jas@ISI.EDU (Jeff Sullivan) (12/11/89)
SHE-DEVIL
A film review by Jeff Sullivan
Copyright 1989 Jeff Sullivan
SHE-DEVIL is the new "comedy" starring Roseanne Barr, Meryl Streep, and Ed
Begley, Jr. It's about a frumpy housewife (Barr) who loses her husband
(Begley) to a glamorous romance novelist (Streep). She vows to get her revenge
on her straying hubby, which is what the rest of the movie is about.
It's a fairly dark piece, and although in general I enjoy dark humor, I
found it to be unsatisfying. Point number one is that the laughs were too few
and far between. If the audienced laughed loudly at some bits, it was only
because there was little to laugh at in between.
Point number two: The story is also fundamentally unsatisfying because it
is unsympathetic. While Barr's character was certainly wronged, the level of
her revenge, and the basic mean-spiritedness of the response so overwhelm the
story that both humor and sympathy are crushed beneath its heavy heel. There
is really no one to root for in SHE-DEVIL, although, in the final analysis, it
seems that Begley and Streep are the ones who were wronged.
On the performance side, I must say that I was pleasantly surprised by
both Streep and Barr. Streep demonstrated a certain flair for comedy that I
had not suspected, although she could clearly use more practice. Barr also
surprised me, more so than Streep in fact, because her acting here was quite
competent. I did not see, as I expected, any of the "Roseanne"isms coming
through. Not once did I feel like she has inserted her schtick into the
script.
If I had to give this movie a grade, it'd be a C-. It tries, performs
fairly well, but has fundamentally unsound material to work with. I would not
personally recommend this movie to most people, but if you've got a hankering
for some mean-spirited fun, or if you love Streep, Begley, or Barr, then give
it a go. But try to hit it at a bargain.
--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey A. Sullivan | Senior Systems Programmer
jas@venera.isi.edu | Information Sciences Institute
jas@isi.edu DELPHI: JSULLIVAN | University of Southern Californialeeper@mtgzx.att.com (Mark R. Leeper) (12/26/89)
SHE-DEVIL
Comments by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1989 Mark R. Leeper
Last Tuesday and Wednesday night I watched the television adaptation of
Fay Weldon's novel THE LIFE AND LOVES OF A SHE-DEVIL. Friday I saw Susan
Seidelman's version of the same story for Orion Pictures. The television
version took its title directly from the novel; the film version abbreviated
the title to just SHE-DEVIL, perhaps causing some confusion with the 1950s
science fiction movie of the same title. Having seen the two versions so
close together and with the television version being about two and a half
times as long, I will disqualify myself from actually reviewing SHE-DEVIL
and just discuss the contrasts in the two versions. The film is a very
pale, very weak, and almost entirely forgettable rendition of the same
story. Even now, an hour after having seen the film, the television version
is more immediately memorable. Let me say why.
First, the television play had drama, comedy, and horror story mixed
together into whatever proportions seemed right as it went along. The film
aimed at a market for comedy and always tried to keep the tone light and
frothy. So right from the start the film was less ambitious than the movie.
The film had a dream cast for the story. It had a popular serious
actress, Meryl Streep, to play Mary; a popular television comedienne,
Roseanne Barr, to play Ruth; and a number of other good actors. The
television version had virtual unknowns in the major roles. So why was the
casting so wrong for the film? Because everybody was cast exactly right in
the television play for the play's approach. Streep could have played Mary
Fisher in the television play and done a reasonable job of it. The film,
however, had more physical comedy. Streep is hardly known for comic roles
and she is just not very good with it. Julie T. Wallace who played Ruth in
the television play did not always have to be appealing to the audience.
She starts out with the personality of a red brick. She is large, ugly,
heavy, sullen, and not outgoing at all. Roseanne Barr got popular because
she has a bright personality. Her weight does not stand in the way of her
being basically attractive and charismatic. Even at the beginning of the
film it is hard to think of her as a loser.
Thematically Ruth is very much like Stephen King's Carrie White. She
is a woman who has almost nothing. She does not have looks, she does not
have talent, she does not have money. The only thing she has is her rage.
And her rage is enough. From her rage she forges the power to destroy her
tormentors. At least that is how it is in the television play. In the film
she does not start nearly so low and she falls well short of destroying Bob
and Mary. The ending for all three is reasonably happy in the film. That
is how comedies work. The television play did not have to worry about box-
office and could allow itself to be bleak.
If I had to rate the two versions on the -4 to +4 scale, I would give
the television play a +2 and the movie a low 0. But I do not trust those
ratings because each rating is probably too much affected by the other. Let
me leave these ratings unofficial and say that the play (which runs
periodically on the Arts and Entertainment Network) IS worth your time to
see, probably much more than the film.
Mark R. Leeper
att!mtgzx!leeper
leeper@mtgzx.att.com