O Reverso da Fortuna

Reversal of Fortune sent more chills down my spine than any horror movie. The story once more proves why real murder cases are so interesting: It is not a (supposed) criminal act or the lawsuit that fascinates but the detailed insight into human relations and behavior patterns which a investigation of the circumstances allows. Barbet Schroeder, certainly a brilliant observer, seems to share this view and created a wonderfully stylized, finely crafted, superbly cast movie around the Claus von Bülow trial.

Fotography, lighting and the set design really are of the first order. The main "stage" of the film is a big mansion in Newport, Rhode Island. I don't know how much of the movie was shot on location - in any case the place reminded me strongly of Manderly, the country home in Alfred Hitchcock‘s "Rebecca". Somehow Sunny von Bülow, she is seen lying in her state of eternal coma and heard recounting events and musing about them in a voice over, is the mythical Rebecca Hinrich become flesh and blood in the most gruesome way imaginable.

The home of the von Bülows has the feel of a funeral parlor. The most important room is Sunny von Bülow's private bathroom, the door of which is flanked by two porcelain busts on high pedestals, like some gate of doom. Despite the warm colors, the opulent furniture, the glossy surfaces (they seem to come out directly of an old fashioned women's magazine), it is deadly cold in the world of the von Bülows. The emotional detachment of the whole family - apparently even the children - is truly horrific. The most hilarious scene is ever expressionless Claus von Bülow joining his wife in the marital bed with a thick sweater, a scarf and a woolen cap (Sunny von Bülows insists on keeping the window open on principle even in freezing temperatures). He turns away from his wife and, as the last act before turning off the light, puts his earplugs in.

Oh, and then there is law professor Dershowitz and his team. What has he got to do with this movie? Very little, I should say. The bubbly intellectualistic crowd occasionally allow the viewers to relax a little, but their sporadic intrusions into the "circle" of the von Bulows in no way counterbalance the weight and the frigid opulence that comes to dominate Reversal of Fortune. And that's just fine with me – as far as cinematic art is concerned.

"Reversal of Fortune" is based on Alan Dershowitz's book on the two trials of Claus von Bülow, accused of attempting to murder his wife, Sunny, by drug overdose. But instead of killing her, she is left in a deep coma from which she will never arise. This movie is cleverly narrated by the comatose Sunny with the story told in flashback. Also, the movie is non-judgmental, it take no sides on who is telling the truth, even on the point of whether a murder was even attempted. Did he do it or was the overdose an accident? As Sonny herself says in the beginning of the movie, "you tell me".

Everything about this movie works; great performances (helped by great casting), directing, and screenwriting. Nothing is amiss. If it is true that Western movie habits are changing away from mindless action movies, then "Reversal of Fortune" should enjoy a renaissance at the local video store. It deserves it.

Striking, if sometimes creepy, performances by Glenn Close and Jeremy Irons highlight this unevenly directed take on the Claus Von Bulow story of the degenerate rich adapted from the book by Harvard Law School Professor Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz, who loves being in the limelight almost as much as he loves the law, took on the task of saving Claus Von Bulow from prison for the attempted murder of his rich wife initially as a means of raising money to help him in his pro bono cases. The rather heavy-handed manner in which we are advised of this should not detract from Dershowitz's work. The irony is that as the case developed Dershowitz became persuaded that Claus was innocent.

Whether Dershowitz convinced himself of Von Bulow's innocence to assuage a possibly guilty conscience is a good question. Remember Dershowitz is the guy who said after the O.J. Simpson trial (he was one of Simpson's lawyers) that he didn't know whether Simpson was guilty or not. While that may be a good stance for a defense attorney, it is an insincere one for the public figure that Dershowitz has become.

Starring as Dershowitz is Ron Silver in an uneven performance that at times made me think of Gabe Kaplan doing a young and uncomedic Groucho Marx. I wonder if Dershowitz was entirely flattered.

Director Barbet Schroeder (Barfly 1987; Single White Female 1992) uses several points of view to tell the story, including a voice-over from Glenn Close's Sunny Von Bulow as she lies comatose, but also from recollections by Jeremy Irons' Claus Von Bulow. We see some scenes twice, colored by the differing points of view. This technique is entirely appropriate since what really happened is far from clear to this day. It is Claus Von Bulow's fortune that was reversed. Whether the first two juries or the third were right is something Schroeder leaves for the audience to determine.

But make no mistake about it: the heart of the movie is Jeremy Irons' Oscar-winning performance. His subtle artistry based on a deep conception (true to life or not) of the aristocratic and Germanic Claus allowed him to create a persona that is cold and aloft, yet somehow sympathetic. The contrast with Silver's Brooklyn-born hyper-energetic Dershowitz made for some good cinematic chemistry, although sometimes it came across like nice Jewish boy defends a vampire.

Glenn Close's flawless rendition of the idle, drug-befouled Sunny reminds us once again that she is a great actress. Unfortunately I don't think Schroeder spent as much time and energy as he should have with the people who played Dershowitz's law students. They seemed amateurish and unconvincing in just about every scene. And there were too many of them--law students, that is. Some distillation of intent, and more directorial guidance might have helped.

Nicholas Kazan's script has a number of good lines in it, not the least of which is this: Dershowitz: "You are a very strange man." Claus Von Bulow: "You have no idea." Also nice was Von Bulow's observation after they are seated in the restaurant and after the waiter has called him "Doctor" Von Bulow: "When I was married to Sunny, we never got this table. Now, two injections of insulin and I'm a doctor." Indeed it is partly Kazan's snappy, comedic and self-revelatory lines that humanize Claus Von Bulow's character and persuade us that he could very well be innocent.

While I like Dershowitz's self-serving style and his confidence, what I admire most about the man is his realistic conception of the defense attorney's role in our society and his idea of what makes a good lawyer; that is, a good lawyer is one who recognizes not only that every person deserves the best defense their resources allow, but that he himself deserves to defend those with the best resources.

(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

Ever since the film premiered in 1990 Jeremy Iron's portrayal of the Aristocratic Claus Von Bulow has been etched in my memory. Iron's has without question created one of the most brilliantly layered historical characterizations to ever grace the screen.He gets to the heart of the haughty Von Bulow and brings us as close to liking the man as anyone ever could.His performance rightly won Him an Oscar for Best Actor. Just as engaging is Ron Silver's driven and hyper Alan Dershowitz. his performance of the great trail lawyer is facinatingly accurate. Having seen Dershowitz speak and meeting him afterwards it is very clear that Silver was able to capture even the smallest details of the man's movements,vocal inflections and dynamic rhetoric(Dersowitz himself claimed Silver used a tad too many hand gestures however!)

The supporting cast is equally strong. Glenn Close narrates the film as the comatose Sunny Von Bulow and appears in flashback during the events that lead to her coma. She captures Sunny's selfishness as well as her vulnerability. The great Uta Hagan appears as Sunny's maid and protector and give a performance worthy of her reputation.

Barbet Schroeder slickly directs the film,not as a linier plot but as a series of flashbacks,moments and current incidents. This is one of the few films that I cannot find a single flaw in.For direction,plot,characterization,writing..and Jeremy Iron's wonderful performance this film is an absolute 10!

Had actually seen 'Reversal of Fortune' for the first time years ago, thought it a very good film then and was bowled over by Jeremy Irons' performance. Yet inexplicably, it took me such a long time getting round to review it with so much going on and so much seen since. Decided to refresh my memory in seeing it again, being someone who thinks very highly of both Irons (my main reason actually in seeing it again) and Glenn Close and who wanted to see whether it was as good as remembered.

'Reversal of Fortune' did turn out to be as good as remembered, and considering that that has not been the case with all films that is a relief. Although there were a couple of problems had with it this time round that weren't noticeable before, it actually was also an even better experience this time. What stuck out to me as good on first viewing still stands out as good now, would go as far as to say great, while with more knowledge of the real-life case and with a (hopefully) wider film taste since there was even more to appreciate about 'Reversal of Fortune'. It was a brave risk doing the film when the real Claus Von Bulow was still alive and the case a long way from forgotten with feelings still raw (the outcome of the appeal having occured only in 1985, Irons very nearly didn't do the film or was nervous about taking on the role of Claus apparently for this reason), and the risk paid off thankfully.

Anybody who is familiar with the case won't be surprised by the outcome, though actually with the film's purposeful ambiguity in regard to the guilt/innocence this wasn't a problem. For me, neither was the inconclusiveness with the film intentionally leaving things open. It will frustrate some, especially those not familiar with the real-life story and wanting every aspect answered, though those with knowledge of the story and taking into account how soon the film was made after the events with the subjects still alive should find it far more understandable from personal opinion. Actually thought it was a good decision to do that and a tasteful one.

There is not an awful lot wrong actually with 'Reversal of Fortune'. Did feel though that inexperience did show in the directing and acting in a few of the scenes with the law students. The scenes were still interesting and sharply written, offering an insightful perspective on the legal work and preparation for the case which the film focuses on a good deal, but the trial, flashback and Claus-Alan Dershowitz interaction scenes felt much tighter, more rehearsed and more polished somehow.

On the other hand, 'Reversal of Fortune' looks great. It's very slickly and stylishly photographed, taking full advantage of the classy costume and production design/locations reminiscent of 'The Great Gatsby' sort of style. The music is every bit as haunting and unsettling as the narration, without any over-emphasis needed. Barbet Schroeder's direction has its uneven spots, but much of it, particularly in the interactions between Claus and Dershowitz and the emotional detachment within the family which was intriguingly eerie, indicates someone who really engaged with the story and was in control of it. A major strength is the script, it is very intelligent and thoughtful structured tightly and rich in dark humour and deliciously deep irony. Things that are obvious in Claus' (the one with all the script gems) dialogue, including one of Irons' most iconic and quotable lines of any of his films in "You have no idea" (referenced briefly in 'The Lion King' when he voiced Scar).

What was especially surprising with the script was the narration. Have always been very mixed on narration in film and have found with too many films that it is not needed and not used well, overuse and over-explanation being big offenders. 'Reversal of Fortune' is one of the best examples of how to do narration on film for me, it is an atypical kind of narration being told by a character one doesn't expect to do so and it is very cleverly used. It has a very haunting effect and achieves what narration doesn't too often do in film and should do when used, it moves the story forward, makes it clearer rather than confusing it and keeps one up to date. It didn't feel like it over-explained at all and intrigued in alternative to irritated. The story is from start to finish thoroughly absorbing, with an interesting focus and told tactfully, personally didn't find it biased and that the characterisation had enough layers and shade to avoid caricature. Dershowitz is juicily written here, but what is also fascinating about Claus in particular was how enigmatic he was and how easy it was to feel hate and sympathy for him, not an easy feat to achieve. Found myself very engrossed and caring for how it would turn out and whether Claus was innocent or guilty.

The three leads are on top form. Close plays Sunny's small unsympathetic role in a way that's truly unsettling yet at times vulnerable, Claus and Dershowitz are far meatier roles and are on screen for longer but it is very difficult to forget Close's presence when she does haunt the mind and really did try to give Sunny nuance. Ron Silver, with the most to do of the three, comamnds the screen throughout with effortless bravura and he was clearly having fun here, his animated presence being such fun to watch. Irons was the one who stayed in my memory the most though, here he is in one of the bravest roles of that year, for reasons mentioned earlier on, and of his career (along with those in 'Dead Ringers', that he wasn't even nominated for that performance was one of that year's most inexplicable oversights/omissions that year, and 'Lolita') and to this day his performance-of-a-lifetime acting (enigmatic, cold, haughty, chilling and darkly humorous) here is some of his career's finest, in how he managed to avoid making Claus caricaturish and one-dimensional and instead making him greatly fascinating and layered. Regarding the debate as to whether he deserved the Oscar, it was a strong category that year with all the nominees worthy and in my mind he did deserve it, and he deserved one for 'Dead Ringers' as well which he was even better in.

Summarising, very good film. 8/10 Bethany Cox