Tuesday, February 06, 2007

THE PAINTED VEIL

Director: John Curran (We Don't Live Here Anymore)
Starring: Naomi Watts, Ed Norton, Liev Schreiber, Toby Jones

William Somerset Maugham was in some ways the Steven King, or Arthur Hailey of his generation. He was the best selling author of his time (1920s and 30s), and his stories tended toward the formulaic, helping ensure that each new tale would be accepted by readers. Each of these writers were generally disregarded by critics, yet adored by fans. The work of each (at times) inched toward art, but as often (or more often for King) it was sheer entertainment.

Maugham's stories were usually set in far flung corners of the British Empire, giving exotic settings to his tales of intrigue, love, and human frailty. Many of his stories and characters were said to be lifted from his life, The Painted Veil being a prime example. Supposedly he changed the story at least twice so as not to offend some Britons living in Hong Kong at the time. The Painted Veil is not one of Maugham's most successful stories, but it is certainly archetypal of what he wrote. As is often the case, simpler, more straightforward novels make better movies than more complex ones, and Maugham was known as a simple, straightforward writer. The Painted Veil feels like a movie script, and works well as a film. It's no great work of art, but it's a nice picture, simple and enjoyable.

Ed Norton plays a timid bacteriologist in 1930s British society. In a whirlwind he is soon wed to young Kitty (Watts) who's parents desperately want to marry her off. In the best of circumstances she certainly would have no desire to be married, but she does so anyway if only to get away. Soon after they are in Shanghai, where he has been dispatched in the foreign service. Bored, alone, and unhappy with her marriage she dallies around with the local ladies man (Schreiber). Norton discovers this and angrily gives his wife 3 choices: They can quietly divorce if Scheiber will promise to marry her, or he will publicly - and shamefully - divorce her for adultry, or she can come with him to a village in the deep interior of China in the throws of a deadly cholera outbreak. She soon finds that her lover has no intentions of marrying her, and fearing the shame of a public divorce follows her husband into the heart of village China.

Here, isolated in an entirely alien world, they slowly reconnect. He struggles to contain the outbreak, and she begins to help the local children along with a group of French nuns. Their anger toward each other eventually melts away until, ironically, the good doctor finally succumbs to the disease he is treating, and she is forced to give him up just as they've found each other again. (Yes, yes, it's fairly melodramatic.)

Much of the film was shot in China, and the locations are at times beautiful. The cinematography never really astounds, however. It's more pretty than wonderful. I am not a huge fan of Watts, but she is acceptable in this role. Although as always, I just didn't find her particularly interesting. At first I found Norton's English accent annoying, but in time it grew on me (in some ways like he grew on Kitty in the story), so I can applaud Norton's effort, although as a whole I can only rate his performance as good, not great. In fact that review can apply to the film as a whole. It was good, not great. At times the story felt a tad cheesy, at others it was fairly engrossing. At times it was lovely, but it never wowed me.

Standouts: Solid efforts across the board, but nothing blew me away.
Blowouts: Maugham's story was a bit cheesy at times, although not awful by any measure.

Grade: B

2 Comments:

At 11:34 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

official is official, watts is the first billed lead of this film as per the film opening credits and the poster. norton is 2nd listed. you may not be a fan of watts and applaud norton's effort, but please do not relegate her after norton.

same as i, many renowned film critics think this is watts' best performance since mulholland drive. acceptable is your personal & a minority opinion, which is fine though. without the minority, how can the majority be important and representative?

 
At 1:27 PM, Blogger Brian said...

"watts is the first billed lead of this film ..."

True that. I certainly just bill the roles according to how I view them, but in this case I agree with them and you. She really was the lead role so to speak. It's notable too since one of my major complaints with this film were the misogynistic undertones of the story. (The girl was a selfish little child and the noble nerdy guy gave her a good lesson, and then died for his trouble.) So I really should note Watts first.

"same as i, many renowned film critics think this is watts' best performance since mulholland drive."

Technically, I agree with this, although I haven't yet seen either The Ring, or The Ring II, so I suppose that could change. :)

One thing's for certain tho, I'd be a pretty bad reviewer if I never disagreed with a renowned film critic.

If majority ruled film criticism then the best movies would be a pretty bland bunch (I think Toy Story 2 is the highest rated all time movie on Rotten tomatoes). I hope you're not going to argue that there isn't a difference between "right" and "popular". By that logic than I suppose we've always elected the best president in every single election, since the most votes equals the best?

Nonetheless thanks for the thoughts!

 

Post a Comment

<< Home