Mona Lisa Smile (2003)

The main theme in Rachel Portman's score for "Mona Lisa Smile" is yet another rewrite of her Oscar-nominated score for "The Cider House Rules" - charming, pleasant to listen to, but unoriginal. In that respect, it fits this movie perfectly.

The movie is nominally about the new teacher at the all-girls Wellesley College in 1953 and how she tries to get the students there to think for themselves instead of following the path their elders have set for them, but director Mike Newell (who it's impossible to believe once did movies like "Dance With A Stranger") and writers Laurence Konner and Mark Rosenthal, taking time out from weak remakes (they also did the Tim Burton "Planet of the Apes") and sequels (they also did "Superman IV: The Quest For Peace" and "The Jewel Of The Nile") to do an all-new movie, turn it into a nicely-shot, decently-acted two-hour soap opera. I admit I didn't hate it the way some other males commenting on it seem to - it's passably amusing and I can see the points it's trying to make - but ultimately it just doesn't come off.

Part of the problem is the casting; Julia Roberts is never believable for a second as the art teacher, and she spends the movie being acted off the screen by her students (when they show off more textbook knowledge than she does in their first class, the impression that they should be teaching her never leaves) and fellow teachers. Kirsten Dunst (as a prissy writer on the college newspaper who stands for The Way Things Are) and Julia Stiles (as an art student with a desire to be a lawyer) seem to have been cast in each other's roles by mistake; Stiles in particular sounds as if she's playing at being grown-up throughout, although both she and Dunst give it their best shot for the most part (KD's big emotional scene near the end is dreadful). As for the male roles, let's just call them tokens and leave it at that. (In fairness, Ginnifer Goodwin as the... pleasantly plump girl (you can't really call her fat), Maggie Gyllenhaal as a sexy free spirit, Marcia Gay Harden as a fellow teacher obsessed with TV and an all-too-briefly seen Juliet Stevenson as a nurse are all much better value.)

But what really hurts "Mona Lisa Smile" isn't the acting, or the music (though it's no fun hearing Barbra Streisand vocally showing off over the credits), but the writing. In addition to setting up all its characters as cliches and not really building up any of its plot lines (with Roberts's plot the dullest of all), the script's attempts to bring over the idea of women in the 1950s being who they choose to be, though perfectly laudable, come over as people switching to suit the plot (it's never clear how one character winds up changing her mind in the end). Rather than earn the movie's would-be bittersweet ending, it seems obligatory. Not much about the movie is honest, and even less is moving - only Goodwin's and Gyllenhaal's scenes are truly interesting, the former because it gives the movie some true emotion, and the latter because she's an alluring and likeable creature; some funny moments, but not enough to make it true fun. Just enough, however, to make the movie endurable.

"Mona Lisa Smile" isn't a BAD movie; it's just unnecessary, and not nearly the deep and moving treatise about the pre-Women's Lib days that it thinks it is. It's a lot like some of the beauty contestants we see in the 1950s monta

Fmovies: As a graduate of Wellesley College, 1952, I was eager to see the movie. For a while I thought maybe it was supposed to be a satire. I had read reviews but no one mentioned satire. It was so ludicrous, so over the top, so busy giving us stereotypes, and so far from my experience that it was depressing. I didn't mind the Julia Roberts character although she is probably anachronistic. Certainly those young women, so well dressed for classes, talking back to her in well thought out sentences full of vitriol were figments of Hollywood's imagination. I remember no courses offered, either in classrooms or rooms in dorms or faculty housing, on "poise," proper table setting, etc. And nowhere in the movie did any of the girls discuss ideas (except in the art class). The nighttime dormitory sessions were all about men, getting husbands, and pointing fingers at Giselle, the "whore." In actuality, we used to stay up late discussing ideas, and we were passionate about such things as academic freedom.

The plush dormitory rooms were more figments of Hollywood's imagination. Our rooms were of the bare bones variety. I remember bringing a comfortable chair of my own from home.

I loved my art history and music appreciation courses. They changed my life. I had known nothing of art before Wellesley and only the Warsaw Concerto for classical music. But those two courses informed my life and have stayed with me all these years, enriching my experience. I had a career as a high school English teacher and my literature courses were wonderful for that purpose and for expanding my reading. But the art and music courses were special.

Good acting; good costumes for the most part; the people looked authentic for the times (except too dressed up for class; we wore skirts and blouses, no blue jeans). It was nice to see some of the beautiful campus. I don't remember ever taking part in hoop rolling, daisy chain, the opening day ceremony in front of the chapel.

Finally, what was the point of making such a movie today? To suggest how far we've come from the 1950s? To ridicule what was then? After all, there was much that was good. I mean I feel so lucky to have been able to go to a place like Wellesley even if it was for the privileged. It certainly was not as conservative as the movie depicted; nor was it a "finishing school." Professors were continually opening our minds to more and more knowledge. The canon then may have been mostly men (we read almost all male writers in our English courses, but that's how it was). What was wonderful, however, was being with all women, being able to speak up freely in class, being able to win positions of authority in extra curricular organizations like the college newspaper. Not having to compete with men.

I was really disappointed, In the Women's Room after the movie, I questioned everyone there...there were a couple my age or a little younger and then a few a generation or more younger. Everyone had liked the movie! One young woman tried to tell me it wasn't just about Wellesley; they were depicting the 50s in general. But the fact is the 50s in general were not that dismal!

My granddaughters like to watch movies over and over. With Mona Lisa Smile, I'm with them. This is a movie that will lift you up and make you smile.

Some reviewers on this site claim the movie has a liberal agenda. Well, if its liberal to want young ladies to consider all their options and be able to reach for the stars - if they choose, then who can disagree. Label me with an "L".

Recent movies that I will watch again include Groundhog Day, In America, The Emperor's Club, and In & Out. If you liked most of these, watch this movie.

You won't be disappointed. And be sure to watch the credits at the end, the part done to the song "The Heart of Every Girl." The older generation will really relate.

Mona Lisa Smile fmovies. This is the kind of movie that is easy to pan, but deserves better. Yes, the premise is familiar, the plot is formulaic, the characters seem like you've met them before.

But...

"The devil is in the details," as they say, and this picture has just enough surprises, just enough charm, just enough fine acting to make it worth watching. Movies do not have to be real to be worthwhile, they just have to be about real things. The questions "Mona Lisa Smile" covers are still very much with us, and may provoke considerable discussion in your house. This film is respectful enough of its subject matter and well-enough executed to make it a much better way to spend your time than most of what's out there now. Don't believe the sourpusses, this one's a good'un.

Another film about a progressive teacher trying to teach her students how to think outside of the box. Fortunately, unlike School of Rock, my views on which were accosted last week, I left Mona Lisa Smile mostly satisfied with what I had seen. No, it's not especially revelatory or surprising. You can more or less guess what's going to happen to each character by the end. But it does leave a little more room for characterization, for slightly unexpected outcomes, and it doesn't telegraph its moments quite so rigidly as the Linklater film. Julia Roberts is an actress about whom I feel nothing; I neither like nor dislike her. I think this is one of her better performances, certainly much better than her Oscar winning role in Erin Brockovich. She plays the progressive art history teacher, who arrives at Welsley to learn that all of her students have already studied the textbook from cover to cover, and can answer any question that might arise from the class's current syllabus. The curriculum and Roberts' superiors are strict in what they want to teach about art, but Roberts veers towards teaching what the textbook will not despite them. The superiors are unhappy with her course, but some of the students are opened up to the experience. Outside of class, Roberts faces as large a challenge. Most of her students have completely resigned to the idea that they are destined for marriage and nothing more. The status quo must be challenged. The students are a nice range of characters. Kirsten Dunst plays the most conservative, who is about to be married when the film opens. She, of course, rejects Roberts' ideals. On the other end of the spectrum is Maggie Gyllenhaal, who is the sexually promiscuous girl who idealizes her teacher. Slightly left of center is Ginnifer Goodwin and right of center Julia Stiles. These four characters are set up very mechanically, of course, but the characters succeed (and this can be said about all of the other characters of the movie, including Roberts', who are all rather mechanical) on the quality of acting. Each of the performers are wonderful. They manage to make you care, which is something that didn't happen with School of Rock, whose performers (with the one exception of Joan Cusack) were adequate or worse. I especially loved Marcia Gay Harden, giving another one of the best performances of 2003, as Roberts' roommate, who teaches etiquette. She's a pathetic, tragicomic image of what some of the girls will become if they insist that the traditional concept of womanhood remain unchanged. The film also boasts exceptional technical qualities. It's simply very well made. 8/10.

In 1953, free spirited and non-orthodox art history teacher Katherine Ann Watson (Julia Roberts) accepts the challenge of teaching in the conservative Wellesley College. She leaves her boy-friend Paul Moore (John Slattery) in California and share a house with the teacher Nancy Abbey (Marcia Gay Harden) and the nurse Amanda (Juliet Stevenson).

On the first day, her class fails under the leadership of the arrogant Betty Warren (Kirsten Dunst) and her friends Joan Brandwyn (Julia Stiles) and Giselle Levy (Maggie Gyllenhaal), but Katherine is advised by her mates and the Italian teacher Bill Dunbar (Dominic West) to not fear the students. Soon Katherine learns that the girls are only waiting to catch Mr. Nice Guy and get married and she fights against the status- quo of Wellesley and to keep her independence.

"Mona Lisa Smile" is an entertaining movie about a woman living ahead of time in a conservative environment. The performances are top-notch, highlighting Julia Roberts, Kirsten Dunst, Julia Stiles and Maggie Gyllenhaal. I bought this DVD many years ago and only today I have seen this movie recommended by a friend of mine. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "O Sorriso de Mona Lisa" ("The Smile of Mona Lisa")