gemini_dremz I love this film if only for the actors! Willem Dafoe has always been one of my favorites and his portrayal of T.S. Eliot is wonderful, but Miranda Richardson's role as Vivienne Haigh-Wood Eliot is phenomenal. At first you have sympathy for Eliot because you think he's married to a nut case though we're never really told what's wrong with Vivienne other than "women's problems". However, as the movie moves on and you listen to the occasional narration of Vivienne's brother Maurice, you turn your sympathy towards Vivienne. Remembering Tom Eliot is an American, it's tedious watching him turn into the perfect Englishman as he'd always wanted. I do love the period costumes, cars and decor; very beautiful scenery as well. It's a rather sad story of secrets, denial and betrayal and in the end you feel left unsatisfied because once Vivienne is committed, she never gets out. One must wonder if she didn't choose to stay by her own accord even after being seen by an American Dr. who questions her long stay at the asylum. Tom has apparently moved on and must not have had regrets because Vivienne tells her brother that "I haven't' heard from Tom in ten years". It is at this point Maurice realizes what a terrible mistake he's made and is deeply ashamed of his decision to go along with Tom in having his own sister committed; a woman who was obviously very intelligent. Vivienne is quite an interesting character that leaves you wondering what she'll do next whereas Tom is most predictable. I do recommend this film.

ferdinand1932 Unlike many biographical films this one doesn't alter things so much from the historical record. It doesn't make one person more sympathetic than they were in reality, and, as the ending shows, it reaches not a grand finale, but a whimper. (Apologies for the nod to Eliot's most famous line – which he found tiresome too) This is a very sad story because the principals in real life were devoted to each other, but for a range of almost mysterious reasons to contemporary audiences, Vivienne's various maladies, mental and gynecological, are shrouded. Richardson carries this role well, and she almost owned the canon of disturbed women for a while in her career.The stand out is Dafoe as Eliot. Dafoe has the solemn, dignified, presence; the accent of period Englishness of a certain class and his American accent suppressed in the voice but mingled nearly perfectly to sound like Eliot. In addition Eliot's life, especially during these turbulent chapters were smothered, and to see Dafoe incarnate Eliot gives life to a man who was often an abstracted mind. This is a fine production in almost all respects although it may not have a wide appeal.

dlmorgan Was she mentally ill or was she suffering from hormonal imbalances not unlike post-menstrual syndrome? The fact that she was bleeding 3 times a month and had erratic behavior certainly alludes to something other that mental illness. When the American doctor came to the institution to see her, he said that her condition could have been controlled with medication. I realize that the times did not allow her illness to be analyzed or researched -- women were really of no interest other than being an extension of their husbands. However, I think that knowing what we do now -- and because as she got older her outbreaks lessened -- it seems that this was not a case of a "crazy" person's rantings. She was merely a woman who was indeed outspoken and had a mind of her own and also suffered from depression brought on by PMS.

edgein15 This artless art film perpetuates the romantic notion that as long as a clearly mentally ill person shows a tad of artistic inspiration every now and then, she should be given free reign to satisfy her every impulse, no matter how dangerous or self-destructive she may be. I'm getting a tad sick of the Manic as Martyr genre, but as cinema insists on looking back into history for more biopics, I shudder to think of what a future blockbuster like the Zelda Fitzgerald Story could do for the minds of talentless hangers-on everywhere.