I have read four different translations of this play, directed it, and played Julie. I adore this play. So now, I hope my infuriated disappointment is understandable after seeing this film. The same linguist who had done my favorite translation of the play (Helen Cooper, the Methuen Drama Translation) also did the screenplay, so naturally, I expected something mostly faithful to the script. No, instead, Christine was written in as an intelligent sarcastic woman. The latter is especially bothersome because Strindberg himself wrote in his preface (around 6 pages printed before the play text explaining to the women and other invalids the action of the play) that Christine was meant to be a dull character, and empowering her alters the direction of the play. Albeit marginally, but it still does.
On a cinematic level, it's completely beautiful. The celluloid is very pretty, especially in the garden scenes. The costumes are gorgeous. However, the acting is awful, for the most part. Julie is physically gorgeous, but, her sexy voice is monotonous and absolutely massacres the character because of this. She constantly has a blank look in her eye and a dull expression on her face, which is the opposite of what she should have in order to match the intricacies of the lines that she's speaking. Julie doesn't have an independent thought of her own (which she admits within the text of the play) but she still regurgitates what she has been taught with extreme deliberate passion, for an attempt at control and to create a notion that she is far more intelligent than she is. This is lost within the movie. When she is attempting to seduce, she just doesn't look attractive; she looks childlike. When she is in the heat of a kiss, she looks weak and not in control. She is the submissive herself, SO prematurely. Her phrasing is disjointed in many places. At the end of the play we see very little of a shift in character outside of the fact that she has a bit of an airy gait and inflection when she is asking Jean to come up to her room alongside her. At the end of the movie, she isn't noticeably anything, which would be great if it were a part of the character, however, it didn't change from the beginning of the movie. So if this is another bit of inconsistency in regards to the script, I understand: translate a play that is meant to show how weak the gentry/women can be by showing how far they can fall upon the slightest suggestion into a film that shows no distance between where the gentlewoman had begun and ended. I do have to say that the hysterical monologue towards the end that was directed to Christine about "plans for the future" was superb, in relativity to the entire movie. The acting was believable (FOR ONCE) and I could feel that Julie was pathetic. It turned my stomach, and that's great. That's seriously great. She IS pathetic and she SHOULD have that effect on people.
However, the monologue that is meant to be the climax of the play was poorly built within the realm of the movie. Julie picking up the knife looks ridiculous. Different sections of it were executed well, but not nearly as fluently as it really should have been. The falling action of the monologue was very well done, however.
Also, Jean is Scottish or Irish and it doesn't make any sense. He lived in France for awhile as a doorman and wine waiter and then lived in Sweden. The actors' acting was just at par level and wasn't near good enough to sacrifice that bit of logic within the movie. It is embarrassing how overly angry he became upon Julie's waking of Christine. Besides, Julie's reaction to him throwing her aside isn't even close to the character that Strindberg scripted.
Direction, a loose translation, and casting are all culprits for why this beautiful play was so weakly constructed into film.
See Froken Julie (1951) if you would like to see a much more faithful, well done adaptation. Yes, it's in Swedish, but the subtitles give you a general gist. Better yet, read the Methuen Drama version of Miss Julie. It's an amazing piece. It doesn't deserve the treatment this movie gave it.
On a cinematic level, it's completely beautiful. The celluloid is very pretty, especially in the garden scenes. The costumes are gorgeous. However, the acting is awful, for the most part. Julie is physically gorgeous, but, her sexy voice is monotonous and absolutely massacres the character because of this. She constantly has a blank look in her eye and a dull expression on her face, which is the opposite of what she should have in order to match the intricacies of the lines that she's speaking. Julie doesn't have an independent thought of her own (which she admits within the text of the play) but she still regurgitates what she has been taught with extreme deliberate passion, for an attempt at control and to create a notion that she is far more intelligent than she is. This is lost within the movie. When she is attempting to seduce, she just doesn't look attractive; she looks childlike. When she is in the heat of a kiss, she looks weak and not in control. She is the submissive herself, SO prematurely. Her phrasing is disjointed in many places. At the end of the play we see very little of a shift in character outside of the fact that she has a bit of an airy gait and inflection when she is asking Jean to come up to her room alongside her. At the end of the movie, she isn't noticeably anything, which would be great if it were a part of the character, however, it didn't change from the beginning of the movie. So if this is another bit of inconsistency in regards to the script, I understand: translate a play that is meant to show how weak the gentry/women can be by showing how far they can fall upon the slightest suggestion into a film that shows no distance between where the gentlewoman had begun and ended. I do have to say that the hysterical monologue towards the end that was directed to Christine about "plans for the future" was superb, in relativity to the entire movie. The acting was believable (FOR ONCE) and I could feel that Julie was pathetic. It turned my stomach, and that's great. That's seriously great. She IS pathetic and she SHOULD have that effect on people.
However, the monologue that is meant to be the climax of the play was poorly built within the realm of the movie. Julie picking up the knife looks ridiculous. Different sections of it were executed well, but not nearly as fluently as it really should have been. The falling action of the monologue was very well done, however.
Also, Jean is Scottish or Irish and it doesn't make any sense. He lived in France for awhile as a doorman and wine waiter and then lived in Sweden. The actors' acting was just at par level and wasn't near good enough to sacrifice that bit of logic within the movie. It is embarrassing how overly angry he became upon Julie's waking of Christine. Besides, Julie's reaction to him throwing her aside isn't even close to the character that Strindberg scripted.
Direction, a loose translation, and casting are all culprits for why this beautiful play was so weakly constructed into film.
See Froken Julie (1951) if you would like to see a much more faithful, well done adaptation. Yes, it's in Swedish, but the subtitles give you a general gist. Better yet, read the Methuen Drama version of Miss Julie. It's an amazing piece. It doesn't deserve the treatment this movie gave it.