|
|
 This film is not a portrait of the individual characters but simply a theme using characters. The emotional transitions are non existent. We can not see why certain characters change. Why does Julia Roberts character suddenly fall in love the Italian Instructor?? There is no romantic precursors to this event. Why does Julia Stiles character suddenly think Ms. Watson is a great teacher?? We only see a few interactions with them, which are aimless and empty.Several reviews compared this film to the great, "Dead Poets Society". There is NO comparison whatsoever, except in the timeline and circumstances. "Dead Poet's Society" used precise character examinations to portray a fluid like story. DPS was conceived and executed in the way great films are. "Mona Lisa's Smile" was conceived and executed in the way a Junior High School play with no adult writer or director does. Do not waste your time on this film! You will thank me...
You get the sense, here in and in Erin B., that she wants her cake and to eat it too, to have the goddess image and still have roles of substance. To use her movie roles to "instruct" -- as she puts it in one of the DVD extras. But please, who is she kidding? Her real life "role" is no less a fantasy than the "freedom girdles" of the 50s, and very little less repressive in its perfection as an icon for women today than the icons she is rebelling against in the movie. Are we supposed to overlook the irony of a present day icon venting outrage at the iconography of the 50s? How valid a statement is that? Is she that blind, or does she take her female audience to be blind and dumb not to expect us to see the hypocrisy here? Though Julia could better have been replaced with a more believable actress, (and the other teachers or adult women were largely cardboard stereotypes) the girls, I thought were wonderful. Dunst was a good foil, but I thought all the girls were excellent. They come of age pretty much on their own, were surprisingly fresh and novel, considering the rest of the cookie cutter ensemble. I can't see that the art teacher has all that much influence, but that's as it should be. The girls are what this movie is or should be about. In general a movie worth seeing for the portrait of the times, and the wonderful supporting cast in the girls, even if Julia herself is ridiculous in the central role.
Watson is a "forward thinking liberal" from sunny California - finding herself in a land where women are educating themselves for the sole purpose of marrying well and then making no use of their intellect. Surprisingly written by two men (Lawrence Konner & Mark Rosenthal), the movie has an all-star cast: Roberts, Julia Stiles, Maggie Gyllenhaal (you will be hearing a lot about her in the future), and Marcia Gay Harden... battling their way through the 1950s mentality of girdles, washing machines and pipe-smoking, well-bred husbands. Intending to ace their way through college so they can get on with producing heirs, Watson's students have already memorized the text and syllabus, so Watson re-writes their lesson plan and annoys everyone on campus with her feather-ruffling, "subversive" ideas. I was expecting this film to be a preachy feminist diatribe, but it wasn't. It was about lust vs. love, loyalty vs. society, and heart-felt emotion vs. hiding behind a sweet smile and a stony heart. The film does not present marriage as a farce or promescuity as the preferred option - rather it embraces the idea that a woman can have a family AND still learn and grow and be more than a proper hostess and trophy wife. Watson is not portrayed as the all-wise, all-knowing, always-right person - rather she is someone who awakens her students to the possibility that they can do more than be consumers and baby factories - they can know and understand art and radical ideas - without having to like either... but at least to have a more rounded view of life than the narrow objectives portrayed on television and print media at the time. In the mid-1950s (when this movie is set), Watson's subversive notions do not make her popular with the staff, but they make her very popular with most of her students. While there is no nudity and only a couple of "bad" words used, there are mature themes and lots of implied non-traditional sexual relationships, so parents should be aware. While I am always impressed with Julia Roberts' acting ability, and even though she was the lead - I really think it will be Maggie Gyllenhall and newcomer Ginnifer Goodwin (Connie Baker) that will be most noted for their performances in this film - believable, flawless and truly stellar. Topher Grace ("That 70's Show," "Traffic") makes another impressive (albeit small) appearance into a substantial film, ironically the love interest of Julia Stiles as was the case in "Traffic" and Tori Amos has a brief singing role. In the end, this is a sweet, feel-good movie peppered with some bitter-sweet moments. Make sure you stay for the credits featuring old film reels of 1950s women in action.
The movie wants to be the "girls' version of Dead Poet's Society" so bad that the creators of DPS should be looking into a slander lawsuit because it is insulting what they do to what was originally a really good movie. Katherine Watson (Roberts) came to Wellesley to make a difference and she was not going to take no for an answer. So, when the actresses-I mean students outsmart her, she has to make the class more difficult. Because I guess they're not *really* learning until Watson has taught them. And Watson is not going to just teach them about Art. No. She's gonna teach them about *life* and that they don't have to get married and have babies. They can be whatever they want because they are soooo smart. And if they want to get married and have babies, then they're just in denial. Because Watson knows everything! Sadly, no one dies unlike in the original DPS. There's the antagonist, Betty Warren (Kirsten Dunst), who hates Watson, but in the end, loves her the most. The protagonist, Joan Brandwyn (Julia Stiles), who respects Watson, but in the end teaches Watson a life lesson. The morally ambivalent wanna-be, Giselle Levy (Maggie Gyllenhaal), who wants to be Watson. And the "ugly, fat girl", Connie Baker (Ginnifer Goodwin), who just wants to be liked by a boy. Most of the acting was very cardboard. I am not sure whether to blame this on the script, the director, or the actors. Julia Roberts looked exactly the same as she has looked in her past 5 movies. Same "smile" theme, same bursting laugh, same "unliked-girl" who really is a pretty woman (ha!) deep down. She's turning into Meg Ryan by picking the same character over and over again. Kirsten Dunst's character was a little too whiney and in the end, when Betty Warren does the "morphosis", it is not believable. Even if it was believable, then we wouldn't really care because the way she was portrayed would be akin to feeling sympathy for Atilla the Hun. Julia Stiles was the only one whose character seemed to remain consistant. I am not sure if this is because of her acting or because the script didn't call for a "character evolution". Either way, Joan was still boring and lifeless. Maggie Gyllenhaal is beautiful and sexy and boy is Giselle a sexually free spirit in this movie. Hmm...Secretary, anyone? But, I'm not sure what they were trying to do with that student-teacher relationship/affair thing. Maybe I fell asleep and missed it. For the life of me I could not figure out why they thought Ginnifer Goodwin's character was fat or ugly so, we'll just ignore her because her character has no conflict! For that matter, nothing at all anywhere in this entire movie does... Oh, did I fail to point out that the title is mentioned throughout the movie at least eleventy-billion times? I bet the writers did this on purpose to encourage drinking games since that's the only way they could get anyone to willingly watch the whole movie to the end.
|
Julia was fine in Notting Hill and Sleeping with the Enemy, but hard to take seriously in this role where she is supposedly ventage outrage at girdles. As an audience, are we supposed to believe outrage at traditional female icons from this actress who has certainly embraced a goddess image for herself? Not to say that she should eschew it, since it has served her well. But to play a role where she is supposedly outraged at feminine stereotypes makes her laughable. 
Fresh out of graduate school in California, Katherine Watson (Julia Roberts) lands her dream job: Art History professor at Wellesley College, an exclusive all-girl private school in Massachusetts.
