Quite a disappointment. This movie fit a class that I run into from time to time: the movie that engages me well for the whole movie, such that I don't find out that I hate it until I get to the ending. In this case, it was the kind of ending where the movie doesn't so much end as run out of stuff. That is, there's no real resolution that ties everything together or anything, and you realize that what we've seen is more a series-of-events rather than a cohesive plot. Was it a happy ending? A sad ending? I still can't tell. But it certainly was an unsatisfying ending.
If the plot isn't coherent, neither are the characters. I *still* don't understand a lot of the characters' motivations. Why was Wilcox such an obnoxious, stubborn fool about letting Helen stay one night in the house? When Meg has clearly and superbly delineated his hypocrisy, it just bounces right off of him. He doesn't concede the point, he doesn't deny the point, he just ignores it. That was just a weird way to behave. If nothing else, it paints the guy as a complete, irredeemable jerk. So the movie seems to strike a triumphant note when Meg finally tells him she's leaving him. That was the kind of wonderful moment which made it seem like the film was going somewhere. But then, *poof*, nothing comes of it, she's still with him and kissing him at the end. Huh? She ultimately makes no sense as a character, one can never see what she sees in this jerk, or why she constantly kowtows to him, despite being a strong enough character with everybody else. Then there's the brother, Tippy or Flippy or whatever his name was. Why? Why is he in this movie? He does NOTHING. He adds nothing, does nothing, says almost nothing, he's more a piece of the set than a character. Someone else here also pointed that out. And speaking of props-rather-than-characters, there was Jackie. The first thing I noticed at the end of the film was that she was given NO resolution. So ultimately, she, as a character, went nowhere and amounted to nothing. You could have entirely omitted her and nothing would've been any different. It was also pointed out, very appropriately, the way that Helen's character is slapdash. There's the whole big deal about her stealing umbrellas, then that utterly disappears. Comes off as pretty contrived. And what about the whole original thing with her having the aborted affair with young Wilcox? That too went nowhere and amounted to nothing.
And, by the way, I waited half the movie for the family-history tidbit about the original Mrs. Wilcox having a brother or uncle or someone who asked for that other woman's hand and was rejected-- I waited half the movie for that to become relevant, trying to figure out who that might've been and how they tied in. Answer? Went nowhere, meant nothing, just another irrelevant detail. This movie was a complete soup of irrelevant details.
Yes, the performances were fine (given what the actors had to work with). Yes, the sets and costumes and all provide a fine period recreation. And the music was quite good (but more about that in a minute). For those three things I gave it three stars instead of one. But the fact is, at the end of the movie I find myself frustrated and cheated. There was no real plot, and, in the end, there wasn't a single character in the movie that I *liked*. I had liked Meg for almost the whole movie, but when she went back with The Jerk at the end, that was just too much for me.
And finally, let's talk about the music. I was enraptured when they did the bit with the Beethoven fifth (some of the finest, most moving music ever written). Especially when the naked piano version from the lecture hall morphs into the full, powerful orchestral score. I was excited, thinking, "Excellent! They're using the wonderful 3rd movement as a leitmotif! This'll be great!" But no, as with all else in this film, it means nothing and goes nowhere. It comes back exactly once, and only as a concrete flashback, when Umbrella Man is dreaming of the day he met Helen. What did it signify? Nothing. Just the concrete event.
In short, this film did a great deal to raise my expectations and hopes and extremely little to actually fulfill them.
If the plot isn't coherent, neither are the characters. I *still* don't understand a lot of the characters' motivations. Why was Wilcox such an obnoxious, stubborn fool about letting Helen stay one night in the house? When Meg has clearly and superbly delineated his hypocrisy, it just bounces right off of him. He doesn't concede the point, he doesn't deny the point, he just ignores it. That was just a weird way to behave. If nothing else, it paints the guy as a complete, irredeemable jerk. So the movie seems to strike a triumphant note when Meg finally tells him she's leaving him. That was the kind of wonderful moment which made it seem like the film was going somewhere. But then, *poof*, nothing comes of it, she's still with him and kissing him at the end. Huh? She ultimately makes no sense as a character, one can never see what she sees in this jerk, or why she constantly kowtows to him, despite being a strong enough character with everybody else. Then there's the brother, Tippy or Flippy or whatever his name was. Why? Why is he in this movie? He does NOTHING. He adds nothing, does nothing, says almost nothing, he's more a piece of the set than a character. Someone else here also pointed that out. And speaking of props-rather-than-characters, there was Jackie. The first thing I noticed at the end of the film was that she was given NO resolution. So ultimately, she, as a character, went nowhere and amounted to nothing. You could have entirely omitted her and nothing would've been any different. It was also pointed out, very appropriately, the way that Helen's character is slapdash. There's the whole big deal about her stealing umbrellas, then that utterly disappears. Comes off as pretty contrived. And what about the whole original thing with her having the aborted affair with young Wilcox? That too went nowhere and amounted to nothing.
And, by the way, I waited half the movie for the family-history tidbit about the original Mrs. Wilcox having a brother or uncle or someone who asked for that other woman's hand and was rejected-- I waited half the movie for that to become relevant, trying to figure out who that might've been and how they tied in. Answer? Went nowhere, meant nothing, just another irrelevant detail. This movie was a complete soup of irrelevant details.
Yes, the performances were fine (given what the actors had to work with). Yes, the sets and costumes and all provide a fine period recreation. And the music was quite good (but more about that in a minute). For those three things I gave it three stars instead of one. But the fact is, at the end of the movie I find myself frustrated and cheated. There was no real plot, and, in the end, there wasn't a single character in the movie that I *liked*. I had liked Meg for almost the whole movie, but when she went back with The Jerk at the end, that was just too much for me.
And finally, let's talk about the music. I was enraptured when they did the bit with the Beethoven fifth (some of the finest, most moving music ever written). Especially when the naked piano version from the lecture hall morphs into the full, powerful orchestral score. I was excited, thinking, "Excellent! They're using the wonderful 3rd movement as a leitmotif! This'll be great!" But no, as with all else in this film, it means nothing and goes nowhere. It comes back exactly once, and only as a concrete flashback, when Umbrella Man is dreaming of the day he met Helen. What did it signify? Nothing. Just the concrete event.
In short, this film did a great deal to raise my expectations and hopes and extremely little to actually fulfill them.