Whenever a play gets adapted into a film, the first thing people want to look at is how it “opens up” the play, so it feels less “stagey” and is not just a couple of actors in a room talking. If a film decides not to open it up and stick to the long scene structure of people talking, people will often slam the film for not being cinematic. This has never been a criticism I agree with. I have almost no problems with a director filming a play in a “stagey” way. It is the way the piece was written. I actually notice it more if the play is opened up for the sake of opening it up. Some of my favorite scenes in film history are just people sitting in rooms and talking. I fear this will be a heavy criticism leveed against Liv Ullman‘s adaptation of Miss Julie. However, the real problem with the film is the play it is adapted from is horribly outdated, despite three terrific performances from its cast.
The central theme of the play is not what is outdated, that being a debate over class, but a large percentage of the play is about the tarnishing of the titular Miss Julie’s (Jessica Chastain) name. You see, Miss Julie has grown accustomed to a life where she gets what she wants, being the daughter of a Baron. On this day, she wishes for her valet named John (Colin Farrell) to seduce her, even though he is engaged to the house cook (Samantha Marton). When John sees this as an opportunity to move up in the world, he takes advantage of the situation and promptly shames her afterwards.
I guess this is the nineteenth century version of “slut shaming”. Miss Julie is berated by John for her actions, refusing to take any of the blame for himself. He adapts to the situation he is in and sees her as a pawn he can manipulate. We are not supposed to think of John as a good guy, which makes sense. However, Kathleen the cook also takes up the same position, using religion to take the moral high ground. After all the fighting between Miss Julie and John, Kathleen is supposed to come in as the true officiator of the situation, but her final say on the matter is one so ancient it cannot apply to anyone (of a sound mind) today. Then, there is the ending, which I will not get into (even though it has been around for over one hundred years), but it is really problematic by today’s standards.
However, its commentary on class is still one that resonates. When it comes to the common human urges, like sex and greed, everyone is on a level playing field. The people of a lower class are more willing to do what is necessary to get what they want because they have a fighting mentality. The upper class think what they deserve should be given to them. And Miss Julie is not afraid to pull rank over John, ordering him to do things like kiss her boot. I do feel like Miss Julie and John have the same debate about class about five times, and it could have easily been trimmed up. The message still sinks through.
Chastain, Farrell, and Morton are the only actors in the film, aside from a brief prologue with Miss Julie as a little girl (Nora McMenamy) dealing with the death of her mother. Each one thrives in the confined, stagey nature of the film. I hold the firm belief Jessica Chastain is unable to perform a false note on screen, and this film is no exception, though this is a very different style I am used to seeing from her. The performances are quite heightened as part of the theatrical nature of it, and I think she maneuvers through it beautifully. Morton, though given a very problematic character, is thoroughly believable. She understands where Kathleen is coming from even if I can’t. Farrell never reaches the heights those two do, but he has his moments of real power.
One thing I need to point out about the film is Miss Julie and John spend an awful lot of the time drinking. It makes sense for the characters and the arguments they are having, but whenever they open another bottle or pull out another glass, they always feel the need to point it out. It got to a point where they were drinking so much the audience in my theater would laugh every time more alcohol was being poured. I think the theatrical nature of it had already alienated many people from the film and resorted to just laughing at it. Personally, I was disturbed whenever they grabbed another bottle.
As for Liv Ullmann, she is one of the finest actors the screen has ever seen. This is my first exposure to her as a director, and it does not surprise me in the least she picks a project that is a showcase for her actors. It is very heightened, and I know that is not to everyone’s liking. I quite enjoy films like that, and these actors truly deliver. If the play they were in was a little tighter (you could cut twenty minutes from this easily) and not as old fashioned in its moralizing, it could have been something truly great. As it stands, it is an average film elevated by excellent performances.
