The Yellow Wallpaper (2011)

From my favorite movies..

Excellent but underrated film

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

"The Yellow Wallpaper" is a 6,000-word short story by the American writer Charlotte Perkins Gilman, first published in January 1892 in The New England Magazine. It is regarded as an important early work of American feminist literature, illustrating attitudes in the 19th century toward women's physical and mental health.This film adaptation of the story was directed by Logan Thomas, who has done mostly short films. And since the estimated budget is reported as $1.5 million, I'm prepared to be generous in my critique. But even a charitable attitude can't lift this film out of the cinematic doldrums. It is limp, shapeless and draggy. The scriptwriters have drained the story of its blood. The writing is stilted and flat-footed; the plot has been transformed from that of a woman gradually descending into madness into a fairly plodding ghost story. Any perceived feminist message is gone. The yellow wallpaper with which the female protagonist of the story becomes obsessed is definitely there on the walls, but it hardly figures in the film at all. The film perks up a little at the end, but only a little.Speaking of being generous: Calling the acting turgid and barely above amateurish IS being generous. In fact I thought that the 3 leads were amateurs until I looked them up. The female lead, Juliet Landau, is the daughter of Martin Landau and Barbara Bain. In this film her character Charlotte is supposed to be deep in the throes of despondency and PTSD after witnessing her daughter being burned alive in a house-fire. But in her performance no suffering is apparent; she's either very morose or a little less morose. She looks like a young Greta Scacchi after a serious illness. Aric Cushing projects no energy at all; he's just unkempt and phlegmatic in the extreme. Of the three leads, only Dale Dickey has any luster whatever on screen. Michael Moriarty shows up at the beginning of the film for about 3 minutes, and Veronica Cartwright has about 10 minutes of screen time near the end.The film's setting is lush: A house set back in the woods (somewhere outside of Atlanta), but compositions lack focus, not to mention clarity. The sound is poor; the dialogue mostly is distant and muffled. The fact that most of the dialogue wasn't looped and the sound remixed as should have been done may reflect the low budget.If this were a student film, I'd give it about a C-plus.

I just can't understand why everyone loves this movie! The acting was comically wooden, with the exception of the sister and the psychic. My husband gave up on it after 15 very painfully slow minutes, but I persevered with it. The story by the the way has NOTHING to do with the short story "The Yellow Wallpaper" other than a reference to the "rest cure" and place of women in Victorian society. And as mentioned by another reviewer, the main character is named Charlotte, a reference to Charlotte Gilbert, who wrote the short story. Oh, and there's an attic room with yellow wallpaper that the wife sometimes retreats to, but it's existence is Pretty arbitrary. THe plot was very broken up, and half the scenes take place in very dark rooms, making it difficult to see what was going on. The ending was a bit of whatever as well - it didn't seem to match the rest of the movie. it was an interesting premise, too bad it just didn't seem to flow. This could have been a good movie if: 1. They didn't call it The Yellow Wallpaper. False advertising! Why not give it it's own name? 2. The plot had some kind of flow to it, 3. better acting! Especially the male lead, who gave the most wooden performance I have EVER seen. Sadly, these elements were not there, making this clunker a discombobulated boring mess.

First off I want to say (although one of the above reviewers mentioned it), it is blatantly obvious that this movie is inspired by the short story, not an adaptation of the short story. This has been done with countless films and pieces of literature. It is a very common thing to draw inspiration from either real life events and people or renowned fictional characters and retell their stories. The first clue is that the mother's name is Charlotte - coincidentally the same name of the famous author! And if you aren't certain at that point, later, in bed, Charlotte says she wrote a story called "The Yellow Wallpaper." One has to pick up on these little "hints" (aka blunt statements). Sometimes you gotta dig a little deeper, ya know?The film makes reference to the attitude that female education is of no use and this is a very important part of the film because the short story was a very important piece of feminist literature. When Gilman wrote the story there were many of her peers that questioned her sanity. Gilman herself suffered from severe postpartum psychosis. People questioned her sanity because her fictional character in The Yellow Wallpaper experienced psychosis and they wondered if Gilman was mentally sound. This film is supposed to be inspired by both the life of the author and the important piece of literature with its own twist. The death of Charlotte's child in the film, rather than the true to life psychosis experienced by both the author and her fictional woman while their babies survived, is merely a symbol for the separation of a mother from her child and the mental anguish she experiences. And that is only the beginning. Different taste is one thing but sometimes I wish some people would put more thought into the deeper meaning of things before they cast something aside.Although I would have liked a bit more clarity towards the end, the movie is so psychologically intriguing, the acting is excellent, the emotional display so genuine, and the use of color is exquisite. I love the way it was shot. There is something scary even in that aspect of the film! The sound effects and music are wonderful. I was terrified! I watched it alone in the middle of the night. I had to stop it twice and smoke a cigarette because I was so tense! It is so refreshingly different than the plethora of so-called horror films and psychological thrillers that rely upon gore or other elements that must top the previous films of its genre rather than setting it apart. This is truly a psychological thriller because the viewer is expected to - gasp - use their own mind to imagine, for example, what the hell is under that blanker towards the end ((shudder)) or what is in the dark (the scene where John went from room to room with that candelabra was too scary!), or what on earth is in that hole under the house! John simply reaching into that hole that I could barely make out was enough to make me scared! The director doesn't say, "I have no respect for my audience's ability to figure anything out or to use their own imagination since it has been all but destroyed by the over- stimulation of the senses of modern technology so I will show them everything and tell them everything and let them know when they should be scared or shocked." Bah. If you still have am mind that can stimulate ITSELF, see this film.

I have always liked the Gothic novel upon which this movie is based, and so I was a bit fearful to see how director Logan Thomas had interpreted it. In short - It was wonderful. It has been a long time since I have enjoyed a movie enough to write a review. This was well- written, well-acted and well-directed. It was so beautiful and visually stimulating I could hang the stills around my house. I love the reinvention of this story - it is at once fantastically modern and relevant and yet dripping with history and antiquity. This is truly a masterful, rich and thrilling film. Definite must see!!