Thanks for the memories!

A story that's too fascinating to pass by...

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

Director Terence Davies has done a magnificent job of recreating the turn of the century in "The House of Mirth," a 2000 film starring Gillian Anderson, Eric Stoltz, Dan Ackroyd, Laura Linney, Anthony LaPaglia, and Terry Kinney.Anderson is Lily Bart, a beautiful young woman of good social standing, traveling in the best circles, who throws away her opportunities for a good marriage because she wants something more meaningful. However, her reputation begins to suffer due to her circle's misreading of an innocent situation, and things go from bad to worse for her as she descends down the social strata. She has it in her power to win back everything she has lost but refuses to stoop that low due to her love for one man.It's obvious that Davies took a great deal of care with this film. It is not infused with modern sensibilities, the period look is authentic, as is the look of the cast. By that I mean, Gillian Anderson's sumptuous red hair, full beautiful face, and lovely figure are much more period than, say, Gwyneth Paltrow's -- and yet films are rarely cast with an eye toward capturing the period in that way. The casting of Dan Ackroyd as Trenor is unusual but very right - he's not truly of the class he travels in and a real glad-hander. Eric Stoltz is Selden - handsome without being drop dead gorgeous, gentile without being effeminate, who has good chemistry with Anderson.The villainess of the piece is Laura Linney as the awful Bertha Dorset, a cunning witch, and as usual, Linney is perfection -- smiling, subtle, and you can just see the knife going in. In the book she is more responsible for Lily's troubles than in the film. In the film, we see her making initial trouble for Lily; in the book, she continues to work on destroying her with a whisper here and word there.What makes the story of Lily so frustrating is that she can ruin Bertha in five minutes but refuses, suffering instead, which drove me crazy. That's not the film's fault.This was an era where no one expressed emotions, so when someone says, thank you or I understand, there is a world of meaning to be read in the eyes. It's a world of artifice, and Davies obviously worked at getting this from his actors. Everything is in what lies beneath.The acting is uniformly excellent; only Gillian Anderson falls a little short of the mark. Lily is an extremely difficult role, and Anderson at least in 2000 did not have all the necessary skill to completely pull it off. She has the look, the bearing, and the intelligence. What she lacks is the ability to actually become someone of that era, rather than putting it on like an overcoat. She does much better in the latter part of the film, which calls for a different set of acting muscles than in the beginning.Reminiscent a bit of "Sister Carrie," "The House of Mirth" points up the difficulties of women in that time period to make their way, of the boundaries of class, and the rigidity of the upper class. Highly recommended, but not an easy, cheerful film by any means.

If this film adaptation depicting lives ruined by the social mores and hypocrisy of turn of the century upper crust New York society seems to have a lot in common with the similarly plotted The Age of Innocence, it would be because authoress Edith Wharton was responsible for both novels. Unfortunately, like The Age of Innocence, this is yet another wallow in victimization and misery that Wharton seemed to specialize. However, unlike The Age of Innocence where director Martin Scorsese seemed psychotically obsessed with the elegant trappings at the expense of his story, director Terrence Davies is actually more interested in the players of his piece.The primary player is one Lily Bart (played by Gillian Anderson), a lovely, elegant young woman, who not only bungles her chance at true love, but comes to realize to her detriment how much she is at the mercy of a fickle high society filled with pettiness, envy and jealousy.Lily is at heart that rarest of beasts - a genuinely decent person. She has had the misfortune of accumulating a sizable debt from card playing, which she anticipates paying back with the inheritance to be left her by harridan aunt Eleanor Bron. As Bron is infinitely more taken with dishrag ward Jodhi May, it is questionable how much Lily can count on this development. Lily pines for scandalous attorney Eric Stoltz, who is the sometime lover of society grand dame Laura Linney, but finds bad timing and circumstance consistent obstacles to a relationship. In fact, bad timing and bad luck seem to relentlessly dog Lily in every endeavor. Trusted friends and companions reveal themselves to be bitter enemies beneath the surface. When some scandalous letters fall into her lap that would prove to be her personal salvation, Lily takes the high road to her further detriment.The House of Mirth does not have much mirth in it. It is depressing, gloomy and leaves the viewer in an utterly hopeless state. It is a despairing experience to watch the destruction of a person, who did not invite it, does not deserve it and is left broken and battered by life, while some appalling specimens of "humanity" glide past unscathed. This is by no stretch of the imagination an enjoyable viewing experience and one would imagine that it would be an even more trying reading experience.All that aside, there are definitely reasons to watch the film. Davies' assured direction and the fine literate screenplay being two of them.Another compelling reason would be Anderson's central performance. Anyone who is only familiar with Anderson from The X-Files and oblivious to the stellar acting she has also contributed to British TV and films, will most certainly be impressed with the appealing, nuanced and heartfelt performance she contributes here. What makes Lily's inexorable downward spiral a spirit crushing blow is that until the final moments where she confronts her dismal future, Anderson never plays Lily as a victim. She seems entirely too self-assured and confident in her quest to do the right thing. The climactic moments where her emotional walls crumble at what life has in store for her is a powerful sequence. The entire performance is a demonstration of understated grace.The supporting cast is strong with one notable exception. Linney is matter-of-factly monstrous as society force of nature Bertha Dorsett, who throws Lily to the wolves on a whim to make herself look better. Terry Kinney is sympathetic as Linney's cuckolded husband. When he makes an offer to Lily late in the film that would make both of them whole, it comes across as a meeting of two lost souls and one is disappointed that Lily does not take him up on it. Dan Aykroyd is terrific playing against type as a joyfully manipulative scoundrel.Unfortunately, the film is thrown off-balance by the miscasting of Stoltz in the pivotal role of the scandalous lothario that inspires so much consternation among the female characters. I usually find Stoltz underrated, but here he is all wrong. Pasty-faced and limp, Stoltz adopts an effete fey attitude that is more off-putting than attractive. It reminds one somewhat of the miscasting of John Malkovich in Dangerous Liaisons. It is difficult to believe that one woman would find him irresistible, but the fact that three women are in such ardor over him as to launch campaigns of betrayal on each other strains credibility at every turn. Worse, Stoltz barely registers a pulse when Anderson shares the screen with him so that it hardly seems that Lily is letting much pass her by with this colorless smelt. He seems less like an unrequited love than a chance acquaintance. When Lily makes the ultimate sacrifice to spare his reputation, it seems like a wasted effort. This casting leaves the important unrequited romance between the two characters a bust. And while it may be believable that a milksop like May would be enamored of Stoltz in this film, it is inconceivable that a being depicted with the voracious appetites of Linney's Bertha Dorsett would stoop to inspect him much less expose herself to vulnerabilities to chase him. A really foolish bit of casting here that nearly throws the film off balance.

The House of Mirth is in some ways a remarkable period film, the story of a young woman's gradual decline from the spotlight of 1905 New York society to humiliation and defeat a couple of years later. Gillian Anderson turns in a compelling performance in the lead as this young woman, Lily Bart. But, as has been noted by others who've read Edith Wharton's novel, this is not a fully successful literary adaptation.The book is over five hundred pages long. To deal with such complexity, the writers have sliced it into tableaux, which give an imperfect idea of the narrative, and many details of character and incident are oversimplified, including the omission of a key figure, Gerty Farish, the humble friend of Selden who represents what Lily fears becoming herself. Still, various characters appear lacking in context. The book is just too complicated to be turned into a feature film. Despite the fact that certain scenes and dialogue are followed quite literally, a great deal of explanatory material has of course been lost. Along with this blunting of the richness of the book, the cast isn't strong enough, and in some places is disappointing. The lovely look of the film, its very authentic locations and costumes, can't make up for these two huge flaws. Davies said he picked Gillian Anderson because she looked like a Sargent painting and at times she does, but unfortunately she has to act; she's not quite capable of conveying all the nuances of Lily's personality, and besides, is not the dazzling and delicate beauty Wharton clearly describes her as being. At times she looks almost plain. Further, the screenplay fails to convey that Lily was not just unlucky in cards and unwilling to do what was necessary to pay her debts but also a lavish spender on clothes and baubles and enormously spoiled.As the all-important Lawrence Selden, the respectable but not wealthy enough lawyer Lily loves but feels she cannot marry, Eric Stoltz is flabby, a washout. All he's good at is looking smart in his period costumes and wavy red hair, and smoking cigarettes. Selden is far too important a character to be so weak: there needs to be strong chemistry between him and Lily and he needs to be compelling and magnetic not vacuous and pretty.For a novel about society, the film is at times badly off on details of manners, which must be conveyed first of all by good casting. Even if this is his "finest role to date" (Hoberman), Dan Ackroyd is nonetheless inadequate. Gus Tremor is a man of high society who is rich, fat, and boorish. Ackroyd as Gus is adequate only for the fat and boorish part; he doesn't suggest a person to the manor born. One of the embarrassing ironies is that while Sim Rosedale's Jewishness, central to the novel and an aspect of Wharton's own conventional anti-Semitism, is suppressed and converted by vague implication into Italianness with the casting of LaPaglia, an obviously Jewish actress is introduced, in the anti-Semitic climate of this narrative, in the person of Eleanor Bron to play Lily's aunt. That might be justified if the actress were good, but Ms. Brun's performance is a crude caricature. She plays Mrs. Julia Peniston, Lily's Aunt as a wicked witch rather than the disapproving prude of the novel. Something seems off in the conception of Lily's cruel nemesis, Bertha Dorset. Laura Linney, who has the role, is a good actress. But in her key scene she seems more gleefully spiteful than coolly calculating, not an appropriate attitude given the gravity of her own situation. This is a weakness in Davies' direction, surely one of many. He captures the big "arc" of Lily's decline effectively and there is drama and shock in Lily Bart's rapid decline as dramatized by Ms. Anderson; but do we ever understand it? As on other occasions when wonderful novels have been adapted into films that capture the outlines but miss the core, we can only recommend: read the book.

I'm not sure how this movie could get a bad review. Of course, there are those people who find its pace too slow. However, one must realize that this is a period drama; it's not meant to be an action-packed suspense thriller. Everything is subtle, but it is so beautifully prepared, thought out, and executed by all.1. Were it for nothing else, the technical aspects of this film would have kept me watching until the very end. The music was perfectly placed to rise and fall with the internal emotions of the characters - especially Lily and Lawrence - and to express the turmoil of the social downfall of Lily. On top of that, you have phenomenal costumes and set with the most lavish colors. Lastly, and possibly what I found most fascinating about the film, was the lighting. it always seemed just bright enough or just dark enough to reflect the romance or dreariness. In addition, there is just not denying that the way the light fell upon Gillian Anderson in every, single scene is something I have never seen before.2. The all-star cast! Gillian Anderson. Eric Stolz. Laura Linney. Anthony LaPaglia. Dan Akroyd. Do I have to go on? I can almost guarantee that you'll find yourself, at one point or another, yelling at the screen. These characters are so manipulative and deceitful and malicious. And Lily is so naive and just won't accept love when it's given!! I think the best thing about the cast and performances in this film is that watching the film and listening to it are 2 completely opposite experiences. The actors convey one thing with their faces and another with their voices; it's pure talent. I was amazed.3. If nothing else, this film should watched purely for Gillian Anderson. This project was so different than her 'X Files' persona - and such a success, at that. The way she uses her eyes to express 5 different emotions in a matter of seconds blew me away. Her acting and utter vulnerability was awe-inspiring.