Customer Reviews

The Golden Bowl [VHS]

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(15)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

Unlike other reviewers, I haven't read _The Golden Bowl_ and I hate Henry James. Perhaps that's why I adored this film. Visually, it is even more sumptuous than most Merchant and Ivory films. But what makes the movie more than just a pretty package is Jeremy Northam, who in addition to being stunningly handsome as ever, delivers a performance of depth and nuance. Along with his wonderful roles in _Emma_ and _The Winslow Boy_, the part of Amerigo should help establish Northam as one of the best actors around, up there in my mind with Kenneth Branagh and . . . well I can't think of many others as good. Kate Beckinsale is also astonishing in this film, doing a much better job of playing an ingenue who finds unknown inner strength in a time of need than Winona Ryder did in _The Age of Innocence_. And the ever-reliable Nick Nolte delivers a believable, complex performance. The only thing that made this film a four-star rather than five-star film in my book was the appalling performance of Uma Thurman, who is so bad that at the climax of the film, when she delivers what should be the most poignant line of the movie, I actually burst out laughing in the theatre (very embarrassing). I can't think why directors haven't noticed that Ms. Thurman is these days merely a pretty face, but the rest of the cast and the production was stellar, and the story gripped my interest throughout.

To do this magnificent film justice, I can only quote from Kevin Thomas' review in the Los Angeles Times: " "The Golden Bowl" is yet another Merchant Ivory triumph, with impeccable performances and equally flawless, grand period settings. As in previous films, the venerable team makes the past as immediate and vital as the present, summoning a vanquished world in such detail and perception that it is possible to see ourselves in people and places that would seem far removed."

As worthy of Henry James, the dialog of the screen adaptation is brilliant: the intrigue and suspense are developed by the clever double entendres as the characters eloquently let one another know they are aware of the duplicity in their relationships while never speaking overtly of their suspicions. Nick Nolte displays impressive, nuanced subtlety in his acting; Uma Thurman, as always, is elegant and incandescent, her acting perfection.

The settings in Italian castles and British grand estates alone are worth a trip to the theater; the costumes are opulent and beautifully designed. This film held our undivided attention from the first moment to the end. If you like films of this genre, do not miss it. "The Golden Bowl" is one of the best movies we have seen in many years, worthy of the top Oscar nominations.

I'm a bit puzzled by all the hostile comments on this movie.

I've read The Golden Bowl five times, at least. I have also seen most film and TV adaptations of James novels and novellas done since the 1970s and this one stands up very well under the double test: is it faithful to the book's spirit, is it a good film?

I loved this movie, have seen it twice and given it as a gift. I found it perfectly cast, filmed, and paced. TGB is a long dense intensely internal book but it has been faithfully rendered by a screenwriter who boldly brought the violence and threat at the core of the book forward in a fascinating sort of prologue, and made one of the book's most famous images, the Pagoda, part of a nightmare. Each time I see these sections I admire her ingenuity.

Uma Thurman broke my heart as the passionate, lonely, sensual Europeanized American who cannot have what she wants when she wants it. Yes, the part was played differently by Gayle Hunnicutt in the estimable British TV version, but so what? Thurman works because she makes it so clear how much more she wants Amerigo than the opposite and her verbal rebellion at one point is explosive (in a Jamesian way, of course).

Jeremy Northam is suitably lordly and devilishly handsome. His accent sounds just right to me, having been around Europeans who learned English from English speakers: the mix is sometimes inconsistent though charming.

Kate Beckinsale is just right as the limited innocent whose innocence is a kind of cruelty and watching her grow up, make the sacrifices she needs to while fighting through the pain of terrible awareness was haunting. Nick Nolte was sublime as the phlegmatic wealthy collector. You feel the roughness behind his suavity and the world-weariness. He's got all these amazing obejcts but what does he really have? His devotion to his daughter is pitched just right.

I loved how the film often cast him and Kate as isolated amid their stupefyinbgly beautiful collections. I loved how there are scenes opening the movie that take us back to the Prince's Renaissance forebears and that create dramatic irony when she re-enters the orbit of Maggie and Adam.

I was captivated by this movie even more the second viewing than the first, and even though the book is so familiar to me that I quote from it now and then. I own the Gayle Hunnicutt version and am glad there are too such stylish, intelligent, and very different takes on one of our greatest novels in English.

I found this movie fascinating. I have not read the book, though I have read much of James. In the movie, at least, it is not at all clear that Amerigo would rather be with Charlotte, and is marrying Maggie only for the money. It seems instead that he is marrying Maggie in hopes of a happy life (which yes, includes money) but that he allows Charlotte to think he still loves her so she can save face. Charlotte chases Amerigo all through the movie and though she finally manages to seduce him, it's true what the Colonel says to his wife, that he doesn't really care for her. He admires her and is attracted to her but he doesn't love her.

In contrast, he clearly does love Maggie and his son. He doesn't admire her until he first hears her say she doesn't like someone; at that moment she becomes more interesting to him, and when she confronts him, he falls in love with her. Somehow this all made perfect sense to me. In some way by Maggie pretending not to see she also let him think she didn't care.

When he realizes what his choices are, there is simply no contest.

It didn't seem to me that Maggie was manipulative in getting her father to take Charlotte away, although I suppose she was-- but it also was kind.

Anyway, maybe it's just that I saw this after the Sopranos finale (!) but I thought this was one of the most nuanced depictions of the levels in human relationships, particularly in marriage, that I've ever seen captured on film.

it's also beautiful to look at. A fascinating film in every respect.

The Golden Bowl is a beautiful movie that, like the bowl in the title, seems perfect, but there is a crack somewhere. I highly recommend it because the story and the production are so intriguing. The sets, costumes, ambiance and writing are signature Ivory/Merchant quality. The cast is first rate. I looked really closely at the acting to find where the break is, and the movie needs to warm up to climb to the emotional activity that brings its meaning to life. I struggled during the first half of the movie to pay attention. When veils of complacency give way to questions and expression of true or other feelings is when everything comes together. Jeremy Northum as Prince Amerigo is dashing enough to remind one of Giancarlo Gianini in The Innocent. Kate Bechinsale, Nick Nolte, Anjelica Huston and James Fox offer measured but effective performances that have to ride the story. It is Uma Thurman who has to bring it home, and she does a very good job. The novel by Henry James is not easy to pack into a 2-hour movie, but this was a very good attempt. DidnŐt Masterpiece Theater have to spread it into a miniseries? I think it starred Gail Honeycutt. DonŐt drop The Golden Bowl. You have to see it once. Maybe the flaw is as important to the movie as it is in the original complicated story.

Based on a Henry James novel that I haven't read, The Golden Bowl moves at a leisurely pace but the acting and, especially, the scenery and costumes make the movie well worth your time if you are fan of this genre. The movie was made by the team of Merchant Ivory, who also made the well received Howard's End and Remains of the Day, both starring Emma Thompson and Anthony Hopkins. The Golden Bowl stars Uma Thurman as an American named Charlotte who had an affair with a poor Italian prince named Amerigo and played by Jeremy Northam (Emma and An Ideal Husband). Amerigo breaks off his relationship with Charlotte because he is marrying her rich American school friend Maggie played by Kate Beckinsale (Pearl Harbor). What completes this quadrangle is that Charlotte eventually ends up marrying Maggie's billionaire, art collector father played by Nick Nolte. So the quadrangle is set up with Amerigo and Charlotte having a relationship they try to keep hidden from Maggie and the ensuing results. Another good character in this movie is played by Anjelica Huston who played matchmaker by setting up Maggie and Amerigo. I won't go into more detail about the different interplay of relationships but the movie plays them all out very well. Plus, the movie takes place in the early 1900s and has very sumptous costumes and scenes that take place in castles in Europe. I enjoyed this movie the most because of the scenery and costumes but I also enjoyed the acting and character studies of the two relationships. The movie is a bit long at 2 hours and 10 minutes but well worth the time especially if you liked movies like Howard's End and it unfolds in much the same pace as a good classic novel.

I'm amazed this film has drawn so many - and so varied - responses! Anyone deciding on whether or not to purchase the DVD may well end up confused. Is this a good film? Is Uma Thurman the only weak point? Is Kate Beckinsale boring? Is everyone irritating except for the character of Charlotte? And so on and so on and so on...

I found the acting of everyone in the film splendid. I was convinced by each character. I didn't LIKE each character, but I was convinced by the actors.

Jeremy Northam's character, a cash-poor Italian minor prince, is a deeply flawed man whose former romance with Charlotte (Uma Thurman) is brought to an unsympathetic end by his decision to wed Maggie, a sweet and practical American heiress (Kate Beckinsale) for her money. He doesn't seem to be in love with either Charlotte or Maggie at this point, but he is certainly intent on ending his former relationship and starting off his marriage with good intentions. Charlotte is clearly deeply upset - she appears to have been far more emotionally invested in the relationship than he.

Charlotte, who weds Maggie's father in a hell-bent way (clearly intent on retaining her presence in the prince's life), then manipulates events so that she's alone with her former lover, and invites him to resume their intimate relationship. She thinks she's in love; one cannot say the same for Northam's character, who appears to be attracted, yes, but not in love. There's also a dynamic created by his feeling left out by his wife's close relationsihp with her father. A man who feels neglected is certainly vulnerable to other influences... which isn't to excuse him, but to give some idea of the influences in his life. Once the affair's underway, it gains momentum and the pair seem to risk disclosure without caring too deeply.

As this deeply flawed man who ends up learning the real value of his wife and feeling appalled by the pain he caused her, Jeremy Northam is simply superb. This would be an easy character to overplay or underplay - but Mr Northam gets it exactly right.

As Charlotte, Uma Thurman is surprisingly good. I've often seen her in sub-standard films (the appalling film Pay Check comes to mind), but this is a magnificent role for her. Again, it's perfectly placed. The audience feels both sympathy for her and dislike for the things she does.

Kate Beckinsale is wonderful as Maggie. For most of the film, we, the audience, have no idea what Maggie knows or suspects, and we can even become a little exasperated by her apparent ignorance and that seeming insensitivity. She seems like a perfectly nice young woman whom we want to shake awake - until the moment when she realises incontrovertibly what has been happening. The title of the film, "Golden Bowl", becomes the metaphor for human relationships - specifically, marriage. And Maggie's agony when she realises there is a terrible flaw in her marriage, that the love and trust she has felt have been abused, is so real and true that it hits one in the face.

Nick Nolte as Maggie's father is also wonderful. His quality of toughness is nicely contrasted by the dignity that is evidence in both him and his daughter. One can see the terrific bond between the two, and the way in which Charlotte, although not obviously punished for seducing her daughter-in-law's husband, is not going to be able to sway her husband when he decides to move away from the lifestyle she loves, in order to protect his daughter's marriage.

The cross-currents of human emotion are truly wonderfully portrayed in this film. In that sense, it certainly maintains much of the original novel. Whether one's familiar with Henry James's novel or not, this is a very rewarding film, beautifully acted, and the scenery is stunning. Everyone looks fabulous, too - it's a shimmering treat to watch - but for me, the high standard of acting is what makes this film so interesting.

The tensions of betrayal, desire, beauty, trust, love, dependency, selfishness and forgiveness are beautifully worked in the film.

A magnificent medieval bowl, created from a single perfect crystal, has, despite its appearance, a flaw--a crack which reduces its value. Henry James, author of the novel on which this Ruth Prawer Jhabvala screenplay is based, uses the gilded bowl as a metaphor for love and marriage, focusing on two couples, whose overlapping relationships and marriages prove to be as fragile and damaged as the bowl. Produced by Merchant-Ivory and sumptuously filmed by Tony Pierce-Roberts on locations in Italy and England, the film brings the intensity of the psychological conflicts to life.

Italian Prince Amerigo (Jeremy Northam) is the impoverished owner of Palazzo Ugolini near Rome, unable to maintain the palace until, in 1903, he marries Maggie Verver (Kate Beckinsale), daughter of the first American billionaire, Adam Verver (Nick Nolte). The prince has previously had a secret affair with Charlotte Stant (Uma Thurman), a friend of Maggie. When Charlotte subsequently marries Adam, Maggie's father, both couples move to England, where three years later, Charlotte and Amerigo resume their passion.

The relationships among the four principals are explored with the same sophistication as in James's novel. Maggie's torment is fully revealed when she suspects an affair, and her determination to protect her father from this knowledge becomes an agonizing chore. Numerous symbols help to convey the trauma of the betrayal, from the history of the prince's castle, in which an ancestor found his young wife and his son in bed and executed them, to Maggie's dream of being imprisoned in a porcelain pagoda which has a crack.

Nolte shows surprising subtlety in his emotions as he suspects his wife's treachery, while Uma Thurman is passionate, reckless, and very seductive in her obsession with the prince. Northam explores the prince's character fully, moving from early passion for Charlotte to a more mature awareness of his love and respect for Maggie. Beckinsale, as the ingenuous Maggie, develops maturity and shows remarkable character as she works diligently to protect her marriage and her father. Supporting roles by Angelica Huston and Madeleine Potter further develop the psychological pressures by illustrating the characters' lives within the context of their frenetic, continental lifestyles.

Director James Ivory inserts old kinescope films and newspapers of turn-of-the-century America into the film to illustrate the on-going contrast between life in America and life in Europe, a constant James theme, as Verver builds his new American museum of European treasures. Lovers of Henry James will find this film faithful to James's intents, while those less enamored of his convoluted literary style may be inspired to read him because of the psychological sophistication of this plot--and this film. Mary Whipple

I discovered James in college and read all his full-length novels before reaching age 30. The only one I had real trouble with was The Golden Bowl.

I recently reread the novel and reveled in its elegant complexity. (It would be nice to think that the passage of 20 years has brought wisdom and insight that made me a better reader, but the credit belongs to Dorothea Krook's helpful discussion in The Ordeal of Consciousness in Henry James.)

The Golden Bowl is the last, the most demanding, and the most rewarding of James's novels. Even its immediate predecessors, The Ambassadors and The Wings of the Dove, do not reach its deep examination of the mixed motives, the tangled good and evil, that drive human action and passion. Although he presents his characters' acts and much of what goes on in their heads, James manages in such a way that while Krook believes Adam and Maggie are on the side of the angels, Gore Vidal (who introduces the current Penguin edition) b!elieves they are monsters of manipulation--and (as Krook acknowledges) both views are consistent with the evidence.

Much--too much--of these riches of doubt and ambiguity is lost in the Merchant/Ivory/Jhabvala translation to the screen. The movie has some good things, but it could have had many more. Extraneous material (like the exotic dance), heavy-handed symbolism (the exterior darkness on the day Charlotte and Amerigo find the golden bowl), and needless oversimplification (Amerigo's talk of "dishonor" to Charlotte, which exaggerates his virtue and his desire to be done with her) give the sense that nobody involved in the production read the novel with the care that it requires and rewards. Had they done so, their version could have been really fine--both as a movie and as an invitation to the novel.

First let me say that I am an admirer of Henry James and that the Golden Bowl is one of my favorites. Secondly, I feel it is impossible for a film to capture the psychological subtleties of any literature, let alone Henry James. Having established that, I must say that the film is probably about as good as possible. My only real objection is that the ending is portrayed as "happy." No Henry James endings are happy; they are ambiguous. Reread the ending: it is not a happy one for any of the characters but it fits the psychological development of the novel. So, the film is a good film: the acting is fine (I thought Angelica Houston was excellent); Thurman's character is not dignified enough but otherwise all have done about as much as can be done in an essentially simplistic medium. The use of symbolism was adequate, too. But, let's face it: Who can possibly translate Henry James into film. Let's be generous.