"You People Never Give Up, Do You? Not Everything is About the Holocaust."
How can a story about a Holocaust survivor fighting for possession of part of her heritage come across as so dull and pointless?
I hate to use those words, but unfortunately “Woman in Gold” feels like a film that should not have been made. It’s confusing how it got to that point; an all-star cast puts the best effort they can into giving great performances. The story is centered around Maria Altmann, a true underdog who is not only attempting to win back one of her family’s most prized possessions but also to wrestle a true statement of intent out of the Austrian government about their actions during World War II. The film is elegantly directed, especially when it focuses on specific moments of Maria Altmann’s past as she flees from the only home she’s ever known. The flashbacks chosen to put on the screen are wonderful pinpoints of a life experience, nicely illustrating what it was like to wake up in the country you were born in and realize one day that it’s been taken over by crazy people. I could have watched a whole movie about Maria Altmann reliving her past and facing her ghosts.
Unfortunately, “Woman in Gold” is not that kind of movie. “Woman in Gold” feels like an extended television procedural for most of the film, choosing to show the audience lengthy court scenes and preparatory sessions instead of anything that could make them care about the outcome of this case. The medium of film may not have been the best one to use to tell this story—most of the time “Woman in Gold” feels entirely uncinematic. Especially in the first hour or so, the dialogue is mostly expositional and the attention to character detail is virtually nil. If I was not watching Helen Mirren and Ryan Reynolds try their hardest to create dramatic tension out of nothing, I would not believe that this was a story worth telling. As it is, I believe that it’s a worthwhile tale—but somebody else should have done the telling of it.
In adapting this story, writer Alexi Kaye Campbell makes several classic mistakes. He demonstrates a lack of focus in telling the story, and a lack of understanding about what makes this story exciting. He transfers narrative power to Reynolds’ character, a lawyer swimming in debt who begins the story with selfish motives, thereby shunting Altmann’s personal journey to the side. Any conflict in the film seems manufactured, shoe-horned in, which is odd to me because there were many roadblocks in the journey to retrieve these paintings. However, if this film is to be believed, once the battle is taken to court there are few who do not sympathize with Altmann’s cause. Our main characters, even though they are attempting to remove a national artifact from a museum, are never for a moment portrayed in a light that is not steeped with moral righteousness and almost divine purpose, a decision that removes all complexity from the story and sends the film’s climax hurtling towards an emotionally manipulative resolution.
As things stand, I can’t recommend “Woman in Gold”. Although Mirren and Reynolds still manage to turn out great performances, they are not good enough to carry this film through its many, many rough patches. At times beautiful, this film is nevertheless no work of art worth fighting for.
Unfortunately, “Woman in Gold” is not that kind of movie. “Woman in Gold” feels like an extended television procedural for most of the film, choosing to show the audience lengthy court scenes and preparatory sessions instead of anything that could make them care about the outcome of this case. The medium of film may not have been the best one to use to tell this story—most of the time “Woman in Gold” feels entirely uncinematic. Especially in the first hour or so, the dialogue is mostly expositional and the attention to character detail is virtually nil. If I was not watching Helen Mirren and Ryan Reynolds try their hardest to create dramatic tension out of nothing, I would not believe that this was a story worth telling. As it is, I believe that it’s a worthwhile tale—but somebody else should have done the telling of it.
In adapting this story, writer Alexi Kaye Campbell makes several classic mistakes. He demonstrates a lack of focus in telling the story, and a lack of understanding about what makes this story exciting. He transfers narrative power to Reynolds’ character, a lawyer swimming in debt who begins the story with selfish motives, thereby shunting Altmann’s personal journey to the side. Any conflict in the film seems manufactured, shoe-horned in, which is odd to me because there were many roadblocks in the journey to retrieve these paintings. However, if this film is to be believed, once the battle is taken to court there are few who do not sympathize with Altmann’s cause. Our main characters, even though they are attempting to remove a national artifact from a museum, are never for a moment portrayed in a light that is not steeped with moral righteousness and almost divine purpose, a decision that removes all complexity from the story and sends the film’s climax hurtling towards an emotionally manipulative resolution.
As things stand, I can’t recommend “Woman in Gold”. Although Mirren and Reynolds still manage to turn out great performances, they are not good enough to carry this film through its many, many rough patches. At times beautiful, this film is nevertheless no work of art worth fighting for.
RSS Feed
