The Europeans (2019)

Wonderfully offbeat film!

Brilliant and touching

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Strong acting helps the film overcome an uncertain premise and create characters that hold our attention absolutely.

Woe is us! The writer of the book was the same author who gave us the great "Washington Square," which was turned into an Oscar-winning vehicle for Olivia De Havilland in 1949's "The Heiress."What a misery Lee Remick, of all people, found herself in this 1979 film. It's set in the 1850s or, just like "Washington Square" with Massachusetts being the area depicted. The father, an erudite figure, disowned his sister for marrying a Catholic, and the film deals with the children that she had who visit their family from Europe.The adult children meet the two sisters Charlotte and Gertrude. The latter is a woman ahead of her times. For some unexplained reason, the father wants her to marry the town pastor; he is so suited instead for the plain Charlotte. We needed 1 1/2 hours to be made to understand this? Their seems to be someone for everyone here, but the film ends and we really don't know if the Remick wound up with her cousin. To be honest, by that point, we really don't care.

While not on the level of Howard's End and other Merchant/Ivory films at their later peak, this film is where they truly took off in presenting period films. the look and details are excellent as has been commented on here. The cinematography is particularly wonderful in capturing a beautiful New England autumn, especially the sunlit buggy-ride with Robert Acton and the baroness. What is serendipitous is that the company wanted to film in May and June, when the book is set but filmed in Fall because that's when they got the money. The autumn here is practically a character in itself, and were the film set in a very green June, would look less like New England and might have been anywhere, and the constant reminder of the puritanical background of old New England would have been lost.The casting is also very good. I take issue with some earlier views in that I find Lee Remick excellent as the Baroness. Faye Dunaway would haveseemed too aristocratic, and Jane Fonda still a bit too young, at leastin looks. Lee Remick is a bit too good looking to be the Baroness of thebook who is a plain looking woman who carries herself as if she is abeauty. Wesley Addy is a perfect Patriarch and Felix was played with much youthful gusto by Tim Woodward, who also looked perfect for the part.It is not always considered fair or useful to compare aspects of a literary adaptation And its source book but in this case it's so literal that it is valid to an extent. Two major differences do stand out and add to the overall film.The role of Clifford ,the young son is expanded and brought more forward in the film, especially his comic visits to the Baroness. Tim Choate did a wonderful job of creating his awkward, smiling,humorous young Yankee who in the novel seldom gives more than "a growl" to any question.The addition of the big party scene at the Acton house(there is none in the book) was a wonderful inspiration. A period piece like this needs a scene to really show off how everyone would look at their best and the attention to detail of dance and music was obviously great. As the Baroness says, "They're quite exuberant"The problem many people may have with the film is that the characters' motives and desires may seem a bit unclear, this despite almost all the dialog being taken directly from the novel. But this is not one of those later Henry James novels where three pages of exposition of thought and motive precedes each spoken sentence but rather a short and simple book which is faithfully recreated here on film.The Baroness finds what she is looking for (money) but feels not enough passion from the man ("I am admired in Europe")and not enough to enjoy in the staid community ("She has grown tired of us" She leaves but most everyone else finds exactly what they were looking for.A fine film.

I first saw this movie in a "Henry James on Film" class back in about 1994. I'd just read the novella of the same name and enjoyed it immensely. Not only was it remarkably beautiful and deeply moving but also, at moments, intentionally laugh out loud funny.MIP, as is their way I later discovered, created a script that fails to recognize the difference between the written word and the spoken word/visual image. The camera work is beautiful, and all the superficial details seem so right (furnishings, clothes, surfaces in general), all of which I've found to be typical of MIP films. What a pity they didn't devote at least some of that time to other matters, such as understanding the characters involved. Lines are lifted directly from the novella, with little or no attempt to adapt them to the demands of the big (or small) screen. As a result, all of the glorious subtlety of the original is lost, absolutely lost. James' characters are complex, yes, but also thoroughly real, human, and comprehensible, despite what some of his critics may claim. You wouldn't know that from any of the MIP adaptations of his works, specifically THE BOSTONIANS and THE GOLDEN BOWL. I've yet to see HULLABALOO OVER GEORGIE AND BONNIE'S PICTURES, which is, according to certain film critics, and suggested by what I've read about the film, an adaptation of James' "The Aspern Papers." Ivory has been asked about this, but has refused to answer one way or the other. It doesn't help that MIP films have tended to be shot on such tight time/money budgets that it may be impossible to shoot all the scenes that were scripted, let alone to reshoot a scene when needed. As such, they rely heavily on editing the footage they have. Anyone who studies their films may well find that this approach leads to most unsatisfying results. I've seen ten or more MIP films since this one, in an attempt to determine if this was an isolated misstep on their part, or the norm for them. I found the latter to be the case. Their films make me think of the children's fairy tale of the emperor who had no clothes. But, in the case of MIP fare, it's just the reverse: it's all clothes -- and no emperor!

Ok, maybe I missed something, but the movie seemed very odd to me. The actors and actresses were either lethargic or over-hyper, and seemed to lack sincerity. So after the first five minutes, I gave up trying to follow the plot and concentrated on the costuming instead, which was fabulous. Period movies (especially ones made pre-1990) tend to care less about authenticity, and more about what looks good to the modern eye. This one was a pleasant surprise. In fact, the clothes were so good that I even wonder if they didn't use originals. I want to know, where did they get those incredible fabrics?? The hair, which is where most movies trip up the worst, was quite good except on the blonde lady (who looked like she stepped out of a 1979 issue of Vogue). Less black eye makeup would have completed the stunning job. All in all, I would recomend this movie to anyone at all interested in the look and feel of 1850s new england life, as a superb example of authenticity.