I’m one of those rare breeds who actually loves period films
about uptight literary figures. High, starchy collars, airless rooms, Victorian
tension that masks the passion burning beneath the surface… oh, the drama! Especially when they’re about seemingly stodgy
writers whose works vexed me in high school – yet, they turn out to be
shameless adulterers or otherwise wicked people! Why didn’t they include these
kinds of juicy details in those monotonous classroom lectures?!
Such is the plot of The Invisible Woman.
It seems old Charles Dickens (Ralph Fiennes, who’s also the director) had a
secret mistress named Nelly Ternan (Felicity Jones) who was both his lover and
literary muse for 13 years. This film spotlights their relationship.
We first meet Nelly in the late 1800s, several years after Dickens’ death, when she's a troubled, distracted boys’ school drama teacher given to frantic walks on the
beach and countryside, as though she’s trying to outrun something. Her husband
is frustrated by her melancholia, and some old man, who’s convinced she’s got a
secret, nags her about spilling the beans. This seems to unlock a torrent of
memories that we, the audience, get to experience via flashback for much of the
rest of the movie.
As a young girl, Nelly is the talentless member of an acting
troop, comprised of her mother (Kristin Scott Thomas) and sisters. Charles
Dickens has already achieved rock star status for his writing, so the ladies
are delighted when he befriends them, paying extra attention to teenaged Nelly.
Mom is reluctant to let her daughter get involved with a married man, but, as I
mentioned, she’s a lousy actress and her future is uncertain. Nelly is insulted
and disgusted by the concept at first, especially when mean old Chuck makes his
sad, frumpy wife/mother of his ten children (she fits the description of “invisible
woman,” too, fyi) hand deliver a gift to her. But of
course, she eventually gives in, and the affair begins.
Sounds like a great setup for a deliciously passionate film,
right? Well, it should be. While many of the elements I look for are well
represented – really cool cast, beautiful costumes, gorgeous sets, and achingly
tense Victorian restraint – there’s no real release or satisfying insight into
the characters. It starts off weighty and rigid, and remains so through
the long, drawn out, snail’s pace of a process that finally leads to the
affair.
To be sure, there are some breathtakingly gorgeous,
well-choreographed scenes that look like museum paintings come to life, but I
wanted the relationship between these two people to come to life a little more.
We’re allowed very tiny glimpses at their chemistry – a brief conversation, a
quick picnic, a rather benign argument – but these interactions deserved a lot
more attention and detail. Even their first physical encounter is meh. Not that
I was looking for something pornographic, but considering they found it necessary
to randomly show Dickens urinating into a chamber pot (yuck, why?!), I can’t
figure out why they would be reluctant to loosen up a little on the more beautiful intimate moments!
It sort of boils down to being told of a great love affair,
instead of being shown one. But what we’re shown is certainly beautiful to look
at, and performed by an exquisite cast.
The Invisible Woman opens on January 24. Go here for local showtimes.
Posts
