Doug Anderson says:

desire & creativity I saw this film in December of 2010, and I wondered why it wasn’t on anyone’s Best of 2010 list because I really thought it was the best thing that I saw all year (and I see a lot of movies). Now I see that the reason no one mentioned it was because it was released in 2008 (although I never heard it mentioned until this years 2010 NYTimes Fall/Winter Preview edition mentioned it as if it were a new release).Suffice it to say that this adaptation is perhaps more whimsical in tone than is Hemingway’s posthumously published work Garden of Eden (every moment Richard Grant is on screen is going to have a measure of whimsy) but even with a dose or two of comic relief, this is pretty heady & pretty steamy stuff.Jack K. Huston (unknown to me before seeing this film) plays a twenty-something Hemingway-ish writer living a splendidly bohemian low rent ex-pat existence in Paris until he meets a wealthy American (Mena Suvari) on a kind of art buying holiday. Once these two meet, the young “Hemingway” is introduced to the finer things in life (new sports car, new clothes, expensive restaurants & chalets) but also to a more decadent side of life (as it turns out that his new bride is a bi-sexual gender-bending adventurer). At first the young writer goes along with his flirty new brides games and even dyes his hair blonde to match hers (which gets shorter & shorter & more boyish as the film progresses). But when these platinum blonde twins invite a third to play in their love games, a struggle for creative control over the relationship ensues.The struggle over sexual/gender identity & over the authorship or direction of the relationship is fascinating to watch, and the couple’s beautiful Spanish companion is really something to see as she sheds her suit & bathes au natural in the cool Mediterannean sea that provides the stunning backdrop to this impossibly lush & lascivious “eden”. In addition to dealing with a complex & often tyrannical wife, and a complex love triangle/power struggle, the young writer is also working through the central event of his youth which occurred while hunting with his father in Africa. The film thus becomes a kind of double initiation into manhood (and each initiation sheds a subtle light on the other).This is one of those films that deserves to be seen not only by Hemingway admirers but by anyone interested in complex characters & plots. There’s nothing overly literary about this adaptation, rather it plays like a really good mystery that slowly unfolds and slowly reveals the complex psychological events & experiences that shape character’s & provide them with a sense of self, as well as with a motivation & purpose.If the film has a weakness, it’s that we are never afforded any insight into the very sophisticated, very complex, but also very conflicted wife; nor any insight into the Spanish beauty who is never more than a phantom, an edenic creature, a vision of physical perfection. But then part of the reason the film works is because it is about the spell these women cast over the young writer, and part of that spell is their mystery.Highly recommended!!!!!

bunnyrabbit4 says:

High on Visuals, Low on Intrique.. The Hemingway novel, Garden of Eden, was not published until after his death. It was an unfinished exploration into gender issues. The movie fails to capture this spirit of exploration and relies mostly on three beautiful bodies and faces to carry us past the contrivances of one character, Catherine. She seems to express her mean spirited alcoholism much better than her sexuality. As in the book, Catherine becomes the wife of David, a thinly disguised stand in for Hemingway. Their courtship is much too short, and their marriage equally so due to Catherine’s insistence that they both sleep with a woman she meets called Marita.If Catherine had been allowed to have a passionate side this movie might have worked. Instead she comes across as a cold, controlling manipulator who treats people like puppets she has purchased. Rather than being passionate about her sexuality, she spends the film acting out various skits with her puppets while drinking too much. After a few of these skits she takes the name “Devil”, which fits all too well. David’s response to this is at times puzzling because he doesn’t come across as being as passionate about his writing as he is about the reviews on his first book. He rebuts her insults but does not treat them as the attacks on his writer persona that they obviously are. Until he writes a story about his father, which Catherine savages, his writing isn’t really the film’s focus. Catherine’s whims control everything.Marita’s character is a bit puzzling as she doesn’t seem to have any real affection for Catherine and appears from the onset to be more interested in David, even though she is supposed to be the lesbian. In fact if all lesbians were like Marita, straight women wouldn’t have a chance! Like Catherine, she is uber rich and could buy and sell David as she wishes. But we quickly learn that she has enough emotional depth to understand both the man and his writing. At that point the movie became very unbelievable for me. It is all too obvious that the only possible resolution is for him to leave Catherine before she finishes destroying him.While very easy to watch, due mostly to the beautiful scenery, close-ups, costuming and hairstyles, this film fails to convey anything about Hemingway’s ideas on gender. It is much more about the musings of a one-dimensional, idle, rich girl. A scene at the end of the movie where Catherine meets a character called the Colonel who was introduced earlier in the film, is to me the most thought provoking part of the movie. As the story begins there is a scene where the Colonel meets Catherine for what is supposedly the first time and tells a story about seeing her starring at a painting of a women in the Louvre. He then tells David to hold her close,”very close.” He also says he knew her father, a “shy” man and insinuates that she too is “shy”.There seems to be a kind of double talk going on that intrigues the viewer, but it is quickly left behind as the plot dashes forward into a series of superficial interactions between David and Catherine. They are sexually passionate, but again it is a visual passion broken up by Catherines odd verbal insertions. At the end of the film she is seen meeting the Colonel again and he immediately says there is a woman she must meet, confirming that the initial conversation was indeed about her being gay and not “shy”. Even though little is said, these two scenes make Catherine’s character intriguing, because they allow the audience to think. The steady diet of evil machinations that comprise most of the film discourage this kind of thinking. Sadly, the audience quickly learns just to watch.