Miss Julie (2014)

I have now seen Colin Farrell in a lead role in two very different films. In both, he gave a ludicrously histrionic performance. In both, the director either made changes to the source material or arranged the accents of the entire cast to accommodate Farrell's thick brogue. In both, a director with considerable talent produced a muddled film with poor characterization and what should be a riveting plot that drags interminably towards a foregone conclusion. Fans of both films try to turn the criticism of detractors back onto them with blanket statements about what kinds of movies they must not like and what sorts of shallow entertainment they must prefer.Taking the last point first, I have seen movies before that were nothing more than filmed plays with a cast of only two people in a single location, so even more limited than Miss Julie in those respects. Those movies had even more dialogue and less action than Miss Julie. Those movies were also every bit as grim and depressing as Miss Julie. But those films had quality dialogue, consistent characterizations, and a story worth investment.I am flabbergasted by the unyielding support of Colin Farrell's fans, but then I'm flabbergasted that he has any fans at all. In addition to having no perceivable acting talent and an accent that he can't seem to shake, despite his character John's comments to Miss Julie about understanding her attraction to him, Farrell isn't even particularly good-looking and has no charisma on screen. On looking up his listings on IMDb, I discovered that he had the lead role in another film I have seen; I do not recall that he ruined that particular film, but then I don't recall much about him from that film even though he was the lead. I have certainly seen no reason to believe he deserves even his limited fame.Many people have criticized the direction in Miss Julie for poor pacing, but a good deal of the problem is in the writing before it ever got to the set. Although I am unfamiliar with the source material, I gather from comments and reviews I have read that certain key pieces of dialogue were left out of the screenplay, namely the servants' discussion of Julie's broken engagement and the menstrual period which are brought up as explanations for her erratic behavior. I don't know what other dialogue changes might have been made, but both Julie's and John's mood and behavior swing so wildly between various extremes, much of the time with no discernible explanation, that it's almost as though with each exchange, the writers rolled some dice to select the characters' moods that time. Even erratic characters need to be comprehensible. It doesn't help matters much that the characterization that does come through the constantly shifting, random moods are two people capable of appallingly cold selfishness while the remaining character turns out to be someone inflexibly judgmental and narrow-minded.Despite a costar who tries to destroy most of his scenes, Jessica Chastain and Samantha Morton deliver strong performances. Morton is understated but powerful while Chastain portrays desperation that grows so deep it becomes painful to watch, most notably in the scene where she proposes that all three of them leave together.** SPOILERS **I know that the story was written in Victorian times when convenient character death was seen as valid plotting, but I wonder how many modern viewers understand that Miss Julie's situation need not have been as hopeless as a melodramatic maiden raised on romances seemed to think. Even after the loss of her virginity in those restrictive times, a beautiful young woman who is the daughter of a wealthy baron could probably still make some sort of match with an impoverished but ambitious gentleman or with an older gentleman. Even if she turned out to be pregnant, she could have been sent to a convent far from the public eye to have her child. She might have to take orders to hide her disgrace, but she did not need to commit suicide. It's also worth remembering that this story was written and set in a time when the church was inflexibly condemning of suicide, no matter what the reason. Suicides weren't even buried in hallowed ground. It's hard to see John's willingness to prod Julie in that direction as anything other than a man willing to manipulate a young woman into needlessly taking her own life in order to spare himself inconvenience. As bad as Julie showed herself to be from her first scenes, John turned out to be far worse.In the end, the film turned into a horror movie, and although it's undeniably a cut above standard slasher flicks, it does not reach the level of meaningful classic to which it aspires. Worth watching for the two female leads but otherwise not recommended.

(possibly Mild Spoilers) I am not a fan of Chastain at all, but she was well cast with the ethereal elegance she brings to Julie's madness, her seeming lucidity only when she is growling and snarling in anger and frustration at John (Farrell). Farrell is a chimera of resentment, hope, sociopath behavior and tender confession. He moves from trying to stop the disaster he foresees, to active participant and then tries to deny his own desires. When he finally agrees to take Julie, to make a run for a new life with her, she cannot let go of the bird that represents herself, her privileged life... And the symbolism of John's response is brilliant; Farrell displays the complicated emotions at war with each other that his character feels with astonishing depth. Morton was brilliantly solid, her understated portrayal of the character making Kathleen all the more real amidst the madness.Unlike other critics, I found the "opening up" of the play into other areas and venues to be done very well. We step into Julie's 'garden' which is really as much in her mind as real, it's her view of life as she'd have it be. Kathleen is equally trapped as Cook and then in the small rooms of the house, as she is in her existence. Only John, who can see better things for his life, moves freely throughout the house, as he wants to do between the classes of Irish society.The incredible depth of human psychology, the love hate relationships with each other, their own lives, the class system, is explored both in action, dialogue, and in the settings chosen for each part of the play. The viewer feels both sympathy and revulsion for the characters in turn. The nuances that these three actors brought to the characters, and the narrow focus of the film over the play, add to the intensity.

I had never seen her be this loud, this unabashedly theatrical. But, the character calls for it, and it all somehow works. Farrell doesn't have to go as big, and yet he's the one that comes across as unconvincing. The film only really comes alive when it gives Chastain the space to be as loud as humanly possible. It's not a terrible film, but it just seems like an excuse for such powerhouse acting showcasing, and in that respect it's tremendously glorious to witness Chastain's work. It could've easily gone off the rails with many actresses, but she still manages to surprise me in what she can achieve. Again, it worked for me, but it won't for everyone. Several people will absolutely loathe her (really, any performance of this nature is bound to) but I can honestly say she is probably better here than in Rigby, if only because the material allows it. In that way it's a hard performance to analyze, it's basically "here, watch Chastain ACT!" without really caring if we get the character. But it worked for the 2 hours, mostly.

Norwegian actress, author, screenwriter and director Liv Ullmann's fifth feature film which she wrote, is an adaptation of a play from 1888 by Swedish 19th and 20th century writer, playwright and painter August Strindberg (1849–1912). It premiered in the Special Presentations section at the 39th Toronto International Film Festival in 2014, was shot on locations in Northern Ireland and is a Norway-UK-Ireland-France co-production which was produced by producers Synnøve Hørsdal, Oliver Dungey and Teun Hilte. It tells the story about a baron's daughter named Julie and her involvement with a servant named John and a live-in maid named Kathleen. Distinctly and precisely directed by Norwegian filmmaker Liv Ullmann, this quietly paced fictional tale which is narrated by a protagonist and interchangeably from the protagonists' viewpoints, draws an increasingly gravitating and incisively psychological portrayal of a relation which evolves in a kitchen on a Midsummer Eve. While notable for its distinctly naturalistic milieu depictions, majestic cinematography by Russian cinematographer Mikhail Krichman, production design by production designer Caroline Amies, costume design by Irish producer and costume designer Consolata Boyle and film editing by film editor Michal Leszczlowski, this dialog-driven and narrative-driven story about survival, depicts some internally scrutinizing studies of character. This atmospheric, ingeniously dramatic and bittersweet romance which is set in Ireland in the late 19th century and where an at that period in time unsuitable attraction between human beings within a castle which turns into a royal affair, escalates into a crucial competition of mutual insults and condemnations, is impelled and reinforced by its cogent narrative structure, substantial character development, rhythmic continuity, instrumental music, comment by Kathleen: "It is a work of …" and the eminent acting performances by Irish actor Colin Farrell, American actress Jessica Chastain and English actress Samantha Morton. A concentrated and reverently cinematographic character piece.