By Matthew Savelloni
Possession - And No, It's Not Horror, It's A Romance
 |
Too often, critics decide to anoint a particular author as the greatest scribe since Fitzgerald. It's a collusive effort to promote a critical darling, the literary equivalent of "hype." Recent examples include ALL THE PRETTY HORSES (a tedious book made into a tedious movie), THE SHIPPING NEWS (a drab, half-baked exercise in reductive writing that spawned a wearisome film) and MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD & EVIL (a decent drama-thriller-travelogue bastardized into rambling cinema). Twelve years ago, a small literary sensation amassed across the Atlantic and blew into American bestseller charts. The book was entitled POSSESSION: A ROMANCE, the author A.S. Byatt, one of the first women ever admitted to Cambridge. POSSESSION won the 1990 Booker Prize and the Irish Times/Aer Lingus International Fiction Prize amongst other widespread praise. So I was skeptical when I first cracked the pages of this dense tome.
Almost all love stories, in order to avoid Harlequin Romance, Danielle Steele-type spatter, need to be about something else. Byatt understands this perfectly, so rather than simply dedicate 500+ pages to flowery prose of the boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl variety, she sets the whole enterprise in the reserved confines of English academia. The main plot revolves around a modern-day scholar, Roland Michell, who discovers rough drafts of a love letter by a Victorian poet named Randolph Ash for an unknown woman. Joined by beautiful but frigid peer Maud Bailey, the two scholars begin to trace the origins of this heretofore-unknown illicit love affair. Keeping their research secret from their fellow students and professors, the duo theorize that the object of Ash's desires was Christabel LaMotte, herself a noted poet but one just as famous for her progressive femininity and probable lesbian orientations as for her writings. The proposal that Ash, a family man, secretly lusted after and enjoined in a covert tryst with LaMotte is a jarring insight that ignites passion between the modern-day book detectives. As Roland and Maud's research blossoms so do their feelings, her glacial demeanor melting in his scruffy attention.
POSSESSION is not a plot-rich endeavor, but the cogency of the novel turns not on action, but in contemplation, realization and cautious, almost pained, overtures. Byatt wisely refuses to disguise the parallels between the Randolph-Christabel and Roland-Maud affairs. Nor does she spare the metaphorical rod of "possession." Copious reminders abound that each character is possessed by something and/or someone: Ash is bewitched by Christabel, Roland and Maud by one another and their compound discovery of a secret love affair between two eminent poets, the world of words possesses them all as well as us, the audience.
However, Byatt's great gift is also an infrequent roadblock to the flow of the novel. The author unfurls a full range of styles and conventions, prose and poetry both ancient and modern. It's almost unfair to imagine one person with the immense ability to flow so seamlessly between technique and etiquette but Byatt displays such spell-casting talents. Her prose is luxuriant but at times, overbearing. She's clearly showing off, no doubt immersed in her own world of words, and the story drags as a result. I have only one complaint about writers like Thoreau and Faulkner: just because you can write four pages about a leaf doesn't mean you should. Occasionally, you have to trust the audience to cull your intentions from smaller doses of composition. I reveled in her skill and craftsmanship and often lost myself in her wondrous schemes, but a few times, I wanted Byatt to move along.
Still, it's hard not to recommend whole-heartedly a novel like POSSESSION: A ROMANCE. It's good for the soul, expands the mind and intellect while immersing the reader in a captivating extravagance that crosses centuries. A.S. Byatt reminds me of a John Irving from "across the pond" and if that characterization invigorates you, by all means, read POSSESSION. But only read it when you have stored up sufficient patience to do so. Byatt's extraordinary work is like a long, long flight to a spectacular utopia.
The Movie - In The Company Of A Genius - What Were They Thinking?
The cinematic adaptation of POSSESSION is due August 16 in limited release, which means as long as you live in a major city, you'll be able to find it in the artsy theater behind the strip mall. If you live in Ames, Iowa, you're SOL. The film boasts an A-list independent cast including that American goddess who wishes she were English, Gwyneth Paltrow, as Maud, Aaron Eckhart as Roland, Jeremy Northam as Randolph Ash and Jennifer Ehle as Christabel LaMotte. Neil LaBute directs an adaptation by David Henry Hwang, Laura Jones and himself. Everything seems in place for a Merchant-Ivory-esque period romance until you get to Neil LaBute's name.
LaBute is the mastermind behind the woefully misunderstood IN THE COMPANY OF MEN and YOUR FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS, two of the most scathing satires ever produced. His films have been accused of being nihilistic, misogynistic, anarchistic and a lot of other nasty "-ic" words. They are none of those things. What people perceived as degrading to contemporary woman, the family structure and modern relationships were actually scathing indictments of the petty and shallow proclivities, most often exhibited by men, that destroy such institutions. I see LaBute as a moralist who shocks you by exposing the ego in its worst form. The fact that we laugh hysterically at such sick exposure is a tribute to his writing acumen and a pointed reminder of how close to the bone he cuts.
At first glance, you may have no idea why LaBute was allowed within 1000 miles of POSSESSION. But looking closer at the themes and struggles of the characters, it's easy to see how this puppy is right up LaBute's alley. Both Christabel and Maud are looking to establish themselves in the traditionally male-dominated field of literature. In a broader sociological context, both women strive to stand as independent people worthy of respect and success. Christabel flaunts her femininity in a stringent society that treated women as second-class citizens. Ash is drawn to her free-spirited dance, a poet's broad-minded whims personified in a lover. Maud is the flip side of Christabel but pursuing the same liberation. She hides her natural beauty and adopts a cool, indifferent persona to combat attention dedicated to anything but her intellectual offerings. Roland is also a constrained person like Ash but that constraint is predicated on his own introversion, not pressed upon him by Victorian society. LaBute is a perfect choice to bring these internal desires and struggles to the surface and let them simmer. He is a master at presenting passion, and although he has predominantly fixated on the harmful effects of all-consuming emotions, POSSESSION will allow him to examine the liberating effects of, well, true love.
The one reservation I have is the effectiveness of the adaptation. I have no doubt that Paltrow, Eckhart, Northam, Ehle, and LaBute are up to the task. The question is can A.S. Byatt's inviolable magnum opus be reduced to a 1 hour and 40 minute movie? The treasure at the end of Byatt's map is a wealth of expression, a beatific world of words, both spoken and written. I'm not sure that the captivating effect of the novel can be successfully transported to the screen. Reducing the book to its plot points will produce a simple film about two scholars falling in love while researching two poets who conducted a clandestine love affair. It's like watching two people fall in love who are watching THE HORSE WHISPERER and I'm not sure how enchanting that can possibly be.
Prediction: C+
I don't think they can pull this off without reducing the bouquet of Byatt's mastery into a by-the-numbers screen romance. Paltrow will be outstanding as usual. Echkart will continue to produce a unique and dependable body of work that will move him further up the Hollywood ladder; our newest Jeff Bridges. I imagine a soaring score, lots of sensual silences and longing looks, heavenly cinematography and a moving ending but not the overwhelming experience of the novel.
I know, I know, I'm punishing the movie for not being more like the book but in this case, the highlights of the book-meditations, descriptive wonders, books, words, inhibited feelings, sensations, hints, allegories, poems, unspoken passions-have never worked well on the big screen. I'm afraid those who haven't read the book will leave the theater only slightly satisfied having witnessed a flick they've seen a hundred times before. And those of us who have been entreated to A.S. Byatt's ambitious novel will look at the pretty pictures flickering on the screen and only be reminded of a great experience from another time.
Correction: "In researching last week's column on Blood Work, the press release notes for the movie I was working off of incorrectly identified Jeff Bridges as co-starring in the Clint Eastwood thriller. The actor in question is actually Jeff Daniels, not Bridges. My apologies to Mr. Daniels if he is reading. Thank you."
"The space between words and images is bridged by the imagination of the individual" - Anonymous
SHOOT-BACK HERE! |
ARCHIVES
