Not all films appeal equally to all viewers. Maybe it might be some particular quality or qualities about a film that sit with us the wrong way, or maybe there's nothing particularly wrong and a film just fails to capture our imagination. I see all the hard work that went into 'Quartet,' and all the splendid potential that should be borne out in the story. I can't help it, though: this just makes no real impression on me.
It boasts a terrific cast; for my part it was Isabelle Adjani's involvement that specifically drew me in. The costume design is outstanding, the hair and makeup are most lovely, and the art direction is superb. The cinematography is smart and flavorful, and the actors give excellent performances. As the length advances past the half hour mark the story picks up with increasing points of interest: the spectacle and hedonism of the Roaring Twenties, something seedy about Lois and H. J., conflicts between Marya's love for her husband and her an off-kilter relationship to the Heidlers, and more. One need not be familiar with the source material to quickly gain a sense that it's a tale that could easily be staged as a play, or adapted freely (though there really was nothing like the 1920s, however romanticized they may be in retrospect). All this is well and good.
Yet even as the story picks up, and despite especial instances of tension, heightened emotions, or zest, to me James Ivory's direction - and the consequent dominant tone - is flat and humdrum. Sometimes I've started watching a picture when I was feeling a bit tired, and it was so rich and flavorful that it perked me right up and gave me a second wind. Sometimes I've started watching a picture when I was ready and rearing to go, and it was so unremarkable and bland that I had to pause for a while because it was putting me to sleep. 'Quarter' fits in the latter category. The tale should be ripe for cinematic storytelling, acting of passion and nuance, and one scene after another that's absorbing and tantalizing. Instead, the proceedings are overall muted and soporific, the storytelling feels a tad scattered with a progression that's less than meaningful, and major spikes of clamor may come across as false overacting. There actually is a lot to like here, at least on paper and in terms of the visual presentation, but I'm just not convinced Ivory was the right person to bring it to life.
True, there are worse ways to spend one's time. If there was any possibility of saving this, it was strictly on the strength of the acting - surely from five-time César winner Adjani above all, but Alan Bates, Maggie Smith, and their co-stars to very nearly the same extent. I'm glad for those who get more out of the whole shebang than I do. For all that this feature had going for it, I nevertheless found it increasingly hard to care about it as the length drew on; I was just rather bored, and I regretted my decision to watch. Check out 'Quartet' if you want, I won't stop you, but whatever it is that one wants or hopes for out of it, I think one's time is much better spent elsewhere.
It boasts a terrific cast; for my part it was Isabelle Adjani's involvement that specifically drew me in. The costume design is outstanding, the hair and makeup are most lovely, and the art direction is superb. The cinematography is smart and flavorful, and the actors give excellent performances. As the length advances past the half hour mark the story picks up with increasing points of interest: the spectacle and hedonism of the Roaring Twenties, something seedy about Lois and H. J., conflicts between Marya's love for her husband and her an off-kilter relationship to the Heidlers, and more. One need not be familiar with the source material to quickly gain a sense that it's a tale that could easily be staged as a play, or adapted freely (though there really was nothing like the 1920s, however romanticized they may be in retrospect). All this is well and good.
Yet even as the story picks up, and despite especial instances of tension, heightened emotions, or zest, to me James Ivory's direction - and the consequent dominant tone - is flat and humdrum. Sometimes I've started watching a picture when I was feeling a bit tired, and it was so rich and flavorful that it perked me right up and gave me a second wind. Sometimes I've started watching a picture when I was ready and rearing to go, and it was so unremarkable and bland that I had to pause for a while because it was putting me to sleep. 'Quarter' fits in the latter category. The tale should be ripe for cinematic storytelling, acting of passion and nuance, and one scene after another that's absorbing and tantalizing. Instead, the proceedings are overall muted and soporific, the storytelling feels a tad scattered with a progression that's less than meaningful, and major spikes of clamor may come across as false overacting. There actually is a lot to like here, at least on paper and in terms of the visual presentation, but I'm just not convinced Ivory was the right person to bring it to life.
True, there are worse ways to spend one's time. If there was any possibility of saving this, it was strictly on the strength of the acting - surely from five-time César winner Adjani above all, but Alan Bates, Maggie Smith, and their co-stars to very nearly the same extent. I'm glad for those who get more out of the whole shebang than I do. For all that this feature had going for it, I nevertheless found it increasingly hard to care about it as the length drew on; I was just rather bored, and I regretted my decision to watch. Check out 'Quartet' if you want, I won't stop you, but whatever it is that one wants or hopes for out of it, I think one's time is much better spent elsewhere.