The Wings of the Dove (1997)

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

The Wings of the Dove (1997)Yes, this is a quite, indirect, thoughtful movie. But it is never slow. And the acting is incredible, almost as incredible as all the dresses and interior sets, which will blow anyone's mind. The story, by Henry James (the master of indirect but probing feelings), is about love of all kinds. And about being a good person, really. Three of the four main leads struggle with doing the right thing (and they do the right thing). The fourth struggles, falters, then comes forward again, then falters, finally, by making a demand that can never be met.It's unfair to compare this kind of period movie (set around 1910 even though James's book was published in 1902) to "A Room with a View" (set in the same decade) but the reason this happens is that the 1985 Merchant-Ivory masterpiece seemed to open up a new way of making period films, filled with beauty and lingering thoughts and, well, feeling. Not the feeling two people have for each other, but a feeling of a time and place. It so happens the star of this 1997 film, Helena Bonham Carter, also starred (magnificently) in the first one.The other star is a man, Linus Roache, who almost overplays his understated character by making him dry and deadpan and polite. But it works, over time, to help make the final few seconds of the film (which are so important) succeed. The third lead, really, in this lopsided triangle, is Alison Elliott, who puts in an equally subtle performance. So much of the movie is about little changes in facial expression, the acting had to rise to the needs of the plot. Bonham Carter, above all, does this with chilling perfection.But those dresses! This is what is called Edwardian England, the first decade of the 20th Century, a time when modernity swept Europe with a passion (Picasso and Klimt) and when cars and other new technologies were surging. The styles of the dresses are part Art Nouveau, with its Asian influences, and part European excess, a showing off of style and wealth and material sensibility. Thank god! It's just breathtaking. The interiors are likewise brimming with tiles and flowers and paintings and light of all kinds.All of this is handled with a cinematic control that reminds me of the color coordination of mid-century Technicolor films, where the palette of a scene is often limited to a pair of colors. You'll see many scenes where a mix of blue and rusty orange are the only two colors in various guises (and these are most common because of the hair and eyes of Elliott). The cinematography is by Eduardo Serra, one of a handful of the most sumptuous contemporary shooters in film ("Girl with the Pearl Earring" and "What Dreams May Come"). And he lets the light and color inhabit every scene, never letting the photography get in the way. Just beautiful.So what does it mean to be a good person? Who cares with all this great acting and beautiful filming? But really, you do care, and it's a touching and provoking film in all its quietness. And it's not a bit obscure. Henry James never quite liked the book, but I think it's because he expected more from it, the themes and characters are so promising. Critics have come to see it as one of his great late novels, and that much is here. Director Iain Softley takes a couple of turns that the book avoids--a little sensational talk toward the beginning, and a frank and sex scene at the end--and both are okay in the film but not actually in keeping with the tone of the rest of it, which is about never quite showing your hand even to your closest friends. It's about waiting to speak, and hiding even good intentions for fear of seeming good when in fact part of being good is simply being good, not merely seeming it.

The Wings of the Dove is a sinister, fascinating love story.Helena Bonham Carter plays Kate Croy, an ambitious but poor young woman who lives on the generosity of a rich aunt. Unable to live poor but not wanting to surrender to the husband her aunt is trying to find for her, she hatches a genius and simple plan: to let her boyfriend, Merton Densher (Linus Roache) seduce the rich and dying American millionaire Millie (Alison Elliott) so that she will leave all her money to him.Carter shines in this movie and her performance is one of the main reasons to watch it. It's one of those rare performances in which all the character's thoughts and feelings are transmitted by the eyes; Carter's eyes are always expressive, she barely needs any dialogue.And yet Hossein Amini's screenplay is also one of the brighter aspects of the movie. I cannot judge ho well he adapted the novel since I haven't yet read it, but as a movie it's a joy: each dialogue is essential, precise and enjoyable; no words are wasted or out of place. The movie's pacing is constant, deceptively calm but always filled with tension, for deception is pretty much the theme of the movie: how far will someone go to deceive another, and what effect will it have on them? For Merton the moral consequences of the deception haunt him as he realizes he may be falling in love with Millie, whereas Kate fears she may be losing her beloved's affection. Between this strange dynamic we have the innocent, cheerful Millie.The movie is also a fine period piece: Sandy Powell got a a much-deserved Oscar nomination for the costume design, but in truth all aspects of the movie deserve merit for their recreation of England in 1910. This movie takes us to places period movies seldom do: the underground system; the interior of bookshops and opium-dens; the interior of museums (in a wonderful sequence the characters attend a Klimt exhibition).And then there's the way Eduardo Serra's cinematography captures Venice in 1910. Serra is an under-appreciated director of cinematography, although he's left his mark in many memorable movies. His best work perhaps remains this movie, in particular the segment taking place in Venice. The way he captures the old canals, the gondolas, the colors at night during Carnival, the decay of the buildings, the beauty of the monuments, perhaps surpass the classic Death In Venice.The Wings of the Dove was a pleasant surprise, an underrated movie that caught me completely by surprise with its perfection. Although it was nominated for several Oscars back in 1998, it seems time has forgotten it. That's a pity, but for those who dare to give it a look, it'll be a huge source of joy!

The inevitable question will be: is "The Wings of the Dove" faithful to its source material? I, alas, can't answer that question for you, because to me Henry James's novel was 800 pages of random words strung together in ways that resembled sentences but made absolutely no other kind of sense. I'd rather be bludgeoned to death with one of his books than ever have to read another one -- the movie version could have featured transvestite cyborgs for all I cared; as long as I wasn't actually having to read it, I was a happy boy.The film is pretty good, about what you'd expect from a period piece based on a famous literary classic. It's got more pizazz than a Merchant-Ivory production, and boasts a great performance from a Merchant-Ivory regular, Helena Bonham Carter. It's nothing special, but probably worth a watch.Grade: B

I'll confess that this is not entirely my favorite genre. I like some British costume drama's, as long as they have some quirkiness added to it, such as for instance is the case in such movies as "Barry Lyndon", "The Draughtsman's Contract" and "Dangerous Liaisons". This movie is more in the style and mind of a Jane Austen novel, which is just not the type of movie for which I sit down and enjoy watching.But nevertheless that doesn't mean I'm totally blind for the quality this movie got made in. Its Oscar nominations; Best Actress in a Leading Role, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design and Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium, are all certainly ones I can agree with. Add to that the costume design and you have the 5 elements that make this a good and certainly perfectly watchable movie.What I like about the story is that it features an original love-triangle. It's not the type of love-triangle you would just expect and it also makes the movie as a whole original not entirely predictable to watch. It's well layered and executed in the movie. It however perhaps too long for the movie to take shape. Basically the first halve of the movie totally couldn't interest me and it was standard, slow and just not that interesting. However the second halve, from the moment on the movie gets set in Venice, really made up a lot for me.The movie is set at the early 20th century, which is not the most usual time period for this type of movie. However, if you would had told me the movie was set in the late 19th century I would had also believed it. Basically it are only the cars and phones that give away that this movie is set in the 20th century. The rest of the movie just feels and looks the same as any other costume drama set during a more common earlier time period. The sets and costumes for this time period are just fantastic. Not just for the Venice sequences but also really for the sequences set in London.The movie is also not as heavy handed as it might sound and as you perhaps would expect. The movie mostly remains on the shallow safe side, until heads toward its very ending. It often makes this a bland and rather formulaic movie to watch, despite its hospitality. I think you can blame director Iain Softley, who directed his movie rather static and standard. Or perhaps blame the '90's, which just wasn't the most style-full period for movie making.A good and certainly watchable movie, that perhaps should had been a bit more bold and edgier in its execution.7/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/