Rating: 
Summary: intriguing but uncinematic version of the play
Review: Sexual and power politics get a late Victorian Era workout in `Miss Julie,' Mike Figgis' bleak, rather stagy adaptation of August Strindberg's classic play. Saddled with what is essentially a one-set, two-character chamber piece, Figgis has chosen, for the most part, not to open-up the work cinematically very much, but rather to concentrate on the stark human drama at its core. This editorial decision keeps the film more faithful to the spirit of the original author's intent perhaps, but it also, by necessity, limits the possibility that we will see Strindberg's work in a new and exciting way.In his tale, the Swedish author strips the age-old theme of the eternal class struggle to its barest, bleakest essentials. Miss Julie is a beautiful young countess who feels trapped by the stifling provincialism of her privileged position. She yearns to climb down off her well-guarded pedestal and experience life in all the rawness and vigor with which she imagines the lower social orders live out their days. During a Midsummer celebration, in which she attends the raucous revels of the servants in her employ, she begins to make sexual overtures to Jean, a man whose position in the house is that of her father's loyal footman and who, in a parallel of sorts to his mistress, feels just as strongly as she does the stifling demands of his less-than-privileged position. In direct opposition to Miss Julie, Jean has always yearned to gain acceptance in the very social world from which she is trying to escape. Together, they attempt to bridge the unbridgeable gap between gentry and peasant on the common ground of mutual sexual attraction. They discover, though, that some gaps exist never to be filled and that the interjection of the sexual element into their relationship can result in at best only a temporary reversal in their power positions before the much stronger forces of the societal caste system reassert themselves and restore the `normal' balance. Strindberg's characters and the relationship between them are very complex in their nature. Although Miss Julie and Jean appear to be groping for a safe middle ground where the two of them can find a level of stasis and equality, mostly they end up constantly shifting positions of power in a class struggle that can never be ended in the time and society that has entrapped them. We sense the futility of their aim all throughout the play - and the bitterness and harshness of their love/hate relationship imply that the characters sense it as well. This is why `Miss Julie' must inevitably end in tragedy for all involved. The world at that time offered no alternative endings for such a situation. By bringing a raw physical intensity to their roles of the would-be lovers, Saffron Burrows and Peter Mullan help to modernize the characters, emphasizing the sexual passion that holds them in its grip. It is difficult to know how Figgis, as director, could have expanded the play beyond its claustrophobic theatrical limitations without violating the spirit of the work. For his refusal to in any way really open it out in cinematic terms, `Miss Julie,' for all its intensity of theme and character, ends up as a rather static, talky film. Thus, it is left to future directors, I suppose, to take up the challenge of making a real movie out of `Miss Julie.' If they can only figure out how!
Rating: 
Summary: Provocative, Stagey, Bleak
Review: Some directors have managed to adapt works originally made for the stage into equally worthy film versions. "Amadeus" is one that comes to mind, wherein the film really opened the work into a whole new version that could stand apart from the play. Figgis directing this Strindberg work, however, never manages to let us forget that we must be watching a play. What does work here though is a powerful tale of how sex is used in the battle against the class system and in the war between the sexes. Miss Julie, one of John the footman's employers, goes after him sexually one night, despite his being already engaged. The rest unfolds from there. Strindberg being Strindberg portrays a very bleak world as only the Scandinavians can. Provocative, stirring and even in one memorable scene, violent, try this film on a night you are up for the intellectual exercise.
Rating:
Summary: Provocative, Stagey, Bleak
Review: Some directors have managed to adapt works originally made for the stage into equally worthy film versions. "Amadeus" is one that comes to mind, wherein the film really opened the work into a whole new version that could stand apart from the play. Figgis directing this Strindberg work, however, never manages to let us forget that we must be watching a play. What does work here though is a powerful tale of how sex is used in the battle against the class system and in the war between the sexes. Miss Julie, one of John the footman's employers, goes after him sexually one night, despite his being already engaged. The rest unfolds from there. Strindberg being Strindberg portrays a very bleak world as only the Scandinavians can. Provocative, stirring and even in one memorable scene, violent, try this film on a night you are up for the intellectual exercise.
Rating: 
Summary: Strindberg's Old Stage Drama Looks Exactly Old Stage Drama
Review: The original drama "Miss Julie" (sometimes spelled "Miss Julia") is written by Swedish writer August Strindberg in 1888. Because of its contents, it had been banned in his native country for 25 years, but looking back from now, the sexual nature looks nothing special now. But somehow director Mike Figgis thought of pretty faithfiul adaptation of this one-act drama. There are three characters -- Jean, Julie, Chiristine -- but basically the drama belongs to the servant Jean (Peter Mullan) and Miss Julie, rich count's rather spolied daughter, played by director's muse Saffron Burrows. On Midsummer's Eve, uninhibited by class consciousness, Miss Julie taunts Jean, who at first endures the insult. Then, slowly the fierce battle of will leads them into seduction and contemplation of living together, or the rigid mores of society they live in. The talky nature of the film is regrettable, but understandable. It is a filmed stage drama, and that's not to be blamed. The problem is this; one, many of us today no longer feel bound by the same sexual codes as they experience. The values they talk about are, if not totally, almost dead. The film fails to answer this question -- they suffer, but why should we care? But the bigger trouble is this; director Figgis is so intent on denying that the original material is made for stage, that he uses too many irritatingly flashy cameraworks like split screen. And by showing too many of them, and the sexual nature of the drama more explicitly, the film is deprived of the subtle nuance which the original drama has. What is the point of blantantly showing the poor dead bird itself anyway when what the drama wants to show lies in different place? Acting is good, I admit, but I cannot help thinking that Peter Mullan is miscast. The original drama clearly says Jean is 30 year-old (while Miss Julie is 25). They act well, trying to generate the intensity between the sex, which I find sadly missing. What if Daniel Day-Lewis did the same role -- I was thinking about that all through this extremely depressing film.
Rating:
Summary: Strindberg's Old Stage Drama Looks Exactly Old Stage Drama
Review: The original drama "Miss Julie" (sometimes spelled "Miss Julia") is written by Swedish writer August Strindberg in 1888. Because of its contents, it had been banned in his native country for 25 years, but looking back from now, the sexual nature looks nothing special now. But somehow director Mike Figgis thought of pretty faithfiul adaptation of this one-act drama. There are three characters -- Jean, Julie, Chiristine -- but basically the drama belongs to the servant Jean (Peter Mullan) and Miss Julie, rich count's rather spolied daughter, played by director's muse Saffron Burrows. On Midsummer's Eve, uninhibited by class consciousness, Miss Julie taunts Jean, who at first endures the insult. Then, slowly the fierce battle of will leads them into seduction and contemplation of living together, or the rigid mores of society they live in. The talky nature of the film is regrettable, but understandable. It is a filmed stage drama, and that's not to be blamed. The problem is this; one, many of us today no longer feel bound by the same sexual codes as they experience. The values they talk about are, if not totally, almost dead. The film fails to answer this question -- they suffer, but why should we care? But the bigger trouble is this; director Figgis is so intent on denying that the original material is made for stage, that he uses too many irritatingly flashy cameraworks like split screen. And by showing too many of them, and the sexual nature of the drama more explicitly, the film is deprived of the subtle nuance which the original drama has. What is the point of blantantly showing the poor dead bird itself anyway when what the drama wants to show lies in different place? Acting is good, I admit, but I cannot help thinking that Peter Mullan is miscast. The original drama clearly says Jean is 30 year-old (while Miss Julie is 25). They act well, trying to generate the intensity between the sex, which I find sadly missing. What if Daniel Day-Lewis did the same role -- I was thinking about that all through this extremely depressing film.
Rating:
Summary: Volatile & Misogynistic
Review: They say that on Midsummer's Eve you might be led astray by a pixie, unless you carry some Rue (evergreen shrub with bitter leaves) in your pocket. It is also interesting to note that rue also means to repent of, wish to be undone or nonexistent. The impecunious Jean (Peter Mullan) and the insecure yet wealthy Miss Julie (Saffron Burrows) are drawn to one another despite their social standings. There is something missing in both their lives and they are like two lost souls, each looking for something in each other that will satisfy their inner passions. Jean has been enchanted by Julie since early childhood when he first wished to be equal to her. The scenes are played out in stately kitchen of a wealthy Count's estate. You soon realize you are trapped (just like the characters) at the kitchen window watching the eerie drama unfold. Since the movie is adapted from the August Strindberg's play of the same name, the theatrical elements are very apparent. Within the kitchen a flirtation ensues and soon turns almost sadistically passionate. The strength of this story is based more in the dialogue between the characters and the mind games they play. Miss Julie towers over Jean and is unabashed in her ability to control her servants. She commands Jean (her father, the Count's footservant) to dance with her On Midsummer's Eve. All the while she tells Christine that she has no intention of stealing away her fiancé. Christine is almost too tired to care from working all day preparing for the party and falls asleep in the kitchen chair. Jean sees his chance for upward mobility and decides to take it, although he overlooks the fact that he cannot support a noble woman without her father's money and eventually has to stoop so low as to ask her to steal the money and run away with him. Ironically, neither character gets what they really need. This is a story of two individuals stumbling towards unattainable desires. Fans of the Theatre will enjoy this movie
although it is deeply disturbing in many ways. Tragic.
Rating: 
Summary: Ambitious Failure
Review: This attempt at an adaption of Strindberg's play is another ambitious failure for Mike Figgis. It's biggest flaw is that, while focusing on the class issues between the characters (a product of the social structure of past centuries), the film never convinces the audience that these are anything but 21st people. Given that flaw, all the other elements of this film are just bleak and silly.
Rating:
Summary: An Intricate Scene
Review: This film was interesting. On one hand not a whole lot happens, but on the hand a whole lot happens. In other words the story takes the audience through a very brief, but very defining, moment in the characters lives. The two priciple characters are a noble woman, Miss Julie(Saffron Burrows), and her father's footman, Jean(Peter Mullan). They have apparently had an infatuation with each other for some time, but their difference in class has kept them apart. One night at a party their passion boils over. The entire film concentrates on the small events of this evening and the ramifications it will have. Both characters have terrible inner conflicts with themselves and their position in society. This all makes for a very engaging scene. That being said this film seemed more like an extended scene than it did the sum of parts that traditionally equal a film, which is it's biggest drawback. The film was adapted from a play and it really seemed like one. Certainly director Mike Figgis(Leaving Los Vegas) shot this movie as such. The camera masterfully moves in and out and back and forth between these two tragic figures. Burrows and Mullan both excell in their roles and their chemistry is electric. On the whole this was a good film. I recommend it to fans of character driven films, as well as theater , and 19th century dramas.
Rating:
Summary: An Intricate Scene
Review: This film was interesting. On one hand not a whole lot happens, but on the hand a whole lot happens. In other words the story takes the audience through a very brief, but very defining, moment in the characters lives. The two priciple characters are a noble woman, Miss Julie(Saffron Burrows), and her father's footman, Jean(Peter Mullan). They have apparently had an infatuation with each other for some time, but their difference in class has kept them apart. One night at a party their passion boils over. The entire film concentrates on the small events of this evening and the ramifications it will have. Both characters have terrible inner conflicts with themselves and their position in society. This all makes for a very engaging scene. That being said this film seemed more like an extended scene than it did the sum of parts that traditionally equal a film, which is it's biggest drawback. The film was adapted from a play and it really seemed like one. Certainly director Mike Figgis(Leaving Los Vegas) shot this movie as such. The camera masterfully moves in and out and back and forth between these two tragic figures. Burrows and Mullan both excell in their roles and their chemistry is electric. On the whole this was a good film. I recommend it to fans of character driven films, as well as theater , and 19th century dramas.
Rating: 
Summary: ....
Review: This tragicaly beautiful, yet ugly movie dipicts exactly what it's like to be trapped. You cannot travel back to the past, the future is just a dream, and you can't live in the present. Its just like wanting the impossible.
|
