Skip to main content

Not Much of a Fever for Tulip Fever


Believe it or not, Tulip Fever actually did exist. During the early seventeenth century, tulips, still the national flower of the Netherlands, became a really hot commodity in the thriving Dutch Empire, selling for exorbitant prices purely out of their fashion and beauty. And it’s against this backdrop that Justin Chadwick’s latest film, also called Tulip Fever, is set. It’s based on the novel by Deborah Moggach, but more notably, the screenplay was adapted by acclaimed playwright Tom Stoppard. That’s surely something to set your hopes high on.
Cornelis Sandvoort (Christoph Waltz) is an aristocrat in 1630s Amsterdam who’s desperate to have a child with his young wife Sophia (Alicia Vikander). However he’s impotent and she’s sexually unfulfilled. When he commissions a portrait be painted of them, the young artist Jan van Loos (Dane DeHaan) falls in love with her, and they begin a secret affair while gambling in the tulip market. At the same time the film follows the relationship between Sophia’s maid Maria (Holliday Grainger) and her fishmonger lover Willem (Jack O’Connell), whose story eventually coincides with Sophia’s.
As someone of proud Dutch heritage and with an admiration for Dutch art running in my family, there’s a lot in this movie that I like. The culture and society of Amsterdam in this period is on full display and the whole visual aesthetic is constantly referencing Dutch art, particularly the work of Jan Vermeer. There are shots and moments that are more stylistically reminiscent of Jan Steen, Frans Hals, and of course Rembrandt as well (such as some of the lighting); but Vermeer is the clear inspiration both in van Loos’ style and the fact that Sophia has a somewhat “Girl with the Pearl Earring” pose. Also the idea of the Dutch painter falling for his model is directly analogous to Tracey Chevalier’s novel of that same name. So the film is quite beautiful to watch with a lot of nice looking imagery and a good realization of the era. Even if the shaky cam gets too distracting in some of the street scenes.
Unfortunately, the story connected to these visuals is pretty absurd. It starts off as straightforward as I described, though with a very rushed build into Jan and Sophia’s relationship. But the story takes some very dumb turns. For a while, the subplot concerning Maria and Willem has no connection to anything, and when they do merge it’s for a very goofy major plot point that feels incredibly out of place in this generally serious romantic drama. In fact, Willem becomes engaged in an off-screen storyline that might just be more interesting than what actually is shown. The editing is also very strange, often intercutting simultaneous scenes, but they’re very tonally inconsistent scenes. There’s also an irritating misunderstanding, and many of the characters, Sophia most of all, come off incredibly dimwitted by some choices and rationalizations. Her last significant action is especially short-sighted. Stoppard tries his best with the script, imbuing some of his Shakespeare in Love romanticized dialogue, but it doesn’t work here either. He’s usually at his best when working with something more comedic, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead being the obvious example.
The actors are also legitimately trying for the most part. Though her character is enormously flawed, Vikander plays Sophia very well, proving again even with lesser material, how terrific an actress she is. DeHaan is putting effort in too, giving an okay performance that’s miles ahead of what he was doing in Valerian. And speaking of which, Cara Delevigne is in this movie for no reason! It’s a very small role and I can only imagine it’s the result of Valerian being filmed around the same time just across the Channel (Tulip Fever having been filmed in England). Christoph Waltz delivers as honestly a pretty sympathetic character despite Sophia’s attempts to escape her marriage to him. This movie boasts quite a good supporting cast, from Kevin McKidd and Douglas Hodge to Zach Galifianakis of all people playing Jan’s drunken sidekick. And he’s actually not bad. David Harewood is in the movie, Tom Hollander plays another in a long line of creeps, and Judi Dench appears as an Abbess, giving a great performance with her little screen-time. But while O’Connell is very good, the weak link of the cast is probably Grainger, who’s more than a little wooden and her line delivery is lacking. This is especially problematic given she’s the narrator.
Tulip Fever is worth watching only if you’re really interested in the Dutch Golden Age. It’s emphatically a great looking movie with good performances too, but it’s the story and characters that really aren’t going to make it in any way memorable otherwise. Which is a shame because I’d love to see more films set in this era of Holland. It’s a period and culture that deserves to be better explored cinematically. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Stylish and Charmingly Reinvented David Copperfield

The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery (Which He Never Meant to Publish on Any Account)  is the most important book Charles Dickens ever wrote. It is not the most famous or influential by any means (that would of course be A Christmas Carol ), but it is the book that is the purest expression of the authors’ style, identity, and worldview. It is his most personal work, semi-autobiographical in its story of the chronology from infancy to adulthood of a character who overcomes great loss and hardships to find a fulfilling life as a writer. To read David Copperfield  is to understand Dickens himself. Armando Iannucci knew this when he decided to make a new adaptation of the novel for a twenty-first century audience. He also knew that Dickens adaptations are ubiquitous at this point. Films are a bit rarer, but every few years a new television adaptation rears its head to keep the authors’ unique world an...
Post a Comment
Read more

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....
8 comments
Read more