Washington Square
October. 10,1997Set in 1870's New York, a spinster heiress is courted by a much younger, penniless man, much to the chagrin of her over-protective father, and must decide whether to spend the rest of her life alone, or marry a man who is interested in her only because of her inheritence.
Similar titles
Reviews
Bad Acting and worse Bad Screenplay
A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.
One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.
The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.
Henry James' WASHINGTON SQUARE is well served in this solid film whose screenplay was adapted by Carol Doyle and has been directed with secure wisdom of James' style by Polish director Agnieszka Holland )'Europa, Europa', 'Red', 'Blue', 'Copying Beethoven', etc). The musical score is in the capable hands of Jan AP Kaczmarek and the Director of Photography is Jerzy Zielinski, and with all these elements in place, the last ingredient in making this a successful adaptation of a Henry James novel is the cast. Fortunately the assembled cast matches the above credentials. Albert Finney is superb as the wealthy Dr. Austin Sloper who hoards his money in his mansion on Washington Square and whose overprotective rule of his less than attractive daughter Catherine (Jennifer Jason Leigh) - who is also under the influence of her overbearing Aunt Lavinia (Maggie Smith, still chewing the scenery as usual but convincing) - has put an impasse to Catherine's infatuation with the handsome but poor Morris Townsend (Ben Chaplin): if Catherine should choose to marry Morris she would be cut off as his heiress. James' models of womanhood are played well by Jennifer Garner as the niece that marries and breeds and her mother Aunt Elizabeth (Judith Ivey, currently wowing audiences in a revival of 'The Glass Menagerie'). Distance, imposed by the disapproving Dr. Sloper in escorting Catherine to Europe for a year, doesn't appear to squelch the passion between Catherine and Morris, but Morris finds work which takes him away from the returned Catherine, only to learn upon return that Catherine will not inherit her father's fortune - a glitch that sadly changes the relationship of what had appeared to be a true love romance. In the end the film follows Henry James' view of the world of his time - a palette for social criticism. Made in 1997, this film holds up very well indeed. Grady Harp
I got THE HEIRESS, and WASHINGTON SQUARE. I love them both, but prefer WASHINGTON SQUARE. I love the period style and costumes. In fact I have the VHS and asked ex hubby to put it into a DVD format because I am DESPERATE to get the ITALIEN WORDS OF the Italian Laurate Poet SALVATORE QUASIMODO "Tu chiami Una Vita". The couple sings this song (kind of also the theme song and used as instrumental in the film also) and it is also later song 2 x more by trained voices. Simply beautiful, sticks with you. If anyone can completely understand the Italian, please share the TEXT. I got ex hubby to put it on DVD mainly because I wanted to see the CREDITS, bookmark when the song is on and when the credits go to "Tu chiami Una Vita" which would be difficult with my system via VHS. Would it not be GREAT to go to the FILM Editors themselves to get that information, or see it also mentioned as music credits on the sleeve?? Karla
Holland's Washington Square was a great movie. I thought that the actors portrayed James's descriptions of them very well. The film is much more faithful to the original Novel by Henry James than its predecessor, The Heiress (Dir. by William Wyler), which was heavily based on a stage play of Washington Square. Although there is a feminist slant put on the movie, which is not really seen in the novel, this is a fair interpretation made by the director. It is easy to see that Catherine's defiance of her father's wishes (or demands, if you prefer) could be a precursor to the feminist movement that began later in the century. Both films are a must see, but most importantly, read the novel. For a 19th century book, it's very easy to read!
I rented WS in order to compare Jennifer Jason Leigh's performance in this with her performance in Kansas City. Both are period pieces, and in both i sensed her willingness to submerge a modern self into the demands of the historic period. This is frightening to behold--Albert Finney, her widowed father, is rock-hard, with glimpses of natural paternal sentiment that only make his determined hardness the more monstrous. So, his daughter Katherine is his victim--a victim of culture, a victim of circumstance--a victim of miscommunications, a victim of her lover, of her aunt? It's all a little hard to bear, except that, as the motif of endurance emerges, the formation of a protective shell over the passions of the young is, finally, a relief. I don't know if there is enough popcorn and chocolate/caramel/you-name-it to make sitting through this story actually enjoyable. Beautifully dressed and accompanied by exquisite score, it's a tragedy with a conclusion of unillumined defeat. Although Katherine, Leigh's role, keeps for herself, privately, the apparent pleasure of the memory of passion. Is this James's modern leaning? Anyway, I rated it high, because as a window into history it's at least fascinating.