Possession

This film offers some gorgeous visuals and some great performances - notably those by Jeremy Northam and Jennifer Ehle (a bit of a casting joke since those two are famous for playing Jane Austen's Mr. Knightley and Elisabeth Bennet, respectively) - but as a literary adaptation, the movie falls short on too many points. Sadly, the filmmakers have missed out on most of the central themes of the novel, without substituting a sufficiently interesting interpretation of their own.

A.S. Byatt's novel examines the shifting relationships between men and women a century and a half apart - to that end, the characters in the two storylines (the Victorian and the contemporary) mirror each other deliberately. For some unfathomable reason, the screenwriters have decided to cut out completely two crucial characters from the modern-time storyline - Val, Roland's girlfriend, and the feminist (and Lesbian) researcher friend of Maud's, whose name I forget - their equivalents in the Victorian period are Ash's wife, and Christabel's lover Blanche.

One of the main interests of the original story lies in the ways in which the relationships between those characters have changed because of the changes in society that the 20th century has brought - particularly the way the main characters relate to each other (significantly, Maud is the stronger and more successful person in the modern-time relationship) - but also with respect to all the other characters involved (Roland and Val's relationship, which is based almost exclusively on sex, as contrasted with Ash's and his wife's relationship, which is entirely sex-less - the point here being that in a truly fulfilled relationship, these two things must be in balance).

Also, the characters, particularly that of Roland, are bent and twisted beyond recognition - I have nothing against Aaron Eckhard or his performance, but he simply plays a completely different character from the Roland Mitchell of the novel - who is *not* brash (nor is he celibate), but has a certain mousy-ness about him that is quite essential to the plot. Also, he is British for a reason, so making him into an American adds a completely wrong dimension to his and Maud's differences. Judging from the director's commentary, the main reason for casting Eckhard was that he's a buddie of director Neil La Bute's - it's a sad thing that the filmmakers decided to twist the character and plot to accomodate the actor, rather than making a more informed casting choice, as I am sure there are plenty of suitable British actors out there that would have fitted the part admirably.

Gwyneth Paltrow offers a convincing enough performance, and is well-cast as Maud Bailey - a woman whose physical attractiveness stands in the way of her being taken seriously as the bright academic she is. But she is not being given enough scope to be the reserved intellectual she is supposed to be, because her relationship with Roland developes far too quickly, and with not enough plausibility (particularly given a certain lack of chemistry between the two actors) - thereby missing another of the main themes (and contrasts) in the novel.

Having said that, the film is worth watching for its final five minutes alone - and incidentally, this is the one scene that catches most accurately the spirit, and the point, of the original novel.

This is one of those movies that belongs in a special category: Films Worth Watching for Exactly One or Two Scenes.

Really, it's crazy. Other than these two scenes, the movie is mediocre, with Gwyneth Paltrow's great beauty the best thing about it.

But these two scenes! It's as if they are from another movie entirely, a movie you saw as a child and never forgot, a movie that shaped your adult love life.

If only the rest of the film around these two scenes were equally as good.

Here are the scenes: a man and a woman, deeply in love with each other, delay kissing, for the moment is not yet ripe. They spend time together, including collecting shells along the seashore.

Finally, one candle-lit night at dinner, the woman, radiating the original Earth Goddess, smiles at the man, and that smile communicates all. He knows that this is the night. He follows her to her bedroom, where she has positioned herself -- gracefully, beautifully, sensually -- in readiness for him. His hands shake...

Second scene: a man meets a little girl, and in that meeting comes to understand deep heartaches of his life in a whole new way.

And ... those scenes are reason enough to see this movie. Jeremy Northam and Jennifer Ehle are superb; the costumes are gorgeous; the lighting is perfect ...

And then you have the rest of the movie. Gwyneth Paltrow and Aaron Eckhart play two modern scholars studying the lives of the characters played by the aforementioned, excellent, Jeremy Northam and Jennifer Ehle.

Paltrow is terrific, everything the script calls for.

Aaron Eckhart ... was really good in "Company of Men." Here he just isn't enough. When Paltrow kisses him, and attempts to display passion, you are certain: she'd never go for this guy. She could get someone so much better, and she will.

The script makes Eckhart's character out to be something of a boy-man. Eckhart plays him with perpetually greasy hair and unshaved face. he wears the same clothes everyday. And he's something of a nothing.

But Northam and Ehle, and their story ... for the ages.

The love story of the past is beautifully photographed. Northam and Ehle are excellent and their passion for each other palpable. There are some unclear parts in the plot in the modern story. The modern couple have no reason to even be in the film except to link the writings of the couple in the Victorian romance. And nobody acts like a real archivist with real archivist ethics and beliefs in preservation. The excitement over a find is real for archivists, but none of the archivists or possible purchasers in the film show any of that excitement.

It needs to be said; this is not a very good film, but it does keep up the appearance of one fairly well, carrying a facade of mystery, romance and great literature. The director navigates two parallel story lines – one taking place between two secret lovers in the mid-1800s and one taking place between two soon-to-be-lovers in the 21st century – the latter couple finding their romance as they are unlocking the lovestory of the former... through letters. The bad news is that the director only put his heart into one of the story lines, namely the costume one, and as a result, the modern day lovestory between Gwyneth Paltrow and Aaron Eckhart as literary sleuths suffers greatly. Nevertheless, Possession makes for an OK diversion into quasi-romance.

Starting in the positive end then, period-junkies Jeremy Northam and Jennifer Ehle are breathtaking to watch as poets during the Richmond period in England. They are two people who cannot be together, for one has chosen a wife and the other has chosen a life of 'shared solitude' (which is a euphemism for a lesbian relationship). Yet they begin a correspondence of love letters, which blossoms into a fully-fletched romance, embroidered in intrigue and quiet passion. Ehle's beautiful, reassuring smiles conveying the latter. At times their story is achingly romantic, so I think this aspect is very nicely tended to in the film. The graceful words in their letters even invests the film in a lyrical flow of sorts.

For our modern day story, Gwyneth Paltrow plays the icy literary expert Maud Bailey, who is also a descendant of Ehle's character, but clearly lacking in her passion. The film offers no satisfying explanation as to why the chilly Maud suddenly warms up and falls for Roland (Eckhart), other than they they are researching the lost letters together. I love Eckhart, but truly believe he is all wrong for this part. He ends up clumsy and flat and underdeveloped in the film (the novel probably offered more insight into his character, I don't know) and again, Maud's attraction to him seems far-fetched. I really can't stress how bad their storyline is; no description will do it justice.

Otherwise, Possession does a fair job of melting themes of love and love lost as it progresses and it occasionally manages thrilling. In order to get events unfolding, Maud and Roland unlock the mystery of the ancient lovestory by conveniently appearing clues, hidden hatches and notes. It's into Da Vinci Code territory with this approach to plot, but it works to a point. There is also seamless, fluent intercutting of the two parallel stories in the editing process. Neither a very solid nor very interesting template here, but "Possession" does make for a fine pastime.

6 out of 10

I liked this film; and had no concerns whatsoever about watching it, despite the relatively low financial return, which I don't understand and also, the relatively mediocre percentage on Rotten Tomatoes, which I also don't comprehend - the latter of which I generally check before watching a movie, the former to see whether it's an indie or not.

I guess that this genre is not for everyone; to me it's a Jane Austen with added intrigue or a sophisticated Dan Brown with less intrigue.

There is lots of innuendo and suggestion, which unfortunately is generally bluntly explained shortly thereafter; it would possibly have been more interesting to keep it more mysterious and therefore make the viewer think longer than a few seconds.

I enjoyed it overall and would recommend it to those of a literary bent, it's not a popcorn flick.