The Painted Veil
In addition to starring in this Anglocentric period piece, Edward Norton and Naomi Watts produced it, too, so there’s no one to blame but them for shepherding such an ossified story back to the screen. Based upon a novel by W. Somerset Maugham that I now have zero interest in reading, “The Painted Veil” was previously filmed in 1934 — 1934! — with Greta Garbo, Herbert Marshall and Warner Oland (a.k.a. Charlie Chan) as the local military commander in the rural Chinese village where much of it takes place. I suspect that version at least provides some insight into Hollywood’s attitudes about Asia 70 years ago, but the new “Painted Veil” proves, sadly, that those attitudes haven’t changed much. The Chinese are mostly decorative: the men serious and inscrutable or round-faced and bumbling (no buck teeth, but close); the women “exotic” and alluring or grim-visaged and industrious; and the children, simply adorable. If you’re a Westerner thinking of adopting a Chinese baby, “The Painted Veil” will make you want to bring home three.
Anyway, Norton plays Dr. Walter Fane, a bacteriologist who hastily courts and marries Kitty (Watts) while on leave from his post in Shanghai. She accepts his proposal only to get away from her family, and once in China, she begins an affair with a caddish diplomat (Liev Schreiber). When Walter finds out, he punishes her by bringing her with him into the center of a cholera epidemic. Hmmm … marriage of convenience, trying circumstances that call for heroic deeds … can you see where this is going? Do I have to spell it out for you? Certainly John Curran, director of “The Painted Veil,” feels he needs to. “The Painted Veil” never once strays from its preprogrammed narrative beats. It’s almost brazenly formulaic.
Perhaps Watts and Norton wanted to challenge themselves. Maybe they knew how silly and uninteresting the story was and wanted to see how much life and emotional honesty they could breathe into it. To their credit, they do a damn fine job. Norton brings ardor, frustration and his typical seductive intelligence to Walter; Watts, as usual, is an emotional powerhouse. Her Kitty is uncomplicated and lacking in mystery but somehow no less fascinating for it.
Nevertheless, I couldn’t help wishing “The Painted Veil” were about Schreiver’s Charlie Townsend — he’s so confident, so effortlessly duplicitous, and his strong, clear voice is such a welcome contrast to Norton’s reedy whining — or Toby Jones’s Waddington, a rumpled, ratlike foreign service officer devoted to his Chinese paramour. Loose morals and healthy sexual appetites amid the diplomatic corps — throw in a little Catholic guilt and existential angst and you’ve sidestepped into Graham Greene’s universe. I’d certainly rather read another one of his books — or see one of the terrific movies adapted from them — than bother with any more Maugham. “The Painted Veil” is lush, handsome and instantly irrelevant.
they knew that it would appeal only to an art-house audience. they also knew that, regardless of what you say, that watts’s character was probably the most complicated she had ever played–much more than the simpleton she played in mulholland dr, which many have compared to her performance in the painted veil.
obviously if you don’t like this type of literature (or merchant-ivory) you would not appreciate this. but watts proved she is the most expressive actress in film today. but no…this is not an action film. at least you admitted she was an emotional powerhouse. & it is one of the 10best.
john
9 Jan 07 at 2:47 am
Obviously you don’t like this film because you don’t like the novel. From the over 100 critics’ reviews that I’ve read and my 3 viewings so far of the film, this is the best of the 3 adaptations, and of course, as far as acting is concerned, there is no comparison from the previous 2 films. I think you’ve not done justice to this excellent film and the great performances of its actors (Watts and Norton) by reviewing the film under the shadow of a personal dislike of the novel ie. your review is baised and skrewed.
steandric
14 Feb 07 at 1:11 pm
I’m surprised at how much vitriol this review has generated. In response to the second comment: I didn’t read the novel! I thought I made that clear. I don’t WANT to read the novel now, but then after all the flak I’ve gotten, perhaps I should. I hope Maugham at least has an engaging prose style. But the structure of the story, which I assume emerges intact from Maugham, bored me silly.
By the way, I wonder: Did any of this movie’s defenders see the trailer? It gave away absolutely everything that happens, including (SPOILER!) Walter’s death. Not that I would have been surprised without that tidy little two-minute story outline.
Ben
17 Feb 07 at 12:17 pm