Quel che sapeva Maisie

It always amazes me when I see a really impressive child acting performance. This is one of an impressive collective of films where a young performer has been quite outstanding. But there is something of an important difference between this one and most others. While the likes of Tatum O'Neal (Paper Moon), Ivana Baquero (Pan's Labyrinth) or Haley Joel Osment (The Sixth Sense) were all brilliant, none of them were as young as Onata Aprile. When you consider that at her age she simply will be incapable of understanding all the nuances of the screenplay, it makes it all the more outstanding just how good she is. She doesn't really say a whole lot but her looks convey massive amounts of meaning. Her performance is so natural that it reminds me of kid's drawings – so unaffected, unpretentious and instinctive that adults can never faithfully replicate them. The acting by the entire cast here is top calibre but at times like this you cannot compete and Onata Aprile easily steals the show.

It's quite a disturbing story really. Maisie is a neglected child and it's not very pleasant seeing her be passed around from pillar to post being essentially disregarded. The view the film adopts is a child's one. We see Maisie peeking round corners, in the periphery watching, seeing but never fully comprehending but understanding more than she is given credit for. She seems to know more about right and wrong than her parents do, for example. They are in worlds of their own, ignoring their little girl in order to play out their own self-obsessed games. Steve Coogan and Julianne Moore are very good in these unsympathetic roles in which they make you understand why they are like the way they are without making us actually sympathise with them.

The film works so well because it's given such an unsentimental treatment. The story unfolds subtly and believably and it avoids saccharine. While Maisie's parents are the bad guys of the piece they're not really villains as such, just extremely poor parents and very selfish people generally. As it turns out, it's the parent's new partners who are left increasingly in charge of the little girl and they are slowly drawn towards each other too. Collectively they make for an actual workable and loving family unit. Both Alexander Skarsgård and Joanna Vanderham are also great as these much more sympathetic adults. Events ultimately progress to an ending that was upbeat without sacrificing believability; it's simultaneously inconclusive yet hopeful. I suppose one of the messages of What Maisie Knew is that what is important is what is best for the child, not what is convenient for blood parents.

A gorgeous film that manages to convey the emotion of childhood at its more heart-wrenching. The central performance by Joanna Vanderham is absolutely extraordinary, and reminds me of some of the greatest child performances I've ever seen on film. As her parents, Julianne Moore and Steve Coogan make you feel like you are right in the middle of the tumult of family life. Directors Scott McGehee and David Siegel have created a movie that feels like life, the vulnerability, the abruptness, the comedy, the joy.

With intimacy at times almost startling, this is one of the best adaptations of a novel by Henry James I've ever seen.

What Maisie Knew (2012), directed by Scott McGehee and David Siegel, is an extraordinary movie about an extraordinary young girl. Maisie (Onata April) deserves better parents. Both her mother (Julianne Moore) and her father (Steve Coogan) are self-absorbed people who care about Maisie, but care about their careers more than about their daughter.

Maisie is cheerful, cooperative, and adaptive. Although her life has all the trappings of luxury--a nanny, an exclusive private school--she lives in a precarious world. Her parents make only haphazard arrangements for her care. Sometimes these arrangements work, sometimes they don't. Once, the haphazard plans fall through, and Maisie is literally abandoned among strangers. We don't know what will happen next to Maisie, but it probably won't be good. Her parents don't deserve such a great little girl. But, she is their daughter, and she'll have to play the cards she's been dealt.

The acting is strong in this movie, but I think the most impressive work is done by Julianne Moore. Moore is brave enough to take a role where she often looks tired and worn, and where her character is truly inadequate as a parent. You cringe at the way Moore makes stabs at being a good mother, but never quite works hard enough to actually achieve that goal. I think she deserves--and will get--an Oscar nomination for her work in this film.

There are a few lovely views of a beach and the ocean in the movie. These will work better in a theater, but everything else will work well on the small screen. This is definitely a film that is worth seeking out and seeing.

I've read five previously posted reviews of this film and see no reason to repeat what they've already said. I agree, for the most part, with the positive ones. And I suspect the negative ones were written by people whose established taste in movies should have steered them away from seeing this one in the first place.

What I'll add is, I guess, a mostly personal perspective. I've found that I am lately much more drawn to smaller, more deeply felt movies than to bigger, slicker, higher-production-value ones. To "What Maisie Knew," for example, than to "The Great Gatsby." Even though both source novels share a similar interior aesthetic, the treatment in the former stays inside the characters, where James focused the original (thus causing one of the previous reviewers' comments to the effect that "nothing happens" in the movie), while the latter (possibly because of Luhrmann's well-established directorial predilections)stays resolutely focused on the exterior spectacle and barely skims the surface of Fitzgerald's deeply rendered characterizations.

If you like smaller, more closely observed and deeply felt films, you'll like this one.

This is what I hope Henry James would have written, were he alive today. The book is tough sledding, late James when he was dictating his novels (due to tendinitis), and there was no holding him back. At least one Harvard professor called him "the greatest American novelist," but this work is deservedly minor.

The movie was perfect, in the top 1% of all I've seen. The style was the antithesis of James, radical "showing" instead of "telling."

I think the title should have been "What Maisie SAW," but that's too titillating. What she knew or felt only her future therapist will learn. We do have a hint though when her father throws her mother's flowers away, and M explains, "He was allergic."