" notes on 'a good woman' "

---

january 22 - a good woman, 3:00pm, EGV Metropolis, bangkok **

let me start off by saying that this is movie is shot beautifully. the light is motivated and natural without seeming over-used or underwhelming. it photographs lushly without the softness, and crisply without the constriction of proscenium composition. it looks spectacular from open to close.

that said, the movie to me is a beautifully-lit, lushly-photographed piece of cardboard-story. not quite cookie cut-out, but perhaps too sweet for my tastes. it is filled with jealousies that are not developed into a real genuine rage, woody and blocky dialogue, and scenes clearly defined by brash statements or convenient exchanges, double entendres and witticisms.

the language then, is so meticulously constructed and specific in its intentions, that it's hard to wrap a good performance around the words. there are a bevy of classical characters: doddy widows with tiny dogs, old rich british bachelors, gossipy women, young couples in (or out or in or out) of love, the friend of the husband that has that "look" in his eye full of charm for the wife. the list goes on and on.

then there are the liminal characters. people introduced for those one or two-liners, that go nowhere! it's like talking to a four year-old on the inner-workings of the astrophysical properties of dark matter. there's no point to it, unless you just want to have a go at it purely for spectacle. and they almost work against the the film, because they're so much more intereresting than the pricipals...which is not good.

helen hunt is always great, but is so overly miscast in this role. this doesn't mean that she didn't step up, no. in fact i think everyone wanted to do good in the film, but the visuals are so much more emphasized than the acting credibility. it was like watching her try too hard to grasp a role that a director didn't explain well enough.

and she did this (maybe period/30's) thing with her voice/dialect, where it would swoop and whoop upwards at the end, as if continuously asking questions and hitting that mid-plane of a low female falsetto. it was irksome and unlike her usual brassy tones.

then scarlett. young, beautiful, talented to a point as everyone, and jeebus did the words not come for this performance. again the direction fell though for her (and also for the wooden toddler that was her husband) in this piece. you talk about love, and you don't really convey it? those beautiful shots of tears and streaked faces only do me good, if i can believe you, and although she was striking with that hairstyle and those everythings she gots, i was underwhelmed and remained unconvinced of anything but a costume party.

not to shit entirely on this production, because it was enjoyable. the story wasn't bad, just done in "such a way. " the best moments were those british cut-out bachelors who were constantly creating conversations by being civil and yet, cutting into their friends. it's funny, because these characters use wit and language to create what i like to call "the funny." and it was exactly that for a smattering of brief moments throughout.

i would've just given the movie only one star, but later on i read in the end credits (how come nobody stays for the credits?? how rude) the the film was based off of an oscar wilde play/story. the entire audience in my brain collectively goes "ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, i get why!" and of course it is after the fact, and altogether too late.

---