"Where Movie Critics Get A Taste Of Their Own Medicine"
Subscribe To Weekly Newsletter!

MONA LISA SMILE
by Peter Sobczynski

December 17, 2003

1/2 (out of 4 stars)

FILM CREDITS: Written by Lawrence Konner and Mark Rosenthal. Directed by Mike Newell. Starring Julia Roberts, Kirsten Dunst, Julia Stiles, Maggie Gyllenhaal and Ginnifer Goodwin. PG-13. Columbia Tristar

"Mona Lisa Smile" is a film about a college professor who is nothing more than a narcissistic dope whose classes are less about the subject at hand (art history, in this case) than they are forums for her to rant and babble about what is going on in her life. Because this is an end-of-the-year piece of Oscar bait, however, we are supposed to find the character (as well as the film) to be thoughtful and inspiring. I dunno-if someone tried to get away with such a half-assed approach to teaching in real life, I am guessing that the only thing that she would inspire is a desire for the parents of her captive audiences to put a hold on the tuition checks.

The professor, by the way, is Katherine Watson (played, as you may have heard, by Julia Roberts), who comes to the fabled Wellesley College because, as a bit of voice-over narration helpfully informs us, "she wanted to make a difference." Because this is 1953, of course, her free-thinking and progressive ways are a shock to the staid faculty and student body:-she even-gasp-writes her dissertation on her belief that Picasso would become the most influential artist of the 20th Century, leading to people clucking that such nonsense will never be taken seriously. (Apparently Wellesley is run by the descendants of the Billy Zane character from "Titanic".) However, her classroom approach is less than radical at first-on her first day of teaching Art History 101, she discovers that her know-it-all class has already memorized the syllabus and they gleefully spit the information back at her. At first, she is stymied, but never fear-she decides to forge ahead with a free-wheeling lesson plan that will force her students to actually think for themselves. In theory, this is what she should have done in the first place but apparently, this is some sort of unique notion that leads to much clucking of tongues. She soon becomes the most popular teacher on campus-though based on the available evidence, this is less because of her unusual approach and more on the fact that her class seems like one of those gut courses that is an easy "A" once you can figure out exactly what the teacher wants to hear. (Most of the actual art analysis consists of furrowing brows at a painting and speaking in the tones of an Oprah discussion salon.)

Not that you are going to learn much of anything about Art History 101 here. (By the end of the story, the students-as well as the audience-wind up loving her instead of art history; the opposite would have been true if she were, in fact, a good teacher.) This is merely a pretext so that she can become unnaturally involved in the lives of all of her students, something I’m sure we all remember from our old 100-level teachers. Her charges this time include a Spoiled Snob (Kirsten Dunst), a Know-It-All (Julia Stiles), a Free Spirit Slut (Maggie Gyllenhaal) and a Plain Girl Who Doesn’t Get to Appear on the "Entertainment Weekly" Cover Because She Isn’t a Stick Figure (Ginnifer Goodwin). Through brow-beating, whining and seemingly meaningless elements introduced at the beginning that will almost certainly return for a poignant finale (in this case, a Van Gogh paint-by-numbers), she forces them to look at the world around them in a new way instead of becoming the housewives that the schools seems to be programming them to become.

If a lot of this sounds familiar to you, it is because "Mona Lisa Smile" is an almost note-for-note rehash of "Dead Poets Society" (a film that was once described on "The Simpsons" as the movie that all but destroyed modern education). Of course, there have been any number of movies in which noble teachers profoundly affect the lives of their charges, but this film follows the "Dead Poets" model to a T. Within five minutes, for example, you will be laying bets with your seatmates over which character will turn out to have the domineering parent, which one will be cruelly treated and driven to the edge of despair and which one will turn out to be the secret lesbian. (My guesses turned out to be spot-on, though I have to admit to being severely disappointed about the identity of the latter.)

In her first major role since winning the Best Actress Oscar for "Erin Brockovich" (after a series of low-key supporting turns in things like "Ocean’s Eleven" and "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind"), Julia Roberts seems to have decided to take the Robin Williams career path of selecting projects designed to show just how noble and idealistic they can be. This is a real disappointment because a role like this never gives her a chance to demonstrate the intelligence and quicksilver energy that made her more than just a pretty smile in the first place. To make matters even worse, because this film is little more than a one-woman show, her supporting cast of talented actresses are wasted on material that is simply beneath them. (The worst offender by far is the usually interesting Stiles, whose weird overenunciation her makes her sound like a robot on the fritz.)

In the would-be tear-jerker of an ending, all of Roberts’ students show up with those damned Van Gogh paint-by-numbers, each one painted in a different color scheme. The effect, I assume, is to demonstrate how she has shown her charges that they can be individuals within the confines of a repressive society. Frankly, I took it as a metaphor for the entire movie-both are soulless retreads without an ounce of passion or creativity that no amount of colorful surface details can quite cover up.

-- PETER SOBCZYNSKI

Copyright © 2003 Peter Sobczynski
All rights reserved.
Used with permission
Peter's Archives

While the views expressed by Peter Sobczynski do not necessarily reflect the views of Criticdoctor.com, the Critic Doctor will occasionally examine Mr. Sobczynski's film reviews to bring forth an honest examination of those views expressed.