"We'd have a good time, if only we'd stop trying to be happy." - Edith Wharton Jane Campion directs "The Portrait of a Lady", a film based on a Henry James novel of the same name. The plot? Nicole Kidman plays Isabel Archer, a young expatriate living in nineteenth century London. Though expected to be "sensible" and "marry a wealthy man", Isabel opts instead to be "free"; she travels around the world, turning down various marriage proposals along the way.Eventually Isabel meets the devious Gilbert Osmond (John Malkovich), whom she "freely" chooses to marry. This backfires; Gilbert's simply using Isabel to get at her impressive financial assets. The film's final act finds Isabel attempting to fight for the independence of Gilbert's daughter. If Isabel cannot be "free", then she will ensure that others can be.Anyone familiar with the proto-feminist novels of Edith Wharton, Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf etc will find very few surprises in "The Portrait of a Lady". This is ultimately a by-the-numbers account of 19th century upper-middle-class social circles, a sexist and classist milieu which cinema often delves into. The film's themes of "female independence" are given a subversive twist – Isabel would have been happier had she not enslaved herself to vague notions of "freedom", and had she succumbed instead to the very notions of romantic love which she cynically deems old-fashioned – but pale in comparison's to Campion's best films. Consider Campion's "Bright Star", also set in the 19th century, and "Holy Smoke", also about an adventurous expatriate, both of which handle this material in fresh and exciting ways.Unlike the vast majority of Campion's pictures, "Portrait's" screenplay wasn't written by its director. Because of this, "Portrait" lacks that distinct personal stamp which makes Campion's other films so special. "Portrait's" aesthetic is also routine, though Campion's able to conjure up a number of wonderful moments. The film's New Age prologue, in which Campion's camera captures the awakenings of 20th century women whose sexual revolution the film's 19th century characters will later be denied, is particularly wonderful. Several dream sequences and black-and-white interludes also hint at what Campion is capable of at her best. Nicole Kidman is excellent as the conflicted Isabel Archer.7.5/10 – See "The Remains of the Day", "The Story of Qiu Ju", "Red Sorghum" and "Raise the Red Lantern".

A dreadful version of the great novel. Shame on you Laura Jones. Shame on the director for depicting Isabel Archer (Nicole Kidman) as a rather plain, uninteresting young woman with a goofy hairdo. What can possibly attract all of those men who want to marry her? And the ending was completely unsatisfactory. A much better way of telling this story, since James' prose is so rich with internal motivations and feelings which cannot easily be revealed by dialogue or even by facial expressions, would be to have voice-over. This would have allowed for a much improved climax. There are only two commendable elements here. One is the cinematography and the other actor John Malkovich, who portrayed a superb Osmond.

Henry James has never struck me as being the most cinematic of authors; his novels generally involve detailed explorations of the psychology of his characters and are marked by a highly elaborate prose style, characterised by lengthy, complex sentences and Latinate vocabulary. Yet a number of films have been based on his works, some of them very successful, dating back to "The Lost Moment" (based on "The Aspern Papers") and "The Heiress" (based on "Washington Square") in the late forties. The Merchant-Ivory team made three film adaptations of his novels, "The Europeans", "The Bostonians" and "The Golden Bowl". Like many of James's novels, "The Portrait of a Lady" is set among American expatriates in Europe. The central character, Isabel Archer, is a young American woman who becomes financially independent after she inherits a large amount of money from her English uncle Mr Touchett. While travelling on the Continent she meets another American expatriate, Gilbert Osmond, in Florence. The two marry, but the marriage is not a happy one, and Isabel comes to suspect that Osmond is a fortune-hunter whose only interest in her is financial. The film is made in the "heritage cinema" style, popular in the eighties and nineties, and is reminiscent of the work of Merchant-Ivory and of certain other films of the period, such as Martin Scorsese's "The Age of Innocence" and Terence Davies's "The House of Mirth". Films in this style are generally set in the nineteenth or early twentieth century among the well-to-do classes, are generally based upon a literary source and are characterised by a detailed recreation of the look of the period and by an emphasis on dialogue and character development rather than physical action. Nicole Kidman's acting career got off to a promising start with films like "Dead Calm" and "Flirting", but over the next ten years or so she seemed to get stuck in something of a rut, appearing in far too many dull or second-rate films like "Far and Away", "Batman Forever", "Practical Magic" and the dreadful "Moulin Rouge". "The Portrait of a Lady" is considerably better than any of those films, but Kidman's performance is not her best, and her accent is not always reliable. It has become commonplace to describe American actors unsuccessfully attempting a British accent (or vice-versa) as being stuck in mid- Atlantic. Kidman's Aussie-tinged American accent is probably the first example of a major stat being linguistically stuck in mid-Pacific. John Malkovich is a lot better; like his Valmont in another period drama, "Dangerous Liaisons" his Osmond is the sort of character he excels at playing, able to combine an icy reptilian coldness with a certain smooth and plausible charm. There are also good contributions from Barbara Hershey as Osmond's friend and co-conspirator Madame Merle and from John Gielgud in a cameo as the elderly Touchett. (Gielgud was 92 at the time, and this was far from being his last film; he was to continue working up until his death in 2000 at the age of 96). Although Henry James was a dramatist as well as a novelist, and adapted several of his books for the stage, he considered "The Portrait of a Lady" to be unsuitable for dramatic presentation and dissuaded a friend who wanted to turn it into a play. That, however, did not dissuade Jane Campion from attempting to film the novel. Having recently watched the film for the first time since seeing it in the cinema in 1996, I can say that, in my view, James was probably right. It is, like many examples of "heritage cinema", visually attractive, but it is also rather emotionally cold and too slow-moving. There is nothing much about it which remains in the mind for long afterwards. It does not really compare with the greatest heritage movies like "The Age of Innocence", "The House of Mirth" or the best examples of Merchant-Ivory's work such as "Howard's End". Or, for that matter, with Jane Campion's own earlier, more dramatic and passionate period drama, "The Piano". 6/10

Spoilers throughout Most of the acting is fine. But I had a problem with the later Kidman scenes. Kidman needed less of the weeping and more anger or deviousness, to keep herself away from her vile husband as much as possible. Instead she is a typical victim, inviting his spite and weeping when he exerts it. She even lets the thug hit her.Clearly Isabel was heading for a fall right from the start of the story. She's quite convinced there's no point in marrying her decent suitor Goodwood, she wants as people often do to live it up for some years before marriage. Unfortunately, she isn't nearly as clever as she thinks she is and it's not long before she's met the devious Merle and has been hoodwinked into marriage with Merle's vile lover Osmond so that the pair of them can live on Isabel's money.Standard Henry James type of theme. American girls take people at face value but expect value for money. Europeans are devious and will say/do anything to get an American heiress's money as they are always had up but want to live the high life. Isabel is naive - totally fooled by Osmond's pretence to be an aesthete. Osmond is a self-satisfied, conceited, totally self-centred and selfish jerk who thinks he's a wonderful and admirable aesthete whom everyone should admire but we audience see through him right from the start. Even his long-time mistress and mother of the child Pansy, Merle, is deceived by him until he finally, at the end, tells her he never cared about her either and she realises she has wasted her life on him and suffered from having to hide the true identity of her child for nothing.Osmond's method is the well-known "Whatever happens it's always your fault, I am perfect and blameless, I am a saint and you are selfish/thoughtless/stupid/venomous/a liar/hiding the truth/whatever along with the ruthless Victorian head of the family you do as I say nonsense that women had to put up with in that period. The jaw dropping thing is that Isabel becomes totally witless - seems to believe all this drivel from her vicious husband and begs his forgiveness every time. She becomes aware gradually that he is being unfair but hasn't the guts to tell him so to his face and then walk out - it would be difficult but perfectly possible for her to have fled with her American lover Goodwood who is at his wits end why it is she won't be with him even though clearly she has feelings for him.Osmond's daughter falls for "the wrong man". Isabel tries to help Pansy, by helping to deter the suitor her father wants, but Osmond soon finds out, accuses his wife of being treacherous and sends his daughter to a convent to "think about her errors and her future". Pansy proves to be like her father - treacherous. She tells Isabel dismissively, "I have learned that I must always obey my father." So much for Isabel trying to help the girl to be with the man who loved her - Pansy is revealed as shallow like her parents. Isabel is a fool - she has allowed herself to be brainwashed by a jerk because she thought he was glamorous (though anyone less glamorous than this Osmond would be hard to find, I disliked him on sight, quite correctly). Isabel's kindly cousin Ralph has the sadly not unusual consumption, and now is dying and Isabel goes to him in England in spite of her husband refusing to believe Ralph was that ill, ie a means to again force his wife to his own bidding through trading on her loyalty. But Isabel is more loyal to Ralph and goes to him.Ralph dies. Goodwood is there and at last we think it is his time. Can Isabel is well away from her Florence-based husband. She can now go back to the USA with devoted Goodwood? In an outdoor scene, she finally makes clear she now loves Goodwood and kisses him, but then she runs away from him back into the house. The movie ends with her standing at the door of the house looking towards the camera. You can't tell for sure what she'll do next but there's a feeling of foreboding.Beats me why the movie didn't finish the story. Goodwood calls next day only to discover that Isabel has gone straight back to her husband. We are told her friend who has been Ralph's companion has "taught Goodwood how to wait". How long, the reader wonders? Presumably until Osmond dies, but that man I would suspect will outlive everyone and Isabel will never leave him because if she did, she'd betray her own original conceit that she wanted to live an exciting and meaningful life. Basically, Isabel is a silly, self-destructive woman. She could never make any man happy. She needs, it seems, to be bullied.