|
|
32 of 33 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Julia's best since Brockovich?, 8 Jan 2004
MONA LISA SMILE is beguiling not only because it's a well-done, mid-1950s period piece, but also because it stars the always-enchanting Julia Roberts. With a film title like that, who else would be appropriate?Roberts is Katherine Watson, an art history teacher from California's public university system, who has the nerve to apply for - and get - a position on the faculty of the prestigious eastern college for women, Wellesley. Watson's goal is to make a difference in the lives of her students, but her Wacky West Coast feminism is immediately at odds with staid Wellesley tradition. The college is hardly more than a finishing school for marriage-bound debutantes. After all, it's 1953 and, at least according to contemporary cultural mores and commercial advertisers, a girl's ultimate dream is to be married to a successful white-collar professional, and have a house, children, washer and dryer, and a Hoover. To make things worse, Watson's first-day presentation in Art History 100 is gutted by a class that's already read the entire course syllabus. A humiliated Katherine must go to Plan B. Watson's students are a mixed bag represented in the plot by: Betty (Kirsten Dunst), the patronizing and know-it-all editor of the school paper who's soon to be married to a young lawyer, Giselle (Maggie Gyllenhaal), the free spirit that sleeps around, and Joan (Julia Stiles), who's torn between becoming a lawyer and getting married. Katherine is determined to get Joan into Yale Law School. Of the three, Dunst gives the most poignant performance as the one whose dream comes up against hard reality. And Joan's heartfelt explanation to Watson of her final choice gives Watson pause. There are several reasons why MONA LISA SMILE is an engaging, almost-excellent film. As a period piece, it's lavish in its depiction of the music, fashion, dance, advertising, and social expectations of the time. (The pre-determined role for young women of the upper-middle and upper classes will likely cause feminists to grip the arms of their seats with a white-knuckled fury.) MONA LISA SMILE has that general gist of MR. HOLLAND'S OPUS (1995), i.e. the generally acknowledged but too rarely explored effect that a great teacher can have on young minds. The latter film was so excellent that, in comparison, I can't quite bring myself to award MONA LISA SMILE the same five stars. Compared to the career of Mr. Holland (Richard Dreyfuss), which spanned decades, Watson's is a relative flash-in-the-pan over one academic year. (Also, I didn't find it so credible that Wellesley's severely conservative president should have been so surprised with Watson's non-conformity. I mean, didn't the college interview Katherine before giving her the nod, especially as she was coming from such a plebeian background? What were they thinking?) Lastly, there's Julia Roberts, who perhaps hasn't done so well in a leading role since ERIN BROCKOVICH, for which she won a Golden Globe as Best Actress. I wouldn't be surprised to see a nomination stemming from this performance. It's a genuine treat to see her again in something other than a fluffy, romantic comedy.
|