I bostoniani

There's a lovely line in this otherwise unremarkable adaptation of the Henry James novel from Vanessa Redgrave who announces something along the lines of being eternally grateful for not having the vote! It did make me smile. That, sadly, is about all that did as we trudge through this stylish but turgid story of the embryonic American suffragette movement. Amidst this struggle for enfranchisement, the bright "Verena" (Madeleine Potter) is facing the affections of the more traditional "Basil" (Christopher Reeve), himself a man who she ought to have little time for. Might there be the slightest chance that something might develop between them? Initially, there is some sparky conversation amongst the well-heeled citizens and there is potency in some of the dialogue, but boy - after about half an hour the whole things slows to a glacial pace; is seriously over-written and even the usually charismatic Jessica Tandy ("Miss Birdseye") struggles to breath life into what ought to have been a sharp and wittily constructed dramatisation of a story about politics, empowerment and - yes, romance too. Reeve is as wooden as a washboard which doesn't help and though Potter does give it her all, the film just lacks spark, pace or oomph. As ever with Merchant Ivory films, the things looks a million dollars, but there's no excusing the weaknesses all around here and it takes for ever, too.

I've always been interested in the James adaptations,and in the Ivory films.

The Bostonians ' first half's calligraphy and distinguished Callophily is pleasing,then the groundless length becomes oppressive,annoying and exasperating,so that finally I loathed this movie.That's no way to treat the viewers!The unjustified and intolerable length does not serve the narration,not the atmosphere,nor the characters' development. Wasted footage!I began by liking The Bostonians ,I finished by loathing this movie that goes nowhere.(James was quite loquacious and blabbed with a senile joy,and the movie gets also very talkative.)

Reeve smiles intelligently and even ironically from time to time,which kind of contradicts his supposed plainness.He acts somehow beside the point,but I guess the idea of introducing him as a tom cat with transient smiles was meant to cheer a little this overlong H. James adaptation,and as a needed antidote for the crabby Mrs. Redgrave.Reeve is almost brave in feigning some real interest for Madeleine Potter's character.

The two actresses I liked are:(1)Nancy New (as "Olive Chancellor"'s far more attractive sister);(2)Nancy Marchand.

Mrs. Redgrave is a broody,headstrong,crabbed,exalted and poisonous,felonious damsel ,as interesting as Lenin's books.As a matter of fact,this poor woman looks rather feeble-minded.One hopes in vain she'll have her fling with "Verena Tarrant".She is here as cranky as ever.

Mrs. Madeleine Potter is very uninteresting, insipid,and as fascinating as a sausage.

Towards the final of The Bostonians ,I swore at the director, at the scriptwriter and at the entire cast.I would seize Ivory by his ears and force him watch many Bruce Lee movies and many Jackie Chan movies,so much that he gets able to make at least something that well-thought.

The whole plot is utterly nauseating.The characters are as viscid as the mollusks.This makes the movie a morass.This is a show,don't ask me to judge it as if it were a novel.I'm talking about Ivory's show,not about James' novel.The most annoying fact is that Mrs. Redgrave seems to enjoy her role;this is unacceptable!(But it is also obvious that no member of the cast is able to get what this show is about.This may serve,though in a paradoxical way,as a justification for them all!These people (Reeve, Nancy Marchand and Nancy New) performed hoping there is a meaning they are not yet able to comprehend.)

A beautiful complex film. In this story love and politics collide here. The story centres around a young woman who becomes involved in speaking out on behalf of women's rights during the close of the 19th century America. The cause is one in which she's encouraged to give her all, it's intensity at times feels almost cult like with the leader demand complete loyalty. In fact so strong is the depth of feeling though that you are left to wonder is this purely a platonic friendship or is there something else going on? The young lady though is highly sought after for her charm and intelligence, one suitor a southern US Civil War veteran with opposite views on the place of men and women in life seeks to win her over, and they are mutually attracted to each other despite their different outlooks on politics.

The film has a lovely so burning beauty, with lovely attention played it's camerawork, costumes and production design. This is largely a story about confused feelings and characters struggling to admit their true feelings to themselves.

The other reviews really don't get that this is a very subtle expose on gay relationships in this era. Was Henry James gay? Did he live his perspective through this story of the Bostonians…?. And imagine writing about women's rights movement intertwined with gay women of the day- a man writing in the 1800's! WoW – how progressive even today in 2011 people still debate the legitimacy of gay relationships (not me-please note I am happily married heterosexual). This is in amazing film. Period accurate and an incredible story about the dynamic of class – to be the lover of a women of means but who is really drawn to a traditional marriage – if he has the means to support her. Watch this from that perspective. It's remarkable to think that this was written in the late 1800's and that this film was done in the 1980s – so way ahead of its time. And then look at Christopher Reeve and how he took this movie to break out of his Superman stereo type…. Pretty incredible. I think the naysayers here really didn't get the historical significance of this film. Its an amazing film. Thank you Merchant and Ivory…you are amazing.

Well meant production from the magical Merchant/Ivory/Jhabvala team. This one was made before they hit their stride, however. The first mistake was casting Christopher Reeve in the lead. He always looks like he's acting, there's nothing natural about it. His performance here is in par with cheap 70's pornography acting. He is supposedly classically trained as an actor, but I guess anyone who pays for and attends acting classes can say the same. Some have it and some don't, he doesn't. The costumes, art direction and sets are all lavish and appealing. The dialog is far too updated to make one believe that it's taking place in another century, it's almost like a high school production in that aspect. Redgrave and Marchand both give good performances, nothing remarkable at all, but acceptable. The rest of the cast is a mish-mash of mostly b-listers. Scriptwriter Jhabvala has proved herself time and again to be quite the artist, but the script here is flat. Perhaps the book it was based on is this dull and unconvincing. I was left simply unaffected by any message they were trying to convey about the period. I'm a fanatic when it comes to Merchant/Ivory pictures, but this one just didn't cut it. It seems they were more in their element with their amazing and opulent European productions. The quality of their American films seems to be quite cheap in production in comparison. I'm simply left wondering what a masterpiece this could have been had it been set in and filmed in England. If you're an Ivory/Merchant fan, stick with their better titles "A Room With A View" & "Sense And Sensibility", they both surpass this effort by leagues.