Mademoiselle Julie (1999) Online

August Strindberg is one of Sweden's most important writers from the late 19th and early 20th centuries. ‘Miss Julie' is one of Strindberg's plays written around the turn of the century. This is a powerful story of anger, hate, lust and class envy. The play revolves around two main characters. Jean (Peter Mullan) is a footman, a servant to a Count in northern Sweden in the late 1890's. Julie (Saffron Burrows) is the Count's shrewish and self loathing daughter.

Jean is tormented by his attraction to Julie and his simultaneous hatred of her class. The play focuses on an encounter they have one midsummer's night in the servants' kitchen. Jean takes his resentment out on Julie with sarcastic remarks and open disdain for the gentry of which she is a part. She responds sometimes docilely and contritely, and at others with condescending vitriol. This open antipathy belies their sexual attraction and the embattled conversation leads to a seduction, which is really less of a seduction than a mutual ravishment. Afterward, as Julie is more vulnerable, Jean attempts to manipulate her into stealing money from her father and running away with him so he can indulge his secret ambition to own a hotel and become a part of the upper class he now so despises. The film ends on a decided downbeat, which is no surprise given the characters' deeply disturbed personalities.

The story is intense, intelligent and visceral. It is has more the feel of a play (one set, crude props, only one or two costumes per actor). However, though the acting is more that of a theatrical production, it is shot more like a modern motion picture. Director Mike Figgis does a good job with the camera, using some innovative techniques to keep it from looking like you are watching a play through a window.

The story is likely to be appreciated by only a very small audience. Not only is it very dark, but all the characters are distasteful. Jean is angry, sardonic, obnoxious and manipulative. Julie is shrewish, condescending, self hating, and insecure. There is really no one with whom the audience can identify. This renders the entire story potent but extremely unpleasant. Also, it deals with themes that were mainstream in 1900, but are generally beyond the ken of today's audiences.

The actors were fabulously cast and the acting superb. Peter Mullen is short, craggy and Napoleonic, while Saffron Burrows is tall, willowy, and graceful. Besides being well cast for their stations, she was at least four inches taller than he, and this worked well with all the allusions to the aristocracy being `up there' and the servants being `down here'.

Peter Mullen played the part flat out. He was pugnacious and full of indignant rage, envy and spurn. The acclaim Saffron Burrows received for this performance was well deserved. She handled the difficult range of emotions deftly, moving effortlessly from whimpering child to haughty bitch and all the complex self torturing emotions in between.

I rated this film an 8/10. This is not a film for everyone. In fact it is a film that most people will probably dislike. I would recommend it for the ardent theatergoer who is a battle tested veteran of microscopic character studies involving flawed characters. To like this film you have to be one who can appreciate trying and disturbing emotional portrayals without a need to like any of the characters. For everyone else, it will probably be a harrowing and disagreeable experience.

I have just seen miss Julie for the first time on BBC 2 here in the UK and thought Saffron Burrows performance was quite wonderful! She show such range of emotions along side Peter Mullan who played the role Jean opposite her who also outstanding.A few years ago i had the pleasure of meeting Saffron Burrows over a few occasions and found her quite delightful and a witty lady.I urge who have not seen Miss Julie to rent it out because Mr Mike Figgis has done great creative job bringing this play to the screen. I must see some other work Mrs Burrows has done and hope that some of it is of the same high class as this production showed!! I just wished the Hollywood studios could produce more high value productions as Mrs Juile instead of remaking original cult classics such as The Italian Job and my father's movie The Wicker Man remade by Mr Nicholas Cage! Oh well we can only hope for better things for the future.

Sexual and power politics get a late Victorian Era workout in `Miss Julie,' Mike Figgis' bleak, rather stagy adaptation of August Strindberg's classic play. Saddled with what is essentially a one-set, two-character chamber piece, Figgis has chosen, for the most part, not to open-up the work cinematically very much, but rather to concentrate on the stark human drama at its core. This editorial decision keeps the film more faithful to the spirit of the original author's intent perhaps, but it also, by necessity, limits the possibility that we will see Strindberg's work in a new and exciting way.

In his tale, the Swedish author strips the age-old theme of the eternal class struggle to its barest, bleakest essentials. Miss Julie is a beautiful young countess who feels trapped by the stifling provincialism of her privileged position. She yearns to climb down off her well-guarded pedestal and experience life in all the rawness and vigor with which she imagines the lower social orders live out their days. During a Midsummer celebration, in which she attends the raucous revels of the servants in her employ, she begins to make sexual overtures to Jean, a man whose position in the house is that of her father's loyal footman and who, in a parallel of sorts to his mistress, feels just as strongly as she does the stifling demands of his less-than-privileged position. In direct opposition to Miss Julie, Jean has always yearned to gain acceptance in the very social world from which she is trying to escape. Together, they attempt to bridge the unbridgeable gap between gentry and peasant on the common ground of mutual sexual attraction. They discover, though, that some gaps exist never to be filled and that the interjection of the sexual element into their relationship can result in at best only a temporary reversal in their power positions before the much stronger forces of the societal caste system reassert themselves and restore the `normal' balance.

Strindberg's characters and the relationship between them are very complex in their nature. Although Miss Julie and Jean appear to be groping for a safe middle ground where the two of them can find a level of stasis and equality, mostly they end up constantly shifting positions of power in a class struggle that can never be ended in the time and society that has entrapped them. We sense the futility of their aim all throughout the play – and the bitterness and harshness of their love/hate relationship imply that the characters sense it as well. This is why `Miss Julie' must inevitably end in tragedy for all involved. The world at that time offered no alternative endings for such a situation.

By bringing a raw physical intensity to their roles of the would-be lovers, Saffron Burrows and Peter Mullan help to modernize the characters, emphasizing the sexual passion that holds them in its grip.

It is difficult to know how Figgis, as director, could have expanded the play beyond its claustrophobic theatrical limitations without violating the spirit of the work. For his refusal to in any way really open it out in cinematic terms, `Miss Julie,' for all its intensity of theme and character, ends up as a rather static, talky film. Thus, it is left to future directors, I suppose, to take up the challenge of making a real movie out of `Miss Julie.' If they can only figure out how!

This movie is worthwhile to see due to the powerful performances of Saffron Burrows and Peter Mullan. Mike Figgis once again displays a knack for digging in deep into a story and opening a pandora's box of human emotions; leaving the viewer to make their own conclusions of the politics of a sexist, class conscious society and how it wrecks havoc on the souls of two vastly different people.

Nothing outside of Saffron Burrows and Peter Mullan exists while watching this film. I sadly missed it in the theatre, but rented it just recently. The intensity of the interplay between Julie & Jean, and the play of chemistry between Saffron & Peter, completely absorbs. No room, no telephone, no kitten getting into things, no knock on the door. A physical sex scene that feels like a mental rape. A servant Aristocrat and an Aristocratic servant: how far does a social role penetrate our being? The air of the film brims with violence, loathing, mutual envy and lust but...no gun, no breast. The emotional manipulations between the characters manipulate the viewer's emotions much more than any weapon or nudity could. The performance of Saffron Burrows is absolutely astounding. One moment you loathe Julie, the next you just want to comfort her. Peter Mullan works in perfect tune with Burrows and even when the characters onscreen are at odds, there is perfect harmony within the player's performances. Through the film you feel as though you can see through layers and layers of this character Julie and at the end are left numb, but awe-stuck. Thank You Mike Figgis, Saffron Burrows, Peter Mullan and Maria Doyle Kennedy! (now, to pick up kitten's fun. . . )

I don't quite understand why I'm reading so many negative reviews of this movie. I admit that at first I was turned off just a bit from when I saw the camera work in the beginning. It seemed too sloppy and jerks the viewer around too much; zooming in on wine glasses and faces and other irrelevant things. This only lasted for few minutes though. The cinematography is thrilling in this film: the dreamy, unrealistic landscape of the garden and the water mill, the close-ups of Julie's wrist under running water, the split-screen view of that incredibly intense sex scene, and the distorted reflection of Julie's face before she commits suicide. I don't think the speech in the movie was hard to comprehend at all. But, again, I really can't understand all the negative comments. This is a wonderful movie, including it's fiercely sharp cello and violin based soundtrack. Perhaps people find it difficult to appreciate a film that takes place in only 2 or three rooms and that focuses on just 3 characters.

Strindberg's midsummer nightmare to Shakespeare's dream. 'miss julie' has been touted (by its director, at any rate) as a new way of filming works of classic literature. The film begins, however, as almost all adaptations of plays do, with bustle, hyperactive camerawork and editing, and lots of people (and therefore lots of centres of interest), to fool the viewer into thinking they are watching cinema, and to avoid making the next two hours of stagy talk seem so much like stagy talk (a recent example of this nethod is the Nick Nolte/Jeff Bridges film 'simpatico'). And what follows, sure enough, is two hours of stagy talk.

Figgis' current inspiration is the Dogme 95 collective of Danish filmmakers, although when the opening titles proclaim 'A Mike Figgis Film', we realise that it's not going to be THAT radical (Dogme directors do not sign their work (although, curiously enough, we all know who they are)). For all its self-imposed constraints, Dogme is a model of freedom - by banishing shackles of conventional cinema, they are free to pursue other stylistic methods that are not 'allowed' in 'proper' filmmaking.

'julie', however, is only superficially a Dogme film. It has the rough texture and grainy look, the disruptive editing, jarring compositions and unstable camerawork. But everything is so controlled, and the main reason for this is the fact that it is an adaptation of a classic play. Figgis can do all he likes to break the text, and in one way the film is a fascinating exploration of theatre space, as if the play was a tangible, physical entity, and the film was a documentary crew filming around and through it.

In the film's crucial scene, when Jean violates Julie in a dark corner of the kitchen, the screen splits in two, something theatre can't do. This provides a number of functions - it (rather obviously) singles out the scene as important; it visualises the various ruptures (class, sex, power etc.) the play narrates; it jolts the audience out of the piece, forcing us to ask ourselves what Figgis is doing with form, rather than simply follow the content; it gives us alternating views of the same scene, although two is as arbitrary as one, and the differences between the scenes are hardly Cubist.

All of this is good, but the text always intrudes. Figgis, unlike, say, Von Trier in 'the idiots', cannot go one way, because Strindberg goes another. The actors, astonishing though they are, cannot truly free themselves, lose themselves, explore themselves, because they have to remember the next line. The symbols of the play have to be worked in, which requires further conventions; but if the image of the caged bird is a cliche, its fate is truly shocking; even better are the images of water, the mill, the repetition of Julie's life, the sense of hereditary bad blood, linked to sex and virginal penetration and death, all culminating in the brilliant image near the end of bloody water.

'Julie' may not work as a Dogme film, or as a radically different literary adaptation, but it's still a good movie, largely because Strindberg's play is so brilliant. Often seen as the source of modern drama, its austere study of power and sex, its sado-masochistic rituals, the magnificent trap it sets for its characters, can be seen in its influence, not only on playwrights like Genet, Ionesco and Beckett, but directors like Sirk, Bergman and Fassbinder. Played 'straight', the piece could be stiff and RADAstifled - Figgis' style does create greater immediacy, so that you genuinely cringe and even feel for two not particularly likeable characters. Figgis doesn't have to do much to draw out the modernity of Strindberg's play - it is all already there - but his screenplay is pungently fruity.

If the film had been less cinematic, more theatrical, some of Strindberg's metaphors would have worked better - the running motif of the theatre, of playing roles (the events are overlooked by a scarecrow of the count), the masque-like intrusions of the servants, and Julie's final appearance, like a shabby old actress with her make-up mussed, lose their effect, although the servants-scene is very frightening and potent in its carnivalesque overturning of the social order.

Strindberg is literature's most famous misogynist, and yet his women are often highly sympathetic, or their plight accurately described - Saffron Burrows' humiliating decline is harrowing to watch, but I think Figgis avoids exploitation. what is most interesting is the nationality of the casting: the aristocratic English heroine attacked and undermined by her Scottish and Irish servants. it is the unseen Count who pulls the strings though; when he goes away, chaos reigns, servants become counts, countessess whores; when he returns, order is restored, deviants expelled. But for how long?

Mike Figgis' 'Miss Julie', an adaptation of a Strindberg play, tells the story of a relationship struggling in the face of class divisions, and protagonists torn between their obsessions and ambitions. Figgis gets intense performances out of his cast, the music (written by himself) is excellent and in spite of its origins on the stage, he avoids an overly static feel; and the language (rendered in English) seems fresh. But the characters themselves are a little too archetypal, their feelings theatrically contrived into dialogue; personally I couldn't care too much about their ultimate tragedy. An immaculately made film, but somehow less than the sum of its parts.

This is a very intense Strindberg play, and a well-executed cinematic rendering by "Leaving Las Vegas" director Figgis.

But this project is "made" by the casting of Saffron Burrows, who gives an extraordinary, harrowing performance as Miss Julie. Hilary Swank was very good in "Boys Don't Cry" but, if there was a god in Hollywood, Saffron would have taken home a statue for this one. She clearly earned it.

This play is a stark portrayal of the heavy price that must be paid when social conventions are thrown to the winds. Moral relativism as a topic of cocktail party chatter is amusing, as a guiding principle in real life one discovers that there is nothing very amusing in the bottomless pit to which it can lead. The acting of Peter Mullan and Saffron Burrows is nothing short of electrified and provides a neon lit twenty four hour period in which life changing decisions transport the main characters to levels of existence of which they had not previously even dared to dream. As the play begins, there is not even a hint of the journey that is in store for Miss Julie and her father's valet as their incipient flirtation with disaster rains sparks amid the tinder of an aristocratic manor house.

The word 'Strindberg' enticed me. How close this movie is to the play, I have no idea. But there are a few questions that marred the movie for me: Why would the stablemen take the word of a scullery maid over a footman in giving up the horses for his escape?, Why would the woman want to commit suicide? What drove her mad?

Having had a friend who did commit suicide, I know that in her last stages of depression she fell in love with an ex-con who delighted in telling us how he and his buddies killed another inmate at Kilby Prison with a broom handle. She was highly educated, artistic and giving.....we all should have seen the signs. So this woman's dalliance with an ambitious footman (who at first seems quite virtuous) is to be understood.

See the movie and tell us how close it is to Strindberg himself.

This was breathtakingly simple and powerful. An excellent cast and fantastic direction made for a classic. Had all the intimacy and sensuality of a play with all the aesthetic of a film. Only complaint - if it it is one - is the slightly hammy outdoor set. Indoors is magnificent however - I mean what do you want for the admission price!!! I believe this was all down to the budget. More please Mr Figgis and I agree with the comments from nyc re: Saffron Burrows

MISS JULIE is interesting and Mike Figgis knows how to make the drama work within the intimate confines of a play. He's a master technician of escalating the tension, whether it be with classical music or an intense moment of digression with the lead. Unfortunately, I found the script to be rather dull. The daughter of the count talks about these dreams and laments on her situation. Peter Mullan sits there, sometimes with his arms crossed, other times kissing her feet or trying to seduce her. Either way, hardly the best delivery from Figgis. The original play just doesn't work on film, not matter how hard the filmmaker tries. Even if the forest, which clearly was a set made me want to shut the thing off. Still, Figgis is one of the most talented filmmakers working today.

Spoilers herein.

Oh what love does, when yearning crosses boundaries and makes someone see another as better than they really are. Here, it ends in suicide. I'm talking about Mike Figgis' view of girlfriend Saffron.

A reliably trenchant play: a competent footman; a very clever camera; a Nyman-like score that works; and a completely inadequate lead. Figgis doesn't care. I find his camera interesting, but have absolutely no illusions that he is working to reach an intelligent audience. He's working for himself and his drives, both artistic and emotional.

The contrast with Mamet is fascinating. Figgis has a curious eye which Mamet lacks, but Mamet understands the power of drama where Figgis does not. They both drive actors, but Mamet adds the visceral to the cerebral. They both create vehicles for their lovers, but in Mamet's case, he works to accommodate Pidgeon's limits.

Figgis is like PT Anderson in my book, but a whole lot smarter. They both have talent, but they've got some theatrical maturing to do before they become worth serious viewing. That includes being less selfish.

How much of this was due to Helen Cooper ? Not that it matters. I'll just have to watch a few more versions of this masterpiece, with which I was previously unfamiliar. Strindberg, the son of a servant, was incontestably a tortured soul, as well as preternaturally gifted. Transfixed by the twists and turns of the dialogue in this superlative production, I kept asking myself how this matchless creativity could possibly be explained.

As usual, there are nitwits complaining that the production was not cinematic. Those complaints are voiced by the kind of people who would readily criticize Hamlet for being dated. Their objections are pointless and vanishingly irrelevant. Not every thespian presentation needs aspire to wild western scenic status.

Initially I was bemused by the differences in stature between Saffron and Peter Mullen. Soon, this ceased to puzzle me in face of their magnificent performances, and in any case the contrast seemed appropriate to their roles. Watching this was an emotionally and intellectually cathartic experience. Recommended.

I have read four different translations of this play, directed it, and played Julie. I adore this play. So now, I hope my infuriated disappointment is understandable after seeing this film. The same linguist who had done my favorite translation of the play (Helen Cooper, the Methuen Drama Translation) also did the screenplay, so naturally, I expected something mostly faithful to the script. No, instead, Christine was written in as an intelligent sarcastic woman. The latter is especially bothersome because Strindberg himself wrote in his preface (around 6 pages printed before the play text explaining to the women and other invalids the action of the play) that Christine was meant to be a dull character, and empowering her alters the direction of the play. Albeit marginally, but it still does.

On a cinematic level, it's completely beautiful. The celluloid is very pretty, especially in the garden scenes. The costumes are gorgeous. However, the acting is awful, for the most part. Julie is physically gorgeous, but, her sexy voice is monotonous and absolutely massacres the character because of this. She constantly has a blank look in her eye and a dull expression on her face, which is the opposite of what she should have in order to match the intricacies of the lines that she's speaking. Julie doesn't have an independent thought of her own (which she admits within the text of the play) but she still regurgitates what she has been taught with extreme deliberate passion, for an attempt at control and to create a notion that she is far more intelligent than she is. This is lost within the movie. When she is attempting to seduce, she just doesn't look attractive; she looks childlike. When she is in the heat of a kiss, she looks weak and not in control. She is the submissive herself, SO prematurely. Her phrasing is disjointed in many places. At the end of the play we see very little of a shift in character outside of the fact that she has a bit of an airy gait and inflection when she is asking Jean to come up to her room alongside her. At the end of the movie, she isn't noticeably anything, which would be great if it were a part of the character, however, it didn't change from the beginning of the movie. So if this is another bit of inconsistency in regards to the script, I understand: translate a play that is meant to show how weak the gentry/women can be by showing how far they can fall upon the slightest suggestion into a film that shows no distance between where the gentlewoman had begun and ended. I do have to say that the hysterical monologue towards the end that was directed to Christine about "plans for the future" was superb, in relativity to the entire movie. The acting was believable (FOR ONCE) and I could feel that Julie was pathetic. It turned my stomach, and that's great. That's seriously great. She IS pathetic and she SHOULD have that effect on people.

However, the monologue that is meant to be the climax of the play was poorly built within the realm of the movie. Julie picking up the knife looks ridiculous. Different sections of it were executed well, but not nearly as fluently as it really should have been. The falling action of the monologue was very well done, however.

Also, Jean is Scottish or Irish and it doesn't make any sense. He lived in France for awhile as a doorman and wine waiter and then lived in Sweden. The actors' acting was just at par level and wasn't near good enough to sacrifice that bit of logic within the movie. It is embarrassing how overly angry he became upon Julie's waking of Christine. Besides, Julie's reaction to him throwing her aside isn't even close to the character that Strindberg scripted.

Direction, a loose translation, and casting are all culprits for why this beautiful play was so weakly constructed into film.

See Froken Julie (1951) if you would like to see a much more faithful, well done adaptation. Yes, it's in Swedish, but the subtitles give you a general gist. Better yet, read the Methuen Drama version of Miss Julie. It's an amazing piece. It doesn't deserve the treatment this movie gave it.

It's very hard to do much to muck up August Stringberg's original play, which has for over a century been one of those landmarks in theater that keep it a good item for drama classes and the occasional revival. If Mike Figgis does anything particularly strikingly with his Miss Julie, it's to try and capture the emotions that would have made it so controversial in its original release. It's intense work that Saffron Burrows and Peter Mulligan pull through, even if the end result almost makes the material seem about as cheerful as that little bird in the sod end of the darkest chimney in Sweden. It's also the kind of stage adaptation that stays fitfully faithful- hence without being too far-reaching with style (like, for example, Alf Sjoberg's strong and exciting adaptation of the 1950s)- and it's perfectly watchable drama all the way through. The terror and danger in this saga of two souls caught in a doomed situation is caught on well, even if there is something lacking to it that I can't quite put my finger on...

I have to say that I feel sorry for all three characters in this classic tragedy by August Strindberg, one of Scandinavia's greatest playwrights. Jean and Kristin are trapped by their roles as servant. At a time when you are born into your class and will never rise above it, Jean takes advantage of Miss Julie's vulnerability and I felt the cruel song by the servants mocking their mistress was a bit overdone. Saffron Burrows delivers an exquisite painful performance as Miss Julie that was overlooked by awards shows. This film should have considered for some awards including Best Actress, Best Actor, and Best Supporting Actress. The three together really brought the tragedy of their lives on screen.

Mike Figgis, the director, does a wonderful job of putting a theatrical play on film. The August Strindberg play contains much of the theatrical dialogue and speeches and the film captures the psychological drama of the play. The tension that arises around their class standings makes it a thoughtful drama.

MISS JULIE is a film based on a play written by August Strindberg and directed by Mike Figgis . Strindberg was of course a Swedish dramatist who was famous for his unconscious predictions . One of his plays featured a Japanese character called Hiroshima who wanted to be burned alive and watching MISS JULIE any self respecting audience member will notice that the plot predates DH Lawrance's LADY CHATTERLY'S LOVER . This may make the story groundbreaking but it doesn't make it entertaining , erotic or interesting . In fact Figgis seems to have made a pig's ear of the whole thing by casting Saffron Burrows and Peter Mullan as the two protagonists of the story . Burrows is tall , slim and elegant while Mullan is a wee middle aged Scottish guy and the two of them make one of the most unlikely screen couples ever committed to celluloid and their lust filled relationship is very difficult to believe in . Figgis also fails to make the movie cinematic with most of the (in )action taking place inside a kitchen save for a few scenes in a studio exterior . It should also be pointed out that because it's a stage play the dialogue is very important but due to some very poor sound mixing it's almost impossible to hear what the actors are saying . Not that is unforgivable

I was surprised by Miss Julie's rawness and by the power of its performances. In general terms, the movie's by no means remarkable: the plot is simple enough (it deals with an impossible love between two persons of different social classes) and there are only three main characters. What makes Miss Julie (both as a play and as a motion picture) a really good piece of entertainment is the way it handles the development of its characters, as well as the manner in which they are portrayed. Mike Figgis' expert direction helps of course, and Helen Cooper's screenplay, which doesn't deviate too much from August Strindberg's script for the original play, provides with tons of drama, memorable lines and believable situations. Miss Julie works because it's a compelling dramatic picture that manages to transmit interesting ideas through its characters - in the end, even though a lot happens during the film, virtually nothing is changed in the lives of two of the three characters - and that features some really powerful moments thanks to Figgis' competent work.

I saw this movie with my English class after reading the original play, and I was surprised by its faithfulness towards the source material. Granted, I know the play is relatively short, but there are film adaptations that would've changed a lot of things. (If it had been a Hollywood flick, I'm pretty sure that the ending, for example, would've been changed.) This faithfulness means that many of the original lines from the play have been retained, and that characterization remains pretty much the same, which is good, considering it's one of Strindberg's work's strongest assets. Figgis and Cooper only change a couple of things, like the place in which the sex takes place, for example, and the fact that the act itself isn't shown in the play. The movie adaptation also contains more profanity, although I don't know how this affects the overall quality of the plot. I guess they could've done without it.

Performances are what manage to prevent the film from becoming an over-bloated and cheesy melodrama. Saffron Burrows (Troy) as Miss Julie is, simply put, amazing. His performance is quiet and solemn, and manages to make the character of Miss Julie a believable and well-rounded figure. All of this scenes with Jean are amazing, containing lots of power and a perfect delivery of lines, and although I don't agree with most of what she does during the course of the movie, it's difficult not to admire her work. Peter Mullan as Jean is also really great. Although his character is not the most sympathetic one ever, he manages to make him likable and believable enough for the audience; many of the lines he has to recite are excellently witty and smart, and both his delivery and dramatic performance are top-notch. You gotta love his Scottish accent!

Mike Figgis' direction, while not perfect, is also really good. I don't know if the movie had an actual low budget, but direction makes it look like one, albeit not in a negative way. He makes use of hand-held cameras and lots of unbroken shots, and makes the film look as if it had been filmed by someone who was actually there with the characters. There's very little background music during the whole movie, but what's there is amazing. The music during the first scene - in which the servants are preparing everything inside the kitchen - is arresting, and helps make the scene a beautiful and suspenseful beginning to the movie. (It's remarkable that Figgis himself composed the score for the movie.) The film contains many of these arresting types of scenes - the raw sex scene between Jean and Julie is really powerful, for example. I was left with my mouth open during the whole sequence, and although the film is a little too slow-paced and the direction might put off some of the most impatient viewers, it's these kinds of the scenes that make it really worth watching.

While not perfect, Miss Julie is a really great movie, the kind of film that requires patient viewers in order to be enjoyed. I like the themes it touches - the struggle between social classes, the fact that the characters finally couldn't change anything and that the ending starts with a new day full of the routine that characterized the beginning, as if the circle of daily life had been closed - and the performances it provides with, as well the screenplay and the direction. Maybe it's a little too slow paced for some viewers, and maybe it's a little too melodramatic and bleak for others - I definitely found it a little too dark for my taste -, but for those who appreciate this kind of art house movie, there's a lot of enjoyment to be had. I'd recommend you to read the play first - it's not hard and it's not long - and then watch the film adaptation. Miss Julie is a really powerful and arresting motion picture, and it's a pity it's not more well-known. Given the amazing performances by Burrows and Mullan, it could have catapulted them to stardom or, at least, made them more well-known to art house viewers and movie buffs.

I have gone through the 'comments index' in regards to the movie, "Miss Julie" and all I can say is WOW. This movie certainly gets a wide range of reactions and opinions, starting from bad to beautiful. With that in mind, I would say that this movie is quite successful in that it has prompted discussion of its viewers. Whether they are right or wrong in their assumptions, makes no difference to how I enjoyed the movie myself. Note: to those who savagely criticized this film, I take offense. I do not know if you are wanna-be-film-directors or not, but to make any kind of film(let alone an adaption from a play) is difficult at best. And about the 'sound quality' issue, who cares! Most communication is executed through body language anyway - if that is an issue with you, then the fault would be with you - not the film. Sometimes one has to 'read between the lines' so to speak, and seeing 'life' portrayed through Mr. Figgis' eyes is truly an unique film experience.

I've previously commented that I find Figgis to be one of the most interesting directors around. He has his hits and misses, but he's willing to experiment and do something different.

This is no exception. Burrows may have been his bird, but she's excellent in this. And you can always rely upon Mullan to excel. You're aware of the theatrical origins, but the performances override that.

One man, one woman, one room, one night. Depending on your mind set, it either sounds extremely boring or like one heck of a good time. This movie isn't exactly either, and it's definitely not for everyone.

I'm a big fan of period movies. I love a good one and probably like a lot of the bad ones too. But don't make the mistake of going into this movie looking for your typical period piece romance. It's more of a psychological drama about class distinctions and gender expectations. And a strange one at that. I was somehow left with the feeling that I was watching a car wreck in progress. Moderately interesting in one way, but decidedly morbid in another. I felt rather bored, but still compelled to see it through and watch it till the end. Which left me with a slightly disgusted feeling for having bothered.

This movie lacks several somethings that I didn't feel like I could quite put my finger on. It obviously lacks the pageantry of all the expected costume changes of a movie of this genre, but that's not it's only problem.

I felt no chemistry between the hero and heroine and found their relationship basically unbelievable. I could find no reason to believe that she would be attracted to such an obnoxious person for even a moment.

Can you say artsy-fartsy filming? Okay, so there were a few moments, like the use of the split screen for one scene and the use of a distorted mirror that were interesting. But that awful shaky camera style is distracting, annoying, and totally inappropriate for the material.

Although the setting of the scenes in the movie are supposedly in Sweden, the actors all talk with English accents. I found this to be rather distracting as it kept bringing me out of the time frame and setting of the movie.

Picture quality: This is not a great transfer for a DVD. In some places it looks rather like a movie taken from old film stock and not cleaned up instead of a film made as recently as 1999.

Sound quality: There are no English subtitles on this DVD (what is MGMs problem with that?!) and boy, does it need it in some places. The accents are only a tiny concern but the recording of the sound in general is awful in some places. And I'm not just talking about the jarring music itself. The volume had to be turned up to hear what the actors were saying but turned down to hear yourself think when the music came on. I ended up leaving the TV speaker on while also using my sound system and just muting the latter whenever the music came on.

I gave it a 5/10 because the actors did a good job with what they were given. But all and all, I think a person's time would be better spent watching something else.