man, one of the few changes made to the n script adaption of the novel) and Laura Linney as Bertha Dorset, the 'bad girl' of the story. They both bring a life to the story that is rare to see in a period film, most actors seem to be too afraid or respectful of the material to really bring it to life.

I even enjoyed Dan Ackyroyd in a role that I didn't see him in or expect to like him in. I suppose my feelings about him are coloured by old Saturday Night Live shows, or Driving Miss Daisy, but I think he was terrific in a role that is not the most explored in the novel or the film.

Everything about this film held my interest and moved me, and I'm a very tough audience as far as Wharton goes. The pacing is indeed slow, but if you give yourself over to it it is like taking a warm bath in a quick shower world.

Very well done!

Director Terence Davies has done a magnificent job of recreating the turn of the century in "The House of Mirth," a 2000 film starring Gillian Anderson, Eric Stoltz, Dan Ackroyd, Laura Linney, Anthony LaPaglia, and Terry Kinney.

Anderson is Lily Bart, a beautiful young woman of good social standing, traveling in the best circles, who throws away her opportunities for a good marriage because she wants something more meaningful. However, her reputation begins to suffer due to her circle's misreading of an innocent situation, and things go from bad to worse for her as she descends down the social strata. She has it in her power to win back everything she has lost but refuses to stoop that low due to her love for one man.

It's obvious that Davies took a great deal of care with this film. It is not infused with modern sensibilities, the period look is authentic, as is the look of the cast. By that I mean, Gillian Anderson's sumptuous red hair, full beautiful face, and lovely figure are much more period than, say, Gwyneth Paltrow's -- and yet films are rarely cast with an eye toward capturing the period in that way. The casting of Dan Ackroyd as Trenor is unusual but very right - he's not truly of the class he travels in and a real glad-hander. Eric Stoltz is Selden - handsome without being drop dead gorgeous, gentile without being effeminate, who has good chemistry with Anderson.

The villainess of the piece is Laura Linney as the awful Bertha Dorset, a cunning witch, and as usual, Linney is perfection -- smiling, subtle, and you can just see the knife going in. In the book she is more responsible for Lily's troubles than in the film. In the film, we see her making initial trouble for Lily; in the book, she continues to work on destroying her with a whisper here and word there.

What makes the story of Lily so frustrating is that she can ruin Bertha in five minutes but refuses, suffering instead, which drove me crazy. That's not the film's fault.

This was an era where no one expressed emotions, so when someone says, thank you or I understand, there is a world of meaning to be read in the eyes. It's a world of artifice, and Davies obviously worked at getting this from his actors. Everything is in what lies beneath.

The acting is uniformly excellent; only Gillian Anderson falls a little short of the mark. Lily is an extremely difficult role, and Anderson at least in 2000 did not have all the necessary skill to completely pull it off. She has the look, the bearing, and the intelligence. What she lacks is the ability to actually become someone of that era, rather than putting it on like an overcoat. She does much better in the latter part of the film, which calls for a different set of acting muscles than in the beginning.

Reminiscent a bit of "Sister Carrie," "The House of Mirth" points up the difficulties of women in that time period to make their way, of the boundaries of class, and the rigidity of the upper class. Highly recommended, but not an easy, cheerful film by any means.

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.

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!

This is a slow paced mesmerising film. If your only knowledge of Gillian Anderson is as Dana Scully in the X-Files then you are in for a big surprise. Firstly the lady can act, and secondly with great subtlety. If you have read the book then clearly the writer/director Terence Davies has taken a few liberties. But so much script has been lifted word for word from the novel that I think he can be forgiven any eccentricities. This is a story of manners in early twentieth century New York and environs. Everyone seems so decent and 'proper', but each plays their own manipulative game. No-one (with the exception of Sim Rosedale) tells the truth. As a morality tale it seems as relevant today as when Edith Wharton wrote it. Davies has succeeded in losing none of its mood or punch by transferring it to screen. Unfortunately I think this is a film that requires watching more than once as some explanatory scenes appear to have ended up on the cutting room floor. Generally the acting is excellent throughout though I felt that at times Davies's enthusiasm for detail hamstrung some actors where others appeared to have relished the close direction. This is a film to add to your personal collection.