|
|
Rating:  - A beautiful period "art" film for a sophisticated audience
Merchant Ivory's "Maurice" is a must for those who collect period "art" films as well as those interested in gay themes. This beautifully photographed and acted narrative has a positive message unlike "The Talented Mr. Ripley", which I also enjoy but which is very cinema noir. Nothing Merchant Ivory has done is hackneyed. All their films resonate with a cultivated and cultured audience. This film is no exception.
Rating: - This still happens everyday to people I know
HOW DOES ONE EXPRESS ONES SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN A CULTURE AND CLASS THAT SIMPLY WON'T BEAR IT???
MAURICE has long been one of my favorite movies . I have seen it so many times, but on this last viewing I was struck with something that had never occurred to me before: I have for years worked among the VERY wealthy high society "blue bloods" in which many of the men I know marry because it is the socially acceptable thing to do, denying their own sexual orientation.Often these men live secret lives and are completely miserable for fear of social ostracizing and disinheritance! MAURICE may be an Edwardian English Period Piece to some, but trust me, the same old stuff keeps going on and on in America as I write.Ben Kingsley as The Doctor states, " The English have never been inclined to accept human nature." The story of MAURICE is timeless,especially for cultures that are inclined to be of English heritage.
MAURICE (pronounced MORRIS) ,IMO, is the finest Merchant Ivory film ever done.The story line and acting is rock solid.;the tension and struggle is palpable;the costumes and cinematography are impeccable;and the revelations about the "upper-crust" are insightful and true.James Wilby, Rupert Graves and Hugh Grant are heartbreakingly convincing as the three principles in this human drama of sexual and class struggle.
Excellent companion films would be ANOTHER COUNTRY,WILDE,BREAKING THE CODE and LOST LANGUAGE OF THE CRANES.
Rating: - Almost perfect adaptation of an underappreciated novel
Sometimes the best adaptations are those which do the least amount of adapting. That is, they more or less just put the dialogue as it is in the book onto the screen. In that respect, the novel by E.M. Forster must be a director's dream, because the dialogue is sharp and already reads like a script (a bit like "Brideshead Revisited" by Waugh). And I am glad to say, this minimal approach is what Merchant/Ivory used here, so almost all the best scenes in the novel are also in the movie (and the rest are in the deleted scenes, which are also included on the DVDs).
"Maurice" has often been called a lesser work by Forster, likes Gide's "Corydon" a mere effort to justify the author's homosexuality. However, while the topic was obviously important to Forster, the novel does not sacrifice style for message. The overall construction of plot and characters is very clear and straightforward and less flowery than his other novels. When his other books are heavy in "female dialogue", this one ultimately maintains that deeds are more important than words (and in fact Maurice says so in the beginning), and that physical love is more worthwhile than the upper-class discussing how the have a piano removed from under a crack in the ceiling. So in a way "Maurice" satirizes Forster's earlier works, and maybe that is why many Forster fans don't seem to like it.
I was initially a bit apprehensive about the choice of cast, since Wilby does not exactly look like I imagined the character from the novel and Graves is a bit too much the 1980s pretty boy to be believable as the rugged groundskeeper. Also, Grant has been mostly playing annoying roles ever since the "Four Funerals...", so I was not expecting much of him here. But fortunately, the performances are all very good and -- in the case of Grant -- almost make you forget all the low-quality movies he has been in since.
When I picked this title up I did not even realize it was from the Criterion Collection (it is only mentioned in tiny type on the back cover -- why?), so you actually get two DVDs, one with the movie, the other with extras. The transfer looks exquisite and really brings out the cozy interiors as well as the rainy and foggy outdoors (again, comparisons to the "Brideshead Revisited" adaptation with Jeremy Irons seem apt, and besides Phoebe Nicholls also stars in that).
The predictable extra features are present, like interviews and deleted scenes. You can tell the interviews were filmed with an American audience in mind when the three principal actors endlessly go on about how _they_ themselves are completely heterosexual (only Graves allows for a streak of bisexuality) and how difficult it was to do the love scenes.
This reminds me of the coverage of "Brokeback Mountain" -- apparently you can only make a film with gay themes for Americans if you assure the audience that (a) the actors are straight and (b) they absolutely had no fun at all when filming the intimate scenes. It makes you wonder who is more emotionally stunted, Edwardian England or modern America.
But that aside, the deleted scenes are all very interesting and I wish they would have remained in the movie. So did Ivory himself in his commentary. I would like to know why directors always like to cut 20-30 minutes from their movies only to later complain that they should have left the material in in the first place.
One of the things that is gone is the part when Maurice, in a sort of sexual frenzy, mounts a probably ill-advised seduction attempt on Dr Barry's 16-year-old nephew Dickie. Perhaps it is understandable this was left out, although this might have made Maurice's character a bit less angelic and more well-rounded. But it would also have been an easy target for detractors of the movie.
While it was a better idea to tell the first have half of a movie _not_ in a flashback as in the rough cut, we are missing some little moments here and there, such as when Maurice sees Alec flirting with some of the housemaids. A minor touch, but a reminder that Alec, like perhaps many members of the working-class, should really be considered bisexual. That is, his sexual orientation is not a conscious matter of inquiry of him, he just does what seems to feel right at the moment. That is of course also why a homosexual fling with Maurice is not a big problem to him.
Perhaps the main problem with the movie is that we see too much of Alec too soon, and from his point-of-view (e.g., the camera is behind his back when he is first seen stealing some pastries from a coffee table). In the novel, more distant glimpses of Scudder are gotten from Maurice's POV, who vacillates between attraction and disdain for him as a member for the lower classes.
The moment where Alec climbs into Maurice's bedroom is also not as well handled as in the novel -- in the novel Maurice calls out into the night (at no one in particular), only to have Alec appear on the ladder, which is more surprising and romantic. In the movie, we see Alec watching Maurice from the park as he climbs out the window himself and rocks the ladder. The surprise is spoilt, because we identify at that moment more with Alec than with Maurice.
Another change from the book concerns Clive's sudden motivation to "become" heterosexual. In the movie, an Oscar Wilde-like trial takes place that scares Clive into mending his ways. Then again, I always felt that Clive's 180° turn is actually quite easy to understand, because there really is no change at all: In the beginning, he effuses about Platonic love, which to him is an idea, not a physical reality. In the second half, he is equally exuberant about marriage, but again more as an idea than something sexual (his wife does not look like she gets much sex, or even expects it from her husband). Clive and Maurice are vastly different in that regard -- to Clive love is an idea, separate from reality, while to the less intellectually inclined Maurice it cannot be divorced from sex. And that is why their relationship goes nowhere.
But those are really only minor quibbles. All in all this a sumptuous adaptation of a well-conceived novel. Some adaptations change the plot or dialogue for no reason and make you wish that they had simply stuck to the source, but this one is smart in that it lets Forster's writing, its beautiful photography, and its evocative, wistful score speak for themselves.
Rating: - maurice
beautiful story, beautiful people. loved the movie though i have problems with english accents.
Rating: - True, uninhibited love that conquers
A really good movie taking place in in a society that shows love, even between men, is often struggled for. The acting is really good as are the wonderful sets and scenes. There is some male nudity, which often occurs in the older films, strangely enough. This helps the story though as it takes you on this mans journey from a love that was very limited and hidden to a totally uninhibited love that conquers all barriers. Loved the movie and can watch it over and over. Highly recommended
|
|