Film Review: Alicia Vikander in ‘Tulip Fever’

Tulip Fever
Courtesy of The Weinstein Company

The long-delayed period piece, set amid one of the world's most notorious economic bubbles, opens without much reason for audiences to care.

Timing is everything. That’s the takeaway, both on-screen and off, from “Tulip Fever,” a well-bred, if tawdry period drama set in Amsterdam at the height of Tulipmania, in 1637, when prized bulbs might fetch more than the value of a house. It was an economic bubble, of course (although the term would not be coined for nearly another century, with the so-called British South Seas Bubble), and fortunes were made and lost according to when investors entered the market.

But timing also matters in the telling of such stories, and Deborah Moggach’s 1999 novel coincided nicely with the dot-com bubble, whereas the long-delayed adaptation of same from the Weinstein Company arrives at a perplexing moment. Not only is there nothing presently in the zeitgeist to which to peg such a story (except perhaps the Dane DeHaan-Cara Delevingne reunion nobody asked for, shot before “Valerian” and shelved for nearly a year), but the entire package has a curiously old-fashioned feel — and not just because it takes place 380 years ago.

Rather, “Tulip Fever” aspires to the handsome, harmless middlebrow appeal of such Miramax movies as “Chocolat” and “Shakespeare in Love,” and ultimately represents the kind of “prestige” art-house pablum around which Harvey Weinstein could once spin a best picture frenzy. On paper, the project’s pedigree is impeccable: Directed by Justin Chadwick (who captured the rustling of corsets in “The Other Boleyn Girl”) from a screenplay co-written by Tom Stoppard (that most eloquent of dramaturges, who shares credit here with the novelist), the film stars Oscar winners Alicia Vikander and Christoph Waltz as a loveless couple, the wealthy merchant Cornelis Sandvoort and his young wife Sophia, whom he rescues (or purchases, really) from a convent where the script has created a role for that grand dame of Oscar winners. Judi Dench plays the horticulture-savvy Abbess, who cultivates tulip bulbs and young orphans alike, carefully placing each according to its proper value.

Sophia isn’t exactly miserable in her new marriage, but it’s grim work all the same. Cornelis wants a male heir, but is a flop in the sack (we hear more than we might like about his droopy “little soldier”). And while such vanity may be excusable, his true fault is inviting a young painter, Jan van Loos (DeHaan), into his house to memorialize the couple via a portrait — one lushly inspired by the work of Johannes Vermeer and Alfred Stevens’ centuries-later “The Blue Dress.” There’s something in the way Jan looks at Sophia that she’s never felt before — we’ve never felt it either, as the movie completely fails to convey this vital attraction, leaving us to wonder why Sophia would jeopardize the comfort of her new life for this second-rate artist (the Vermeer of 2003’s “Girl with a Pearl Earring” seems like a virtual stud by comparison).

The film’s answer isn’t passion, but something Sophia knows nothing about: Jan has begun to speculate in the city’s flourishing tulip market. After an ambitious fishmonger (Jack O’Connell, virtually unrecognizable) makes a lucky gamble on a batch of 50 white bulbs that contains a rare “breaker,” Jan gets cocky in what amounts to the world’s first futures market, and before long, he’s risking great sums on the prospect that the same breaker — whose owner has been conveniently whisked off to sea — will fetch considerably more down the road.

Still, breakers — a rare bulb distinguished a unforeseen stroke of crimson — are a fine analogy for the existence of a movie like this, which comes together on the optimistic belief that its makers can anticipate the demand for its stars. Had it opened a year earlier, the film might have been able to capitalize on Vikander’s recent Oscar win, and wouldn’t have been tainted by “Valerian’s” failure. But no amount of reshoots or cutting can create chemistry where none exists, and the love scenes here are more revolting than romantic, evoking the odors of grimy feet and unwashed hair, as opposed to flowery potpourri.

Cornelis may not be the ideal husband, but he’s a considerate one at least. Instead of lording his status over Sophia, he venerates her, treating his new bride as if he’s undeserving of her beauty — an attitude that makes him far more sympathetic as the cuckold than DeHaan proves as the cad. DeHaan has been fine in other roles, but this summer has been unkind to him: Between this and “Valerian,” casting agents seem to have confused his appeal with that of Leonardo DiCaprio, an actor he vaguely resembles (and whose dastardly kid brother he’d be ideally suited to play).

But there is a still greater casting folly lurking at the heart of “Tulip Fever” (not Delevingne, who plays a prostitute, but is barely in it), and that is the choice of Zach Galifianakis as Jan’s bumbling, perpetually soused manservant, Gerrit, who is either playing the role seriously or, more likely, has had all of his comedy moments excised from the film, leaving a distracting vacuum where his character belongs. The movie’s true romantic plot goes to its narrator, the Sandvoort’s housekeeper Maria (Holliday Grainger), who’s pregnant via the unfortunate fishmonger mentioned earlier — and who agrees to hide the condition in a vaguely amusing, but mostly miscalculated charade, which begins as farce but spirals ridiculously out of control.

Grainger isn’t the main character, but she takes over the movie, as we wait for her shanghaied baby daddy to reappear and clear up the lunacy that overtakes “Tulip Fever” in its second half. What began as a respectable, if somewhat flat 17th-century love story, complete with gorgeous costumes and lush score, seems to lose its wits as it goes along — which may have been the mindset of the era, but feels like a miscalculated opportunity here.

Film Review: Alicia Vikander in 'Tulip Fever'

Reviewed at the Weinstein Co. screening room, Los Angeles, Aug. 2017. MPAA Rating: R. Running time: 107 MIN.

Production

(U.K.-U.S.) A Weinstein Co. release, presented with Worldview Entertainment, Paramount Pictures, of a Ruby Films production. Producers: Alison Owen, Harvey Weinstein. Executive producers: Maria Cestone, Justin Chadwick, Molly Conners, David Glasser, Sarah E. Johnson, Patrick Thompson, Paul Trijbits, Bob Weinstein, Christopher Woodrow.

Crew

Director: Justin Chadwick. Screenplay: Tom Stoppard, Deborah Moggach, based on the novel by Moggach. Camera (color, widescreen): Eigil Bryld. Editor: Rick Russell. Music: Danny Elfman.

With

Alicia Vikander, Dane DeHaan, Christoph Waltz, Holliday Grainger, Jack O'Connell, Zach Galifianakis, Tom Hollander, Matthew Morrison, Judi Dench, Cara Delevingne, Kevin McKidd.

Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 6

Leave a Reply

6 Comments

Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. Daniel B. says:

    I’ve found Christopher Waltz tiresome and overwrought for quite some time – every gesture and cadence seems worked out, no spontaneity, no soul. Vilkander, the flavor of the month, is also limited. I never see any actual creation of a character with her; it’s mostly exaggerated gestures and facial expressions that play to the audience’s less subtle impulses – I preferred her as a robot with tight glutes. Weinstein continues to push ersatz, middlebrow “art” films as the epitome of quality to an audience who doesn’t no better, and an Academy that too often follows behind like salivating dogs with the scent of fresh hype in their nostrils.

  2. Seriously did @askdebruge just say “the kind of “prestige” art-house pablum around which Harvey Weinstein could once spin a best picture frenzy…” dude. With all due respect for your column and your body of work, i don’t think that at a time when the box office is lower than ever and every second film is a sad spin on an old franchise that, anyone should consider movies based on literary fiction as “pablum”. Rather the constant spin of sameness that we see in every single action movie, or comic-book driven blockbuster – this is the real “pablum”: and by that the meaning should be clear: watered down, easily digestible, reconstituted storytelling set out for such a wide audience that it is really for no one in its attempts to be for “everyone”. Period drama takes enormous work on the part of the storytellers and meticulous work from the teams of craftsman on a picture. It also takes work on the part of the audience – to understand and empathize with the past in a way that is meaningful and relatable to the present. So i highly doubt that there are any circumstances in which “prestige” “art-house” and “pablum” are an accurate way to describe any kind of period film – particularly not this one.

  3. Dug says:

    Can you all stop comparing DeHaan to DiCaprio?
    Nobody asked for it.

  4. despite this “lukewarm” review–comparing this somewhat to “shakespeare in love”, what you’ve said causes us to place this film on our “must see” list.

    we’ve realized that it’s become difficult to interpret film reviews to make them useful to us. above all, we don’t implicitly trust reviewers’ opinions–perhaps there’s a generation gap, perhaps many of today’s reviewers want more “certainty”, clarity, action. but this film sounds exactly like the kind of movie we like and want to see more of. so, thanks, sort of.

    because of this review, we now plan to see “tulip fever” this weekend. we like films that make us think, not necessarily those that “appeal” subjectively to our guts, and we prefer ambiguity, even if that kind of film, when you can find it, has a low “rotten tomatoes” rating from critics.

    in fact, we now look at the r.t. ratings to find those films which most critics are not enthusiastic about.

    • Peter Debruge says:

      What a peculiar, yet intriguing comment. For what it’s worth, my review wasn’t intended as a vicious takedown of the film, nor an attempt to talk you (or anyone) out of seeing the film. It has merits. But it falls far short of its potential, and I hope I have conveyed as much in my appraisal. But perhaps what you want is some sort of clear-cut thumbs up or thumbs down from critics (which, per your logic, you can then ignore, seeing only those movies the critics reject). The truth is, few movies are all-good or all-bad, and my job is to navigate the vast middle ground, to acknowledge what is done well and, as fairly as possible, to point out the shortcomings in such a way as to constructively suggest how they might have been better. Remember, Variety is a trade publication: We review for the filmmakers and the industry itself.

  5. Lara says:

    So it really wasn`t worth the wait then.

More Film News from Variety

Loading