Customer Reviews

Washington Square

5 star:		(23)
4 star:		(18)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(8)
1 star:		(8)

 

 

As a great fan of Henry James, I much preferred this new film version of his story, rather than "The Heiress," whether that film is considered a classic or not. Other critics on this page have panned the new version, writing that it lacks subtlety, but what is so subtle about Morris bashing on the Slopers' front door and yelling at the top of his lungs, which is what happens in "The Heiress"--and certainly does NOT happen in the novel. For me, Jennifer Jason Leigh more closely captured the clumsiness, social awkwardness, and sensitivity of the novel's main character, more so than Olivia de Havilland's woman of steel out for revenge. The cast of the older film are all fine actors, but the screenplay was the clumsy one there. The cast of the newer Washington Square are all pitch-perfect, as if they had lifted their characters directly from the novel. Maggie Smith is truly amazing in her comic role as the aunt.

Honestly, this was one of my favorite films until I read the book, and it brought to light two things that I think the director really messed up on.
1. Catherine Sloper was nowhere near as socially retarded in the book as she was in the movie. In fact, as someone said, in the movie they practically portray her as being borderline mentally challenged. In the books her faults were not as exaggerated, and consisted of her plain looks, dull personality and occasional lack of a witty retort (which happens to all of us save for those annoying few who always have the perfect thing to say). Otherwise I would characterize her, especially in comparison to her flighty aunt and cold-hearted dad, as the only normal one in the house. While everyone else was making the situation with Morris more of a drama than it needed to be, Catherine was taking things as they came and letting them go as they went. She grows from naive girl who adored her callous father to a secure woman.
Also, while in the movie they portrayed her dress sense as evidence of her social ineptitude (the scene where she goes to the party where she meets Morris in that awful fringed thing), in the book it is an admirable eccentricity, and proves that she is not as boring as she seems.
2. While Albert Finney does a great job of capturing Dr. Sloper's callous sarcasm, he doesn't (and again, I think this is the director's fault) really capture the type of psychological game he is playing with his daughter. In the book, Dr. Sloper detachedly views the goings on between his daughter and Morris as a kind of entertainment, a play that he wants to see if he guessed the correct ending to. In return, as Catherine realizes what as asshat her father is (can I say that here?), she begins to play the game with him, telling him when he is near his deathbed that she can't promise she won't marry Morris after he dies (This scene also takes place in the movie, but the way it is acted out you get the sense that Catherine is saying this because she hasn't let Morris go yet - the director hasn't developed the character enough to make the viewer believe she has the intelligence to play her dad's own game).
In terms of praise, the performances by Maggie Smith, Albert Finney and Ben Chaplin are great. To quote another review again, Ben Chaplin really has you wondering what exactly are his character motives (even though deep down you know he wants her money, like the naive Catherine, you continue to want to believe everyone is wrong). I admit I picked up the book in the first place because I wanted to get a better handle on Morris and his intentions! Also, the soundtrack is just gorgeous.

Jennifer Jason Leigh stars as Catherine Sloper,a clumsy,shy and innocent only daughter of Doctor Sloper(Albert Finney). Her mother died at her birth and her father doesn't seem to like Catherine much. Morris Townsend(Ben Chaplin)falls in love with her but he's not rich and her father starts to believe that Morris just wants to marry Catherine for her money. If she marries Morris her father will disinherit her. What will Catherine do?

The performances of Jennifer Jason Leigh and the handsome Ben Chaplin are fine. So is Albert Finney role as the strict father. The music of the movie is beautiful.

Though the ending was not what I expected,(I actually felt disappointed)I actually can say that I liked the movie(after I watched for the second time). If you like period movies, like me, you should take a look at Washington Square.

Washington Square is an engaging period piece, with wonderful performances to be had by Albert Finney, Maggie Smith, and Ben Chaplin. The only jarring note here is the performance by Jennifer Jason Leigh, who lacks subtlety and is so heavy handed as to be distracting.

This movie closely follows Henry James' novel of the same name. Albert Finney plays a wealthy doctor, Austin Sloper, whose wife died giving birth to their daughter, Katherine, an only child raised by the imposing Doctor Sloper with the assistance of the Katherine's maternal, but silly and vapid Aunt Lavinia, beautifully played by Maggie Smith.

Katherine, a shy and clumsy child, desperately wanting, but lacking, affection from her imperious and distant father, grows up to be a plain faced, graceless, and awkward, young woman. As played by Jennifer Jason Leigh, she is a caricature rather than a fully fleshed character. Her portrayal of Katherine shows her lack of skill as an actress, especially when compared to the finely nuanced performances given by the other actors.

When this clumsy, plain jane is wooed by the dashing, but penniless young hunk, Morris Townsend, she falls hard and wants desperately to marry him. Silly Aunt Lavinia encourages the romance and aids and abets the lovers, curiously fulfilling her own romantic fantasies, while assisting her niece in fulfilling hers. Her father, however, pegs the handsome Mr. Townsend as a fortune hunter, because, he reasons, why else would Mr. Townsend want to marry his graceless lump of a daughter?

Needless to say, what follows is the cat and mouse game Dr. Sloper and Townsend play with each other, as well as with Katherine. Father threatens to disinherit daughter, and daughter swears she will marry suitor, despite father's threats. Suitor equivocates on the issue of whether disinheritance will cool his affections for Katherine. Does he do so out of love for Katherine or self interest? Suffice to say, while Katherine ends up finally getting some backbone in the end, one must ask who is the the ultimate victor in this drama. In my book, Father wins hands down and has the last laugh from the grave.

All in all, this is a handsome and, for the most part, well acted period piece that will be enjoyed by those who love this genre of film.

I waited for the Japanese release of this Henry James adaptation of "Washinton Square", but after 5 years I see no news of it. Now I bought a video of the film, to find the reason why this was neglected in our Japanese market. Well, though I still don't know why, I think I can somehow understand the distributors' unwillingness to release this one.

Because the film is a mixed bag. Not that "Washington Square" is a bad film. On the contrary, I would rather like to praise it, but with some reservation. First, remember, the story, based on one of James's earlier works of the same title, is a tragic one. Jennifer Jason Leigh is Catherine Sloper, whose father (Albert Finney) is a respected doctor in New York City of the early 19th century. Though Catherine is a good girl (morally, I mean), she is never praised as a beautiful girl, and she knows it, too. Though her father Dr. Sloper is not cold-hearted, he is emotionally detached from his only daughter while she is desperately seeks for his approval. Thus their life goes on at Washington Square in New York City.

Until a handsome man meets Catherine at a tea party, where he advances to her with a golden smile and skilled conversation. He is Morris Townsend (Ben Chaplin, "Lost Souls"), who, it seems, lived a wild life in the past, but now, he says, is back as reformed. Catherine falls in love for the first time in her life, and he says he is willing to marry her, but her father suspects that this young handsome guy is just a cad, good for nothing and after the money which she is to inherit after his death. But is he (doctor) really right in sternly rejecting him and his daughter's wish?

The story is melodramatic, but that is not the point. Director Holland allows the actors to be characters they play, so that they realize the complicated relations which are subtlely described in the original book. Certainly it is slow-moving, but if you pay attention not to the plot, but to the emotional changes happening in these people, you will enjoy the film. After all, James is not famous for gripping storytelling; it is his characters and the relations between them that we care, and the film deserves our praise very much for the reason that it brought them to very real thing on screen.

But the praise is not unconditional, for there are some questionable decisions made in the film. Holland rendered the piano recital scene a very embarrassing one (like "The Exocist"), but that is totally unnecesary (and the original book does not have Catherine humiliated that way). Casting is also strange. Jason Leigh, herself very good, is, I am afraid, a bit miscast because Catherine should be, I thought, a little younger. Ben Chaplin and Albert Finney are good, but Maggie Smith's meddlesome Mrs. Penniman, who gives some comic (but slightly cruelly depicted) taste, looks uncomfortable. Probably that is because we see her playing more serious, no-nonsense characters, as she did in "Secret Garden" "Gosford Park" and others.

Though this is not as good as William Wyler's "The Heiress", director Holland made a splendid job here. Some of the camera work is also superb (see the sweeping movement of the opening scene), but sometimes her direction goes too far, as I pointed out. But as a whole, a very good costume drama.

Perhaps one of the most exasperating romances of all time and yet the subtle message throughout are delightfully entertaining. You are left to make up your own mind as to the true intentions of the characters.

This is the passionate story of a young heiress who is destined to choose between love and wealth. Her father (Albert Finney) disapproves of the man she loves and feels that if she marries a man who cannot take care of her, her mother died in childbirth in vain.

Morris Townsend (Ben Chaplin) is a handsome yet impecunious young man who sweeps her off her feet and shows her a world she longs to live in. Catherine (Jennifer Jason Leigh) is na've and shy and when she falls for Morris so fast, we can only assume she is consumed by his words, the stories he tells her and how he makes her laugh and feel about herself. She almost faints in his presence, so strong is the effect he has on her. He knows what a woman wants to hear.

"I never imagined I'd be taken like this...I heard tales of this, this thing. But I suspected it was an idea originated by mercenary novelists. Now I find myself, I find myself performing the most useless tasks in the hope that I'll find a moments respite from thinking of you. I'm quite overcome." -Morris Townsend

Morris is determined to play the game of love and he wants to find the key that will
unlock the gate to Catherine's heart. Once he finds the key, he uses it to his advantage, all the while also wanting to find the key to her father's soul. When he fails to find a way to gain her father's approval, he starts to act irrationally and shallow.

Catherine's aunt seems to be living out her own fantasy of forbidden love and while she thinks she is working a magic love spell with the best of her intentions, she has in fact helped to concoct a strange and cruel curse.

When Morris shuts the door on Catherine's fantasy by saying he wanted her, but wanted her with her money, it is too cruel a fate. Did he mean what he said? Was he only mocking her controlling father who was impervious to pity.

Passionate with a powerful message of how strong women can be when looking into the eyes of a cruel fate. This is about a woman who gains confidence and some sense of satisfaction, yet loses what she wanted most, love.

~The Rebecca Review

I can honestly count on one hand the movies that have ever made me cry, and this is one of them. Maybe it was because I could relate to the characters on a personal level because of circumstances in my own life, but I thought this film was exceptionally moving. The scene that sticks out in my mind (or rather, in my heart,) is where Catherine is chasing after the carriage, screaming for Morris to come back, and he never even turns around and looks at her. She's humiliated, emotionally crushed, and he can't even spare her a moment's glance.

I have read the book as well, and this is a rare instance in which I like the movie better. In the book, there's no question about Morris' mercenary motives and he really cares nothing for Catherine; in the movie, the viewer is never quite sure if he's sincere or not. I like being kept guessing on that aspect of the plot! I also liked it that Catherine had grown strong enough to refuse him at the end, because I wasn't too sure that she wouldn't take him back. When he asks if they can still be friends (and who knows what his motive was for that,) her reply of, "You know very well that we were never friends," shows that she has finally become her own person.

A young heiress, plain as oatmeal and with a personality that's equally bland, meets a handsome but impecunious young man at a party in New York City in the 1850s. He begins courting her. Although he has neither a job nor especially bright prospects, she soon returns his ardent declarations. Is he really smitten with her, or is he the fortune hunter her domineering physician father and everyone else suspect him to be?

This is the surefire plot that has kept readers turning the pages of Henry James's penetrating novella Washington Square since it was published in the early 1880s. It works again here.

This latest film version of James's book (an earlier movie, The Heiress, with Olivia de Havilland, appeared in 1949) is, if not transcendent, at least more successful and blessedly shorter than the Jamesian excursion Portrait of a Lady. Unlike Portrait director Jane Campion, Washington Square director Agnieszka Holland (Europa, Europa) sticks close to her source material, concentrating on the main players and their nasty but oh-so-decorous machinations.

As the heiress, Leigh is heartbreakingly good. You can practically see her straighten up as, in learning to think for herself, she gains a backbone. Finney is both scary and compelling as her interfering father, Smith is a flibbertigibbety delight as her widowed aunt, and Chaplin (The Truth About Cats and Dogs) does what he can with the problematically ambiguous role of the suitor.

Amazing adaptation with brilliance and verve.

I was involved. I cared. I felt all of the actors fit their parts. I puzzled how Morris so quickly spied out his quarry and made his mercenary decision. To me the great drama was the cold overlay on the heart of the father, Dr. Sloper, as juxtaposed to his child's great need and cry for love. Catherine's heart was punched hard by her father and, then, what could have been the finishing blow was struck by her false suitor. But she didn't crumble. Nor did she become bitter. She became her own person and showed a lot of courage; she didn't become bitter or morose.

This open view into a human being's need for love and how this need can often be stepped upon makes this, for me, a very powerful movie. Another aspect of this movie that is powerful is how feelings of love can betray us, sway us, change us, color our vision of the world. One needs love, but how to get it. How do we react when it is taken away from us or when it is proven false. This movie made me think about these things, and I liked it very much.

I saw this movie about five years ago and liked it, but was a bit disappointed in the ending. I'm a big fan of movies based on books by Jane Austen, so I'm used to everything working out in the end. Recently I viewed "Washington Square" a second time and found it extremely compelling and thought provoking (as well as being entertaining). Catherine and Morris are complex characters and you never really know exactly what they are thinking or what their motivations truly are. I think Morris wanted Catherine's money, but I'm not convinced that he was simply a fortune hunter. I think he felt like he and Catherine could make each other reasonably happy and he wouldn't have to toil for his living, which he seemed to think was beneath him. After the trip abroad, why did Catherine refuse to ask her father again for his consent as Morris obviously wanted her to? She was willing to risk losing Morris in order not to beg of her father. Perhaps she knew it was pointless, but it seemed to me that she just flat out refused to even try. When Morris says "Yes, I wanted you and I wanted your money, is that so horrible?", I found myself sympathizing with him--was it so horrible to want both? After all, he doesn't say "I never wanted you, I only wanted the money." At one point the married aunt says something to the father along the lines of "you've worked all your life for your fortune, can you not give it to Catherine and allow her to have it in a happy state." But the father isn't willing to do that--I don't think simply because he views Morris as a fortune hunter, but also because he harbors deep resentment and refuses to see Catherine happy when he was denied happiness due to his wife dying in childbirth. It's wonderful to watch a movie where the main character evolves and that happens with Catherine in this film. She is a much changed person in a span of eight to ten years. Another viewer may read this review and feel very differently about the happenings of the story. That is what is so compelling about this film--it forces you to think and it certainly makes you feel.