Had actually seen 'Reversal of Fortune' for the first time years ago, thought it a very good film then and was bowled over by Jeremy Irons' performance. Yet inexplicably, it took me such a long time getting round to review it with so much going on and so much seen since. Decided to refresh my memory in seeing it again, being someone who thinks very highly of both Irons (my main reason actually in seeing it again) and Glenn Close and who wanted to see whether it was as good as remembered.
'Reversal of Fortune' did turn out to be as good as remembered, and considering that that has not been the case with all films that is a relief. Although there were a couple of problems had with it this time round that weren't noticeable before, it actually was also an even better experience this time. What stuck out to me as good on first viewing still stands out as good now, would go as far as to say great, while with more knowledge of the real-life case and with a (hopefully) wider film taste since there was even more to appreciate about 'Reversal of Fortune'. It was a brave risk doing the film when the real Claus Von Bulow was still alive and the case a long way from forgotten with feelings still raw (the outcome of the appeal having occured only in 1985, Irons very nearly didn't do the film or was nervous about taking on the role of Claus apparently for this reason), and the risk paid off thankfully.
Anybody who is familiar with the case won't be surprised by the outcome, though actually with the film's purposeful ambiguity in regard to the guilt/innocence this wasn't a problem. For me, neither was the inconclusiveness with the film intentionally leaving things open. It will frustrate some, especially those not familiar with the real-life story and wanting every aspect answered, though those with knowledge of the story and taking into account how soon the film was made after the events with the subjects still alive should find it far more understandable from personal opinion. Actually thought it was a good decision to do that and a tasteful one.
There is not an awful lot wrong actually with 'Reversal of Fortune'. Did feel though that inexperience did show in the directing and acting in a few of the scenes with the law students. The scenes were still interesting and sharply written, offering an insightful perspective on the legal work and preparation for the case which the film focuses on a good deal, but the trial, flashback and Claus-Alan Dershowitz interaction scenes felt much tighter, more rehearsed and more polished somehow.
On the other hand, 'Reversal of Fortune' looks great. It's very slickly and stylishly photographed, taking full advantage of the classy costume and production design/locations reminiscent of 'The Great Gatsby' sort of style. The music is every bit as haunting and unsettling as the narration, without any over-emphasis needed. Barbet Schroeder's direction has its uneven spots, but much of it, particularly in the interactions between Claus and Dershowitz and the emotional detachment within the family which was intriguingly eerie, indicates someone who really engaged with the story and was in control of it. A major strength is the script, it is very intelligent and thoughtful structured tightly and rich in dark humour and deliciously deep irony. Things that are obvious in Claus' (the one with all the script gems) dialogue, including one of Irons' most iconic and quotable lines of any of his films in "You have no idea" (referenced briefly in 'The Lion King' when he voiced Scar).
What was especially surprising with the script was the narration. Have always been very mixed on narration in film and have found with too many films that it is not needed and not used well, overuse and over-explanation being big offenders. 'Reversal of Fortune' is one of the best examples of how to do narration on film for me, it is an atypical kind of narration being told by a character one doesn't expect to do so and it is very cleverly used. It has a very haunting effect and achieves what narration doesn't too often do in film and should do when used, it moves the story forward, makes it clearer rather than confusing it and keeps one up to date. It didn't feel like it over-explained at all and intrigued in alternative to irritated. The story is from start to finish thoroughly absorbing, with an interesting focus and told tactfully, personally didn't find it biased and that the characterisation had enough layers and shade to avoid caricature. Dershowitz is juicily written here, but what is also fascinating about Claus in particular was how enigmatic he was and how easy it was to feel hate and sympathy for him, not an easy feat to achieve. Found myself very engrossed and caring for how it would turn out and whether Claus was innocent or guilty.
The three leads are on top form. Close plays Sunny's small unsympathetic role in a way that's truly unsettling yet at times vulnerable, Claus and Dershowitz are far meatier roles and are on screen for longer but it is very difficult to forget Close's presence when she does haunt the mind and really did try to give Sunny nuance. Ron Silver, with the most to do of the three, comamnds the screen throughout with effortless bravura and he was clearly having fun here, his animated presence being such fun to watch. Irons was the one who stayed in my memory the most though, here he is in one of the bravest roles of that year, for reasons mentioned earlier on, and of his career (along with those in 'Dead Ringers', that he wasn't even nominated for that performance was one of that year's most inexplicable oversights/omissions that year, and 'Lolita') and to this day his performance-of-a-lifetime acting (enigmatic, cold, haughty, chilling and darkly humorous) here is some of his career's finest, in how he managed to avoid making Claus caricaturish and one-dimensional and instead making him greatly fascinating and layered. Regarding the debate as to whether he deserved the Oscar, it was a strong category that year with all the nominees worthy and in my mind he did deserve it, and he deserved one for 'Dead Ringers' as well which he was even better in.
Summarising, very good film. 8/10 Bethany Cox
'Reversal of Fortune' did turn out to be as good as remembered, and considering that that has not been the case with all films that is a relief. Although there were a couple of problems had with it this time round that weren't noticeable before, it actually was also an even better experience this time. What stuck out to me as good on first viewing still stands out as good now, would go as far as to say great, while with more knowledge of the real-life case and with a (hopefully) wider film taste since there was even more to appreciate about 'Reversal of Fortune'. It was a brave risk doing the film when the real Claus Von Bulow was still alive and the case a long way from forgotten with feelings still raw (the outcome of the appeal having occured only in 1985, Irons very nearly didn't do the film or was nervous about taking on the role of Claus apparently for this reason), and the risk paid off thankfully.
Anybody who is familiar with the case won't be surprised by the outcome, though actually with the film's purposeful ambiguity in regard to the guilt/innocence this wasn't a problem. For me, neither was the inconclusiveness with the film intentionally leaving things open. It will frustrate some, especially those not familiar with the real-life story and wanting every aspect answered, though those with knowledge of the story and taking into account how soon the film was made after the events with the subjects still alive should find it far more understandable from personal opinion. Actually thought it was a good decision to do that and a tasteful one.
There is not an awful lot wrong actually with 'Reversal of Fortune'. Did feel though that inexperience did show in the directing and acting in a few of the scenes with the law students. The scenes were still interesting and sharply written, offering an insightful perspective on the legal work and preparation for the case which the film focuses on a good deal, but the trial, flashback and Claus-Alan Dershowitz interaction scenes felt much tighter, more rehearsed and more polished somehow.
On the other hand, 'Reversal of Fortune' looks great. It's very slickly and stylishly photographed, taking full advantage of the classy costume and production design/locations reminiscent of 'The Great Gatsby' sort of style. The music is every bit as haunting and unsettling as the narration, without any over-emphasis needed. Barbet Schroeder's direction has its uneven spots, but much of it, particularly in the interactions between Claus and Dershowitz and the emotional detachment within the family which was intriguingly eerie, indicates someone who really engaged with the story and was in control of it. A major strength is the script, it is very intelligent and thoughtful structured tightly and rich in dark humour and deliciously deep irony. Things that are obvious in Claus' (the one with all the script gems) dialogue, including one of Irons' most iconic and quotable lines of any of his films in "You have no idea" (referenced briefly in 'The Lion King' when he voiced Scar).
What was especially surprising with the script was the narration. Have always been very mixed on narration in film and have found with too many films that it is not needed and not used well, overuse and over-explanation being big offenders. 'Reversal of Fortune' is one of the best examples of how to do narration on film for me, it is an atypical kind of narration being told by a character one doesn't expect to do so and it is very cleverly used. It has a very haunting effect and achieves what narration doesn't too often do in film and should do when used, it moves the story forward, makes it clearer rather than confusing it and keeps one up to date. It didn't feel like it over-explained at all and intrigued in alternative to irritated. The story is from start to finish thoroughly absorbing, with an interesting focus and told tactfully, personally didn't find it biased and that the characterisation had enough layers and shade to avoid caricature. Dershowitz is juicily written here, but what is also fascinating about Claus in particular was how enigmatic he was and how easy it was to feel hate and sympathy for him, not an easy feat to achieve. Found myself very engrossed and caring for how it would turn out and whether Claus was innocent or guilty.
The three leads are on top form. Close plays Sunny's small unsympathetic role in a way that's truly unsettling yet at times vulnerable, Claus and Dershowitz are far meatier roles and are on screen for longer but it is very difficult to forget Close's presence when she does haunt the mind and really did try to give Sunny nuance. Ron Silver, with the most to do of the three, comamnds the screen throughout with effortless bravura and he was clearly having fun here, his animated presence being such fun to watch. Irons was the one who stayed in my memory the most though, here he is in one of the bravest roles of that year, for reasons mentioned earlier on, and of his career (along with those in 'Dead Ringers', that he wasn't even nominated for that performance was one of that year's most inexplicable oversights/omissions that year, and 'Lolita') and to this day his performance-of-a-lifetime acting (enigmatic, cold, haughty, chilling and darkly humorous) here is some of his career's finest, in how he managed to avoid making Claus caricaturish and one-dimensional and instead making him greatly fascinating and layered. Regarding the debate as to whether he deserved the Oscar, it was a strong category that year with all the nominees worthy and in my mind he did deserve it, and he deserved one for 'Dead Ringers' as well which he was even better in.
Summarising, very good film. 8/10 Bethany Cox