An Ideal Husband (II) (1999) User Reviews

Too Serious a Matter

[tributarystu · 5/10 · 20 July 2006]

While I enjoy Wilde in all the ways a man is supposed to, I'd dare say that there are times when even his brilliance cannot compensate the blunders of others.

This being said, I'll be concise: Mr. Cartlidge's adaptation of Wilde's play takes itself far too serious to work and while this is bearable in itself, the questionable caliber of the actors' performances adds another tedious and gross layer upon an otherwise totally lovable affair. The result is an even, blunt and only partly entertaining production which retains some of its initial values, but misses out on its potential. I do not doubt that any work of art can have unlimited interpretations (although I do not agree to this conception because we are, most unfortunately, limited, pitiful creatures), but only some are rewarding for the masses, with this being a rather lukewarm experience.

Mediocre drama in two time zones

[augustian · 5/10 · 16 February 2011]

Not having read the play by Oscar Wilde, nor having seen any other version of this play, I came to this film version only knowing that Oscar Wilde was reputed to be one of England's wittiest 19th century playwrights. I was expecting an entertaining event but was left let down by the attempt to tally late 19th century dialogue with late 20th century environment.

This is about the skeleton in the closet of rising politician Robert Chiltern (James Witby) who apparently came into his fortune in a less than forthright way. This has been kept secret from friends and family but now an old acquaintance in the form of Laura Chevely (Sadie Frost) looks set to bring it all into the open. It is left to his friend Lord Arthur Goring to smooth it over and keep Robert's reputation intact. Arthur has to tread a fine line, being all things to all men while at the same time wooing Robert's sister, Mabel. Perhaps it is Arthur, not Robert, who is Wilde's ideal husband-to-be. Keeping the viewer off-balance in this way would certainly be in keeping with his literary reputation.

The performances by most of the cast seemed flat and emotionless. Only Robert Hardy and Prunella Scales lent weight to this production. Tara Palmer-Tomkinson had a small role but she later became more famous for her partying and stints in rehab than her acting qualities.

I like films that are shot on location and this one was filmed in a part of the country I know quite well. The one location I question is Wrotham Park. This is the large Palladian style mansion that Arthur Goring drives past on his way to and from his house (Micklefield Hall). Wrotham Park is actually twelve miles away from Micklefield Hall yet in the film one gets the impression that the two properties are very close together. The scene where Arthur's car breaks down was filmed at the junction of Deadman's Ash Lane and Bottom Lane, Sarratt, Rickmansworth, England. The performances in this film leave me rather cold but the locations partly compensate so 5 stars.

Far from ideal production

[scottam · 3/10 · 25 January 1999]

The first twenty-five minutes stand out as possibly the worst in modern British film. Director/adapter William Cartlidge has treated Wilde's original with such reverence that he seems to have completely ignored the needs of a cinematic audience. Thankfully the quality of the direction and editing improves significantly after the first half hour, but by then the damage has been done. Of the actors, Prunella Scales and Robert Hardy wipe the floor with the rest of the cast every time they are on screen. The other exceptions are Jonathan Firth's Arthur and Karen Hayley's Mabel, who are given enough latitude to deliver their lines with the true comic sense which Wilde intended. The ostensible leads, James Wilby and Trevyn McDowell, are in comparison lacklustre and wooden. In an obvious attempt to eke every penny out a meagre budget, the play has been nominally updated to the 1990's, but in conjunction with the original script the effect is more of a badly script 1970s TV drama. True moments of comedy are few and far between, but when they arrive are highly amusing - a sign, maybe, that more judicious pruning of the rest of the play might have led to a better paced, more even film.

Good performances, most accurate to the Wilde script

[sissoed · 8/10 · 28 December 2006]

I have seen three video/film versions of this play (the 1969 Jeremey Brett, this 1998, and the 1999 Blanchette/Everette/Northam) and have also read the script. Of the three, this 1998 version, set in contemporary 1998, is the truest to the original script, and it is a great compliment to Wilde and to these actors that his dialog and epigrams flow naturally from the contemporary characters, almost exactly 100 years after the original setting of the play. Moreover, this 1998 version is the only one in which the characters are the right ages: Mrs. Chevely and Mrs. Chiltern, who went to school together, must be the same age, and here they are both about 27, as Wilde wrote it. Sir Robert Chiltern is about 40, Lord Goring 34. The only major change in this version is that Sir Robert is not in Parliament, nor is the action in London; instead, he is in local county politics in rural England. Thus, at the end, he is not offered a seat in the cabinet, but instead, is chosen by his party to run for Parliament. I suspect director/adapter Bill Cartlidge made this change because it would not have been credible in the contemporary setting for a woman as young as Mrs. Chevely to have already made a success in some foreign capital, as she has in the back-story of the original play.

The emotional highlight of this 1998 version is the performance of Ms. Trevyn McDowell as Gertrude Chiltern. All of her scenes are spot-on convincing and powerful -- especially the scenes where she realizes her husband acted badly in the past, the moment where her husband confronts her with her pink-note-paper letter and she realizes he thinks it was for him, and where she admits she deceived him about her letter. Her performance makes clear what the other two versions do not: that this play is truly about Gertrude Chiltern and her learning to have a more understanding heart. This is the same theme as in Wilde's play Lady Windermere's Fan. The other performances are all convincing, except I found it a little hard to believe that Sadie Frost (as Mrs. Chevely), even though the correct age for the part, could have been as calculating as the script requires. I think the problem stems from the costuming and hairstyle -- Mrs. Chevely here looks like a sexy young seductress, but the character is really someone who is elegant and with a level of greed that is reflected in her dress and jewelry. The change in the setting of the action -- from London to the country -- while perhaps intended to make this character more credible, unfortunately undermines this character in another way, since it is hard to believe that Mrs. Chevely would want to leave London to re-establish herself in the country, whereas in the original, it was quite natural to think that a fashionable Englishwoman would want to return to her own capital city after a few years abroad.

I found it interesting that despite the general accuracy of this version to the original script, even this version (as do the other versions) cut the lines in which first Lord Goring, and then Gertrude, say that "A man's life has more value than a woman's. It has larger issues, wider scope, greater ambitions. A woman's life revolves in curves of emotions. It is upon lines of intellect that a man's life progresses." The howls of outrage those lines would provoke in audiences today! It is really quite interesting to contemplate the change in 100 years: at the time of the play, being gay (like Wilde) was the outrage that caused society to destroy one, and holding these sentiments was accepted; today it is the opposite. It makes one wonder how in the year 2095, sentiments and conduct condemned today may be accepted, and other sentiments and conduct accepted today will be condemned. Ironically, those are the lines that must be cut in a contemporary version such as this one, since no credible characters in 1998 would say such things; the 1999 Blanchette version cuts them even though it is set in 1895, not 1998, no doubt because it would set-off such an adverse reaction in the audience as to suddenly render the characters unsympathetic. The 1969 Brett version escapes the whole issue by entirely cutting the last part of the play, and ending with Sir Robert deciding to retire from public life, and with Sir Robert posing no objection to Goring marrying Mabel. The 1969 version thus avoids the scene where Gertrude must reveal her own deception to her husband. (I am posting separate comments on the 1999 version and on the 1969 version, which is filed in IMDb under "Play of the Month" season 4, episode 9).

In sum, this is the best version to watch if you want to get the most accurate understanding of Wilde's original, both in terms of language and in terms of the characters, their emotional arcs, and interactions. This is the one that best reflects Wilde's own vision, when he said that the play was about "the difference in the way in which a man loves a woman from that in which a woman loves a man, the passion that women have for making ideals (which is their weakness) and the weakness of a man who dares not show his imperfections to the thing he loves. The end of Act I, the end of Act II, and the scene in the last act, when Lord Goring points out the higher importance of a man's life over a woman's —to take three prominent instances —seem to have been quite missed by most of the critics. They failed to see their meaning; they really thought that it was a play about a bracelet...." (extract from Gilbert Burgess, 'A Talk with Mr. Oscar Wilde' The Sketch, 9 Jan. 1895 quoted in Tydeman Comedies, 37)

Wilde's wit always overcomes adversity

[TheNorthernMonkee · 7 July 2004]

SPOILERS

In classical text, there's always one or two authors who's use of language reveals their identity. In some of Shakespeare's lesser known plays, his use of pros often shows the audience that it is one of his productions. On a similar vein, Oscar Wilde's work can always be identified by the stunning, witty satire which he writes. In the case of "An Ideal Husband" from 1998, this is never more obvious. Whilst not his most famous or best play, this piece of work is still worthy of our attention. With a relatively unknown cast, and a low budget setting, the story is relocated to a more modern era in a way which is worthy of credit.

In "An Ideal Husband" we are introduced to Sir Robert Chiltern (James Wilby). Recently successful in a political campaign, Robert's wife Gertrude (Trevyn McDowell) and his sister Mabel (Karen Hayley) throw a dinner in his honour. Unfortunately however, at this party, the conniving Mrs Laura Cheveley (Sadie Frost) arrives with knowledge of Robert's past and a proposition to put to him.

This production was the first of two to be released in a two year stretch. With the second piece released the following year with a considerably grander cast (Cate Blanchett, Minnie Driver, Rupert Everett, Jeremy Northam and many more) that production gives the appearance of being of better quality. Having only witnessed this version however, it is unfair to truely compare. The one point worthy of mention is that whilst Rupert Everett is an excellent actor, as Algernon in 2002's "The Importance Of Being Earnest", it feels like he doesn't do the character justice. In this play therefore, for Rupert Everett to play the character of Lord Arthur Goring does not feel particularly right. Arthur is a lazy man of leisure, quite similar to Algernon, however he feels distinctly more like he fulfills the "bad boy" persona. Therefore, irrelevant of the feature, it feels more logical to cast Jonathan Firth than Everett.

The general low budget casting in this film is generally very good. With one or two familiars in the form of Prunella Scales and Robert Hardy in the lineup, the right mix of unknowns and old hands is about right. The only disappointment perhaps is that Sadie Frost, famous perhaps more for her relationship with Jude Law, is at times irritating and infuriating. This is a shame really as the rest of the cast provide performances ranging from adequate to good, and Frost lowers the standards a bit too much.

Aside from the acting, and the beautiful script, the only other comment which can really be said about this film is that at times it feels slightly too dark and dreary. With aspects of the film being set at night, we experience certain parts in a gloomy location where the emotions of the actors are limited by the shadows. At times this film really feels perhaps too low budget.

All in all, this version of "An Ideal Husband" is a nice way to introduce people to some of Wilde's less well known work. Whilst the play is in general inferior to "The Importance Of Being Earnest", that doesn't stop it from being a joy to watch. Less well known than the following years production, and probably done with less of a budget, this performance is still worthy of a place in someone's Oscar Wilde collection. Witty and stylish, if slightly too badly lit, this is a clever performance of another Wilde masterpiece.

can't think of a worse cast

[jandt1 · 1/10 · 28 January 2007]

I watched the 1999 production with Jeremy Northam and Rupert Everett as the lead characters and the production was so good that I bought this DVD to see if there could be another different but as well good production or interpretation of a same script. I was so disappointed. Don't buy this and it is an absolute waste of time to watch. The cast was very poor with Sadie Frost being the worst. Her portrayal of the character cheapens the whole script, as if that Mrs.Chievely was some kind of a prostitute, or indecent woman. She has a very bad mannerism esp. in speaking her lines. I agree with another reviewer that this seems more like a low budget TV drama, instead of being a movie.

Great Fun on set

[robertminter-51705 · 10/10 · 6 November 2016]

Having acted in this film I'd just like to say what a marvellous place it was for the short time we were there. Our scene was at Slough Town Hall, one of the first of the film. It was a large set with many extras, all the actors were there except Prunella Scales and Robert Hardy which was just as well as we had their trailers! The enormous set was made up for the day to look directly as us, the band Portabello (often spelt Portobello, even in the credits!). We had to mime four songs over and over again in their entirety while everyone waltzed to them. It was a great day and we met the whole cast, and I was even interviewed by Melanie Sykes of Channel 4.

I went to the premier in London and was treated as a member of the cast by the cast and media – our scenes start with my face filling the screen for a few seconds before panning out to see the band, a very proud moment for my mother who was there with me.

Pity it turned out the way it did, it's not a bad film but it has its flaws. Our manager at the time neglected to get a royalty worked out so the 4 song soundtrack and air time didn't return us any favours. I had to buy a copy from Amazon.

Robert Minter, Portabello, soundcloud.com/tags/Robert%20Minter