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. 

Comments

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...

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....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...