POSSESSION (Neil LaBute, 2002)

Reviewed: September 12th, 2002

Buried not-so-deep within Neil LaBute's Possession--a languid, charming, exquisitely photographed adaptation of A.S. Byatt's novel--is a truly great romantic dramedy yearning to free itself from the (mostly) constrictive reigns of its tired plot devices. This secret, unmade film--like the sparkling moments of Possession and the best of LaBute's other work--will carry insight into the nuances of male/female interrelationships, though (like Possession) these knowledge chunks will still be conveyed in a playful, even sweet fashion (a first for the normally brutal LaBute). Utilizing the ample chemistry of its stars Aaron Eckhart (whose gruff voice and unshaven, gently handsome looks makes for a a nice everyman quality) and Gwyneth Paltrow (whose intelligence, radiance and sexy, faux English lilt mark her as a mate most men can only dream of), this movie will blend the strongest parts of Possession (LaBute's graceful camera moves and incisive framing, the warm, soothing glow emanating from every scene, the sharp leading characterizations, the touching moments of human fallibility) into a memorable new concoction full of adventurous wit and hardy narrative drive. In other words: it'll hack off the huge, soap-operatic, boring-as-hell segments of Possession that occur in the past and hone the story focus in on only one pair of (possibly) mismatched maybe-lovers (Eckhart and Paltrow), thus crafting a lean, atypically not mean, LaBute romance machine. (Oh, and it'll also delete the dumb, trite, American-as-out-of-place-Englishman hijinks.)

Possession follows Paltrow and Eckhart as a duo of literary sleuths, researching the newly-discovered, sexually-tangled web woven by a likewise duo of famous Victorian writers (one male, one female) whom they have long been employed to study. Paltrow is uptight and spoken for (though miserable) and Eckhart has vowed to give up on relationships. Intercut with their Nancy Drew-maybe-fucks-the-Hardy-Boys antics are rewind sequences with the Victorian writers they're investigating, at home in their distinctly snooze-inducing, circa Victorian world.

There are a few flawless scenes in Possession that can be transferred verbatim to the new film (particularly the wonderful section where Eckhart and Paltrow share a single hotel room). Our new film will mediate on how the ghosts of the past inform the souls of the present (instead of just barely hinting at the idea like Possession), and will even do so without having to resort to the aforementioned flashback-tedium crutch. Our new movie will replace Possession's (mostly) superfluous array of supporting players (primarily underdeveloped, jealous colleagues who want in on the academic action) and replace them with a support staff far more pertinent to our central thematic concerns (which in addition to said mediation, will involve whether a human's desire to never fall in love is not inherently false and artificial; for my money, that's easily the most interesting material LaBute and company are working with in Possession).

Possession is a good movie. It is not for all tastes. There is a certain audience -- perhaps tea-party-throwing lovers of Jane Austen -- to whom Possession is undoubtedly an ideal film. Light-hearted courting, melodrama, beautiful scenery and a sprinkling of tragic spice, Possession offers everything this group could ever demand from a film. But for those of us who see cinema as limitless possibility, Possession doesn't go far enough.

(Food For Thought: Eckhart remarks at one point that he's given up on relationships because his actions in the past hurt a lot of women, particularly one girl. Perhaps LaBute has in mind Eckhart's playing his In the Company of Men character, Chad, years down the line after he's gone through a major redemption of sorts?)

Return home.