The film, and the performances, were ALL abominable

I stand by my comments. The fact that you thought the weak, aimless, and dull performances by Anderson and Stoltz were "especially amazing" tells me that you have absolutely no serious talent for assessing a performance -- nor even for discerning what is "amazing" from what is "dreck." This film, and those performances, were, in fact, dreck.

Like Emma Bovary, the heroine of this pale and uninteresting film goes to various men who have helped or counseled her in the past (with Emma, it was her merchant creditors and her lover, the hunter). As in Madame Bovary, these "creditors" let her know in no uncertain terms that, to quote Flaubert, "the world has its desires, as well." Like Emma Bovary, she more or less helps herself to poison to escape her untenable position. Like Emma Bovary, this heroine wants to rise above her real financial and social position to attain the heights -- tragically not realizing the unlikelihood of her succeeding. Like Bovary, she is simply outclassed by her "betters" and done in by her own heedless attempt to remake herself in the mold of a social system that simply will not allow the Emmas of the world to usurp their privileged status.

However, unlike Emma Bovary, she gives us little reason to feel anything beyond indifference for the end of her truly silly charade. A good performance would give us a sense of the tragic, whereas Gillian's performance gives us little more than relief that this inadequate and unexceptional film has -- finally -- ended. (Do you really think these striking parallels are accidental?)

Now, you may say that this story isn't a rip-off of Flaubert by claiming that the two stories are entirely different. However, the most significant difference is that there is simply more to "Bovary" than there is to "Mirth." Wharton, not having the scope or energy or talent of Flaubert, was too weak (or too timid as a plagiarist) even to reproduce the entire story -- this was a "classic comic-book" version of "Bovary," trimmed down to fit Wharton's abilities and energies.

I have demonstrated that "House of Mirth" is a partial rip-off of "Madame Bovary." Simply because "Mirth" didn't reproduce every character and every element of "Bovary" doesn't mean that it was not a transparent and obvious (although trivial) rip-off.

So, if you want to prove me wrong, why don't YOU go ahead and explain just what it WAS that is so "amazing" about Anderson's amateurish and uncertain performance? Tell us what actually was "amazing" about Stoltz's diffident performance?

By the way, the fact that you are French is an argumentum ad hominem, circumstantial. I could point out that I read and speak French, as well, and that I have a Ph.D. in comparative literature -- but that doesn't prove my point any more than your being French proves yours. This was a bad film, and, as I said, without X-File fans bringing their particularly inept critical faculties to these comments, nearly all of the reviews would have been in the negative column.

[deleted]

Deliberately incendiary? A fine phrase, indeed. Condescending and vituperative as well! My, my we have been breaking in the spine on the old thesaurus, haven't we? When I find people gushing mindlessly about weak and insignificant stuff, as if it were ambrosia rather than beans, I will be as vituperative as I wish -- except that I would call it trenchant.

Nevertheless, I agree with you entirely on the matter of Anderon's excellent performance in "Bleak House." As I've written in another post in this thread this evening, she put in a nicely understated and yet moving performance in that role. I also point out that good direction may have had something to do with bringing out her best; but the accolade is, nonetheless, for her.

As for an attitude of condescention, sir, I claim it as a right -- indeed, as a necessity -- when treating with material that is beneath even minimal standards of quality, as "Mirth" most certainly is.

"Bleak House" is another matter entirely, and Gillian Anderson's performance was, as you say, wonderful -- which is to say it presents a stark, almost jarring, contrast to her most unfortunate failure in "Mirth."

Having just ejected the DVD, I come fresh from my first viewing of House of Mirth and I have to say I was stunned. It is a wonderful film and Gillian Anderson, who may or may not be the Lily Bart in the book for those Wharton fans who were hoping for an affectionate interpretation, was marvellous. Her scene with Stoltz in his rooms, near the end, was particularly touching.

I do not understand these people who 'left halfway through because the acting was so terrible'. It is incomprehensible to me how anyone could possibly think this when, one who has an eye for detail, can easily detect a fineness to the craft of this film that few other films of the same category can boast. The original poster is particularly irritating as the title of their post was;

"The film, and the performances, were ALL abominable."

Why did the original poster post such a provocative thread? Especially when they proceeded to swank about irrelevances such as a PhD in comparative literature. I can understand that they would be interested in an adaptation of the book, but the main focus for them seemed to be an attack on Edith Wharton herself for plagiarism.

What is so appalling about the original poster's poisonous posts is that there is very little of the rational in what he or she is saying. I do not respect the praising of a film merely for the symmetry of applauding alongside others, but I do not think it is remotely clever to rubbish a film merely because it happens to be highly acclaimed. There are films about which the movie going public, and even the press, will almost unanimously agree as 'bad'. Bad is a sorry enough word, even for the worst films, but to use the word abominable to describe 'ALL' that this film had to offer?

I had hoped that the poster's efforts would have been confined to ostentatious rubbishing; a caricature of a poor review. I was sorry to see that there are actually people out there who have so little taste in films, and the gross effrontery, to lecture down to people who expressed enjoyment. I suppose it is sadly true that the world is quite vile.

Someone else coming late to the debate. But if I can just throw in my two pennies worth.

I absolutely adore this film. Possibly the finest period film I have ever watched.

Let me put down my qualifications for commenting in such a way, as judging by some of the comments on this post I'll probably get slaughtered just for that.

I'm an actor myself. Those criticising Gillian Anderson's and Eric Stoltz's performances in this film have no idea what they are talking about. Both put in the performance of their lives. You might not like the performance, but that does not mean that the performances are bad. Terrence Davies is an extremely individual film maker and his direction is not to everyone's taste, again, this does not a bad film maker make.

Wharton was very much a forerunner of Fitzgerald. Comparing her to her literary predecessors and saying she stole from Flaubert is pointless. Every literary movement has built on that which came before, but the same themes are usually prevalent. Wharton was a woman and so inevitably was to write about doomed women. So that criticism is pointless and worthless without at least a major knowledge of world classical literature. And even then it's a criticism that could be levelled at most major writers.

Probably the best way to evaluate this film is to compare it with Scorsese's adaptation of The Age Of Innocence. A film which I found extravagant and over produced and made unwatchable by Michelle Pfeiffer's overacting. Gillian Anderson is an actress. Pfeiffer is (or was) a star, meaning less talent for more popularity. Scorsese's style I found unworkable to period drama - something that was seen in Gangs of New York. However - it is more cinematic at times, so if you find House of Mirth unwatchable, you'll probably enjoy Age of Innocence and if you like House of Mirth you'll probably hate Age of Innocence as I did.

Simply because you dislike a film does not make it a bad film. House of Mirth is, I find, an astonishing, beautiful and glorious film that entrances me every time I watch it. Yes it's long, but so is Lawrence of Arabia or any film with anything to say at all. But I would rather watch this than any number of Hollywood pap.

@inferos1:
An opposing point of view can be more interesting than a shared one. However,it seems that rdconger's method of argument includes "gratuitous affirmations".
You did not make any assumptions about the intelligence and taste of others.Perhaps you did not notice that rdconger did.

The following lines are from rdconger's first post:

"First of all, most of the folks who like this movie do so because Gillian Anderson, from X Files, is in it. It would take an X Files fan to gush so mindlessly about this horrific piece of garbage; anyone else would have more brains."
*****************************************************************************************************
X-Files fans have less brains than non-fans.

"Second, it takes someone who is truly ignorant not to see the fraud that this film is, and to understand that the novel, too, is a fraud. I looked through the user reviews in vain to find one -- just one -- person who noticed that "House of Mirth" is a transparent rip-off of Flaubert's "Madame Bovary." It is a pale and tedious bit of plagiarism, to be sure, but plagiarism, nonetheless, and obvious plagiarism, at that."
******************************************************************************************************
This is not making an argument for or against the value of the film.Nor is stating that the novel upon which the film is based is plagiarized.

What I do know is that this film stinks under every conceivable criterion for good cinema. The only reason it has garnered so much praise is the same reason that the incredibly vacuous series, the X Files, was so popular. And that reason, in a word, is "idiots."
*******************************************************************************************************
A final slur against the intelligence of others instead of stating what" every conceivable criterion for good cinema" is, and how this film failed to by those standards.A good discussion does not begin or end with insults.

The differences you point out between Bovary and Mirth are I think, less striking than the clear parallels I have already pointed out in this thread. Must I repeat them?

Just as Emma Bovary went to her various creditors, pleading for more time and more help, Lily goes to her various benefactors, one by one, as in "Bovary," and pleads her case. Just as in Bovary, one of these prior benefactors demands her person as ransom, and like Bovary, Lily is morally incapable of the act of prostitution. Surely, to find herself in virtually the same situation as Emma Bovary, Lily has been, in some way seen or unseen, just as foolish.

Nor do I read Emma Bovary as you do. In the panoply of rude, village society that she was in, caught as she was in a horrid marriage to a weak and stupid man, living with his venal and petty mother, I think Emma was no more and no less foolish than Lily, and no more and no less sympathetic, as well. Like Emma, she naively felt that her own worth as a person and as a woman would be enough to secure her what she desired. Emma lost her way among the petit bourgeosie and Lilly lost her way among the petty social toffs of turn-of-the-century America.

Clearly, "Mirth" was written over the template of Madame Bovary, as there are simply too many points of comparison. I find nothing wrong with that, in a literary sense. It is not on the face of it any form of cheating -- the problem is that Madame Bovary is a masterpiece and House of Mirth is its pale shadow.

einahteb, you read my mind. I completely agree with every word you've written and I couldn't have said it better, myself. In fact, after we read the novel for class, I told many of my fellow students that I would have cast Nicole Kidman for the role! I love GA in "The X-Files" and a few other things, but I'm not blind. She was all wrong as Lily Bart.