The local cinematheque screened a few weeks ago the 2000 adaptation of Edit Wharton's now classic novel The House of Mirth, whose first screen adaptation to screen dates back from 1918.The House of Mirth is a combination of a social and personal drama the story of the descent of a young woman from high class into poverty, of the price to be paid for keeping the dignity in a society that seems to define rigidly the place and track in life of each human being according to their birth, their place in the social hierarchy, their sex, and their material fortune. The American society at the beginning of the 20th century does not seem to resemble too much to the land of all opportunities described in many other literary or cinematographic works. Lily Bart, the apparently apparently frivolous character who stays in the center of the action is smart and beautiful, apparently high in the social hierarchy but too poor to be allowed to make her own choices and play a different role than the one of the well-married girl, or of the woman supported by rich and powerful men. Her refuse to surrender to the social pressure ends in catastrophic results.12 years only after it was made Terence Davies' film looks much older than it's age. A team of TV stars from the 80s (Eric Stolz), 90s (Gilian Anderson) and 2000s (Anthony LaPaglia) do more than a decent job, but I felt like the adaptation to screen borrowed some of the stiffness of the social environment described in the story. More passion, more nuances in the relationship between the characters would have made this film more interesting. Gilian Anderson is a great actress but her discrete acting seems pushed one step too far, her breaking down comes too late to give meaning to her self-sacrifice. This too academic version to screen is interesting mostly for the fans of the social historical American dramas. Which is kind of a paradox as the novel was at its time an exercise in contemporary prose. But this is also history.

If ever there was a flick calculated to annoy and depress,this is it.Short on dialogue and long on "funereal" settings,House of Mirth is anything but. Not that I expected a cackle-fest! Best acting can be blamed on Dan Ackroyd though.I thought things were warming up when he appeared.No such luck. I really would have liked the pretentious heroine to have become,a scheming blackmailer,rich,beyond her wildest dreams and the toast of New York!But it was not to be.She was,in her own word,useless.Without any ability to marshal resources offered by friends,this lass's fate was sealed. To all 21st century young ladies who now think a "kick*ss" attitude will get them through life-beware,take heed of Lillie's fate.

In Old New York, a lovely and exquisitely refined young woman without money, friends or family is slowly ground down and destroyed by the city's uncaring elite.Edith Wharton's classic novel works solely because Lily Bart is such a gentle, refined, and sensitive personality. Time after time, she does foolish, cowardly things -- but she is never coarse, cruel or vulgar. That is what sets her apart from the rest of New York society, and that is why she must die.Unfortunately, director Terence Davies and his star Gillian Anderson both fail to grasp Lily's essential charm. The Lily they create is dumber, lazier, weaker, and greedier than her literary prototype. Each classic scene is redone in a way that makes Lily less a sensitive soul and more a luckless tramp. Instead of being an angel fouled by gossip she's simply a sexy girl caught with her hand in the cookie jar.In the book when Lily and Lawrence Selden chat it's purely a meeting of kindred spirits. They enjoy each other's company, certainly. But there's no real sexual tension, let alone heavy breathing. In the movie Lily all but devours Selden with her eyes, and the effect is comic rather than tragic. Poor Lily looks so heated and rumpled leaving his flat that it's entirely reasonable for outsiders to get the wrong idea.The same problem mars Lily's relationship with the women in her set. In the book Lily falls in with cruel Bertha Dorsett only because she's naive and innocent. In the movie it's obvious that Lily longs for the luxuries and pleasures of being a perpetual house guest, especially when Bertha and Bertha's husband George are paying the bills. Watching Lily moan with pleasure on the massage table while sly Bertha promises her an extended Mediterranean cruise totally underlines the wrong point -- that Lily is weak and easily tempted, not refined and easily misled. And it's even more ridiculous when Lily's shown gorging herself on fruits and ices, resting in the shade while sly Bertha plants rumors in the ears of the gentlemen that she's easy and available! In the book Lily's story is excruciatingly sad. In the movie it's sleazy, tawdry, and often unintentionally funny. All in all this film is a classic example of what happens when a modern director completely fails to understand the spirit of classic literature.

Saw this film recently on TV. It started off well enough - I mainly spent my time trying to identify the painters used as models for the composition (Tissot, Monet, Whistler, etc.). However there are only so many lovely Edwardian frocks one can admire.....The actors all seemed to live in an alternative universe where time stretches out endlessly (one of their minutes equals 2 of ours...) apart from Gus and Mr. Rosedale. There were a number of baffling points - that I haven't seen addressed here - although I have not read all the reviews. 1. The letters: why did the cleaning lady bring the letters to Lily when they were signed by Bertha?how did the cleaning lady know who Lily was and where she lived? Was it the usual practice for young ladies to have one hundred dollars (presumably a very large sum at the time) about their person - Lily didn't even need to go to another room to fetch the cash... 2. How come Lily, a young lady living with her aunt, went all on her own to the opera with 2 men - neither of which was related to her? This seems very odd to me - after all one's reputation was very fragile I can't imagine this happening in Edwardian times. 3. Why did Lily not sell her earrings if she was short of cash? 4. Who was the duchess and why should she be invited to dinner - to impress who?? All in all, while the film seemed to drag on for ever none of the characters was properly developed and we kept meeting new and mysterious people. the whole story was quite uninvolving since we didn't really know who anyone was or their position in society. I assume Mrs Fisher was a lower rung than Bertha of the large yacht - as evidenced by her sloppy way of sitting! Lily comes across as a very silly person - but I think we're meant to sympathise with her. Selden meanwhile is just a rather smug lawyer - he never says anything amusing or interesting - and yet is not even a reprobate.