The Invisible Woman

Good movie!

I normally love a good period drama. I also love Dickens (read all his novels and short stories). However, this film doesn't work for me. The film is based on Claire Tomalin's book which relies a great deal on supposition. There is not much primary source material about the affair. So you watch this thinking this is the way it was... but nothing can truly back up these assumptions. Why is it we want to tear down those writers, artists, and others who are dead and cannot speak for their actions. The film makes Dickens to be a cruel person towards his wife and his mistress. Perhaps he was, but why do we care? This was his personal life and has nothing to do with his writing. I Also found the jumping back and forth too distracting. Felicity Jones was miscast. I would not recommend this film.

Watching this excellent subtle film develop provides an antidote to the standard wham bam don't bore the audience movies, the ones that get all the attention. This is gorgeous to look at, and it is thoughtful and fascinating for Dickens enthusiasts. Yes, it does take its time; it does challenge an audience to pay attention. It reveals another aspect to Charles Dickens genius, and it does so without adjusting our pleasure in the extraordinary books he wrote. To give ten stars is partly political, because this film does not merit an absolute score. But it gets its ten because others have rated it too low. The evocation of an 'early modern' life is beautifully suggested. The excellence of Claire Tomalin's fascinating book, on which the film is based, is only broadly sketched. The film would need to be a long running series to adequately explore and contain the book's riches. Fiennes has taken a broad brush because he has to. If it stimulates an audience to explore further then the book will flesh out some of the questions that remain hidden in the film. The real person that was Charles Dickens cannot be fully comprehended in a book or a film about him, but his energetic complexity and his constant invention of other lives is revealed in both. Neither the film or the book moralises or attempts to blame; what we see and read about is complex, and aspects of a very great writer are understood and revealed.

Ralph Fiennes Directs the movie and plays the main character, Charles Dickens who was probably one of the most famous English authors of all time. At the high tog his career, he meets a young actress played by Felicity Jones, and against all odds and complications including age and the fact that Dickens is married, they fall in love. His wife played by Joanna Scanlan was great. The few scenes she was in were some of the best. I felt bad for her and for Dickens new lover in the end. The movie is more a commentary of women's rights or lack thereof in Victorian England. I can see why this movie was nominated for costume design. I wouldn't say I'm an expert, but what little I do know about the time period, everything seemed pretty accurate. Actually there was a lot of good things about this movie. Unfortunately, in the end it was just a little dull. Maybe it was the pacing. I always think that's one of the most important elements sin a movie. It can make a movie, where you don't think the plot would be interesting, actually good and visa versa. Other things I did like about the movie was the acting, cinematography and art direction. Rent it on Redbox or Netflix or something someday, or better yet, read one of his books. My favorite is Tale of Two Cities.

Charles Dickens' Victorian world was a male-centered order. As a huge and beloved celebrity he had the money and power to do anything — and anyone — he wanted. His family had to read in his letter in The Times that he had separated from them — and his lie that there was no truth in the rumours about his affair with Nelly. Both Dickens and the mature Nelly have spouses that don't understand them. Dickens humiliates his wife by sending her to deliver his birthday gift to his mistress. Nelly keeps her husband in ignorance, claiming she only knew Dickens when she was nine. The man can afford to humiliate his wife; the woman has to nurse her husband's illusion in order to survive. Indeed, Nelly is ushered into the affair by her own mother's acknowledgment that Nelly has no future as an actress and has no better prospect than becoming the great man's mistress. The film repeats Dickens' quote that everyone has a secret, remains a mystery to everyone else. Nelly wistfully hopes two lovers can grow so close as to understand each other's mystery. Not in any of the families here. Dickens seduces her through an ostensible exchange of secrets. Her's is that her middle name is Lawless; his "secret" is his love for her. She is named Lawless but only he has the power to be lawless. In a railcar crash he denies travelling with her and is more concerned with rescuing a page of his manuscript than caring for her. The film remarkably captures the Victorian life, in the parlor, on the stage, in the sordid streets. But for all its period flavour, from the lights of celebrity to the shadows of the secret life, it's less about Dickens' hidden lover than about the continuing social order that even today privileges the male and suppresses the female. Dickens and his invisible woman serve as a reflection of the current social hierarchy. For more see www.yacowar.blogspot.com.

If a renowned writer were to embark in an affair with a younger woman, it would make some headlines, generate some chatter but most of us will leave it at that. That was not the case in the 1850's. When esteemed author Charles Dickens begun an affair, all sorts of efforts were put in place to stop it from becoming public. Divorce in that time, was an absolute scandal, an abomination. So, this young, attractive, talented woman who in all certainty had a profound effect in the works of one of the most respected writers in the English language was in effect an invisible woman. Whilst she was the centre of Dickens' world, the world ought to not know her. Such were those times. Whilst it might appear as sluggish, even flat that is not so. We get to observe the effect of the affair amongst people who had a compulsion to appear composed and reserved at all times. It is a glimpse in to a world gone by.

Now this really did feel like such a type of cliché, the type of British period piece that puts people to sleep. it sounds like quite a lazy criticism, and in a way it is, but it comes down to that. This was just not very interesting, and as a result, kind of dull. It's not "bad" though so I feel like I owe it at least some stars, and the acting is good and the technical aspects very good as well. I just wish it was better as a film overall. Fiennes is good, but jones is really the heart and soul of the film and remains a very interesting, captivating performer that I hope to see a lot of in the future. So yes, I don't really recommend this, but it's definitely an admirable effort from all involved.

To the critics...get a life! Do you know how difficult it is to create a film about Charles Dickens, celebrity of the Victorian era which is a very long time ago AND get all the atmosphere of this period of history 100% in place? The costumes, the props, the locations and the acting are beyond wonderful. It is almost as if one steps back in to history during The Invisible Woman and tastes the world when celebrity was all about writing books and giving readings...without the mass marketing of celebrity culture. Dickens is marvellously portrayed by Fiennes, a middle aged Dickens by then, with Tom Hollander giving an equally good performance as Wilkie Collins. Dickens is at the height of his fame, but still proving himself and making sure he keeps his reputation firmly in place which is a necessity in Victorian times. It is amazing to see the struggle of the people at that time; the poverty and the hardship that Dickens wrote so well about - but also the confines of a super judgemental society and how women were still kept firmly in their place too!. Dickens had a large family and he was a large character - his family were there but he was not engaged as a family man except in terms of having his entertainment. Felicity Jones is gorgeous and accomplished in her role as the actress Dickens falls in love with and takes as his mistress. Her life as it would have been, is laid bare with Jones giving a wonderful insight in to the Victorian dilemma of sex and passion versus respectability and role of women in society. This is a top class film and puts many of the current films out there to shame.

Here we have yet another costume drama about the hugely talented artist who benefits from the social injustices of his day to sleep with the woman he wants. Haven't we seen that before? However, given Dickens's reputation as the tireless champion of the poor and downtrodden, it is pretty horrifying to watch him for two hours making the most of his social status to have his ways with a poor innocent, fatherless girl half his age. Surprisingly, there is not one ounce of passion in this movie to explain her infatuation with him. Nor is there much social commentary other than the quotes from Dickens himself, whose character the film casts such doubts on. However, there is an endless supply of period gowns and props and sun-drenched garden scenes to lighten the mood. I don't think this is a very good film, but if it is truthful, it is probably an important one in that it certainly puts the character of Charles Dickens in a new light.

Charles Dickens discards his wife with which he has had 10 children. Naturally after the pains of delivering so many children, his wife should have no inclination towards sex. But Dickens has become lustful because he has become sex-starved. Naturally any man in his position would secretly go to any of those brothels abundant during this period and satisfy his pleasures. But no, since he comes into frequent contact with virgin ladies of good breeding, he will sooner or later find his match. He manages to procure his mistress Ellen Ternan. A mistress can be defined as a paid-for-life prostitute. Dickens was 45 and Ternan 18 when he made the decision, which went strongly against Victorian convention, to separate from his wife, Catherine, in 1858—divorce was still unthinkable for someone as famous as he was. When Catherine left, never to see her husband again, she took with her one child, leaving the other children with Dickens. There is a sex-scene without nudity, which to my belief is the most disgusting I have ever seen. The film portrays Dickens as a sensual man. The man of letters is never portrayed. Also references to his work about A Christmas Carol is never shown. Also Oliver Twist and his short ghost story The Signal-Man. The Staplehurst rail crash is shown in the film. Verdict: Ralph Fiennes looks like the splitting image of Dickens. I hardly recognized him. Felicity Jones plays the title character of the film to perfection. The atmosphere of the film is very bleak. I didn't see any love between Dickens and Ternan. Mainly it's about Dicken's playing with the naive Ternan who naturally concedes because she was impoverished at that time. I feel all Christians should boycott this film.