Lizzie

I was more impressed than I expected to be with this film. It is slower paced in the first two acts, but Sevigny and Stewart both deliver performances worth watching, and the smaller details of the story are livened up enough that I was interested throughout. With some films surrounding killers, I feel as if the moment of murder is the only interesting aspects, but with this film, Lizzie's character was compelling enough to keep me engaged throughout. There were a few shakier scenes with some minor characters, and a few scenes that felt a touch overdone, but for the most part this was a very decent film.

The acting of Chloe Sevigny, Kristen Stewart, and Jamey Sheridan carries this film, as I see it. It's the latest interpretation of what happened on August 4th, 1892, in Fall River, Massachusetts, when the sensational axe murders of Andrew and Gabby Borden occurred in their home.

The movie is quite slow paced, and has several lurid, gruesome, and violent scenes perpetrated against both humans and animals. There's also a concurrent theme of sexual molestation, as well as graphic nudity in the final 25 minutes or so of the film.

Overall, this film won't appeal to everyone and can be difficult to watch at times, but, for me, the fine acting was enough to keep me engaged.

As good as the performances are in this film, for a long, long stretch it is very slow and staid. Chloë Sevigny and Kristen Stewart are quite good as Lizzie Borden and Bridget Sullivan respectively. The film looks at Borden's relationship with Sullivan and speculates about its playing a central role in the notorious events that followed. A film taking place in 19th century New England, this is also an examination of how dreadfully repressive life was for women at that time. Sullivan is a household servant of the Borden family but soon finds herself being used in other ways in a patriarchal home.

The film is very much told from Lizzie Borden's standpoint, but does not give too much of a backstory, other than to portray her family as regarding her as insane and in need of institutionalization. In addition, giving the audience a more in-depth sense of Borden's life thereafter is something the film could have done and should have. With that kind of void, we are left wanting. Nevertheless, I recommend this to those curious enough about this story and anyone who admires the work of the two principals.

There are certain ideas that every few years get reused for major movie releases. Examining the life of Lizzie Borden happens a bit infrequently compared to other concepts, but the 2018 film 'Lizzie' isn't the first to do so, and surely won't be the last.

The tale of Lizzie Borden is fairly common knowledge at this point: she is alleged to have murdered her parents with an ax, and when put on trial for the crimes, she was acquitted. The finer details of who Lizzie was, and how and why she did it, are the real points of debate and interest, and the things that filmmakers may emphasize or deemphasize as they see fit for the picture they want to make.

'Lizzie' chooses to focus on the build-up to the murders, with little time spent on the trial and a mere few lines of text to describe Borden's life after. What we are shown is how very abusive Lizzie's father Andrew was, in almost every way a father could be. From writing off Lizzie's future to destroying those things she held dear, we're given a poor impression of Mr. Borden - and of his wife, Abby, who Lizzie resents for her inaction.

Lizzie also recognizes her father's abuse of the family's live-in servant, Irish immigrant Bridget Sullivan. In Miss Sullivan this film finds another focus as it spends some time on the developing friendship between Lizzie and Bridget. One can't ignore that 'Lizzie' undoubtedly gets more steamy than other movies about its subject, too, as it imparts an intimate, sexual relationship between Miss Borden and Miss Sullivan.

The film's bent toward salaciousness is also built into the climax when both Lizzie and Bridget take up the ax against the elder Bordens, ensuring in the process that they get no blood on their clothing.

How does the thrust of the narrative here compare to other films about Lizzie Borden? How likely is it to be an accurate depiction of those events in 1892 that we can only speculate on? I leave those questions for Lizzie enthusiasts and historians. How is 'Lizzie' in and of itself?

The number one thing to remark on are the performances. In particular, Chloe Sevigny shines as Lizzie Borden, putting in a performance that is as powerful as it is stoic. As critics have remarked, she is so steady and flatly even in her role as to almost single-handedly give the picture a great air of seriousness. She is joined in a similar manner by Kristen Stewart as Bridget Sullivan. Stewart got a lot of flak for wooden, unmoving acting in the 'Twilight' films, but I rather think that folks forget she's an actress - given the freedom and direction to embody a character as she will, Stewart is very capable. In 'Lizzie' she largely mirrors Sevigny, if anything giving Sullivan a slightly greater emotive range even as she remains resolute, and loyal to her friend and lover.

That dispassion and restraint is built into the production as well, perhaps to a fault. The whole picture feels very understated; Jeff Russo's score is so minimized that one may be forgiven for forgetting that 'Lizzie' had any music at all. To an extent I can appreciate applying such calculated dampening to what is essentially a historical reenactment, but there needs to be some variation in tone, some peaks and valleys. As it stands, even as 'Lizzie' is anchored by Sevigny and Stewart's fine performances, it's also weakened by a lack of vibrancy in even the most dramatic moments.

Hand in hand with the somewhat muted feel of the feature, there's something to be said, too, for how its treatment of the life and times of Lizzie Borden dispenses with any commentary on society at the time. That unmarried Lizzie would see her father write her out of any possible inheritance, thereby severely limiting her means, would certainly be a strong motive for murdering him. Women's rights were far more of a nightmare in the late 19th century than they are even now, with almost no agency or autonomy to speak of. Almost any other movie would acknowledge sociopolitical issues with at least a passing line of dialogue, if not an active interest of a character. 'Lizzie' leaves it to viewers to pick up on these matters by themselves. Which is fine - there's no written rule of film-making that says every last detail has to be spoon-fed to the audience, nor would I want there to be - but it's striking nonetheless.

Between the blood, violence, sexuality, and nudity, it's not going to be for everyone, and discretion is advised as well for viewers with a keen focus on historical accuracy and/or Lizzie's legacy. Yet overall, I think 'Lizzie' is a pretty good movie that effectively conveys the events of 1892 for those unfamiliar. The stony evenness of its tone is off-putting, but Chloe Sevigny and Kristen Stewart's performances alone make it worth watching.

Don't go out of your way to find it, but 'Lizzie' is worthwhile if you come across it.

"Lizzie" chronicles one of America's most famous crimes-the hatchet murders of prominent Massachusetts businessman Andrew Borden and his wife, Abby. The suspect? His spinster daughter, Lizzie, whose name has gone down in infamy.

Originally a passion project for star Chloë Sevigny, around whom talk has circled for nearly a decade regarding a Lizzie Borden biopic/miniseries, "Lizzie" is a well-made psychological drama that will likely satisfy as many people as it will utterly alienate. The screenplay here, as with any kind of historical fiction, takes liberties and makes speculations, the most singular being that Lizzie committed the murders after her father uncovered a romantic relationship between her and the Bordens' house servant, an Irish immigrant named Bridget Sullivan. While this is obviously speculative, when one actually sits and considers the written accounts and evidence, it is not necessarily unlikely, and is a position that has been argued by several historians and journalists. Did it really happen this way? We will never know for sure.

That aside, this take on the material is above-average in many ways: It's well-shot and atmospheric, with just the right touches of the Victorian Gothic. It's also remarkably well-acted, with Sevigny surprisingly turning in a convincing performance as Borden (as a huge fan of her work, I was personally skeptical of whether the role would fit her right). Kristen Stewart is perhaps more shockingly good as Bridget, the servant caught in the eye of the storm. I do feel the film stumbles a bit in terms of its narrative structure, as it begins with a snippet of the crime's "discovery," then loops back to the build-up before cutting away again just before the killings. The gritty details then are presented in a flashback which, though effective, I think would have better served as a straightforward conclusion in a chronological account. The court scenes that rear themselves in the last act, though brief, feel dull and ultimately draw the viewer out of the core narrative; and, given that the audience ostensibly already knows how it ends, I feel the filmmakers would have benefitted from laying the story out in a no-nonsense fashion.

Despite these narrative pitfalls, I still found "Lizzie" a compelling take on a rather common (and frankly well-supported) theory regarding the Borden murders. Did it happen exactly this way? Probably not. But there is potential truth here. And even if there's not, the story itself remains compelling all the same. 7/10.