ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

BeSummers Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Zandra The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Steven Torrey This is a film adaptation of Henry James' Novella, "Daisy Miller." It is available on YouTube with annoying sub-titles.Cybil Shepherd more than adequately interpreted James' character, Daisy Miller. Something of an insubstantial flibbertigibbet, Miss Shepherd conveys that with a speeded, clipped speaking pattern. Never mind, the character Daisy Miller has something of a self-centeredness to her, to the point of self-destruction.The other principals were more than adequate, but that is why they get paid the sums they do.Peter Bogdonavich attempted fidelity to James' novella. But an important part of the James novella is the role of the omniscient narrator unfolding the story through interior monologue, a voice over, if you will; but not quite a voice over nor really similar to voice over.While Frederick Winterbourne provides the first person omniscient narrator, the reader is not fooled that this is Henry James speaking through Winterbourne. And James/Winterbourne can make any number of comments (ironic or snide) and observations that do not appear in the overt spoken dialogue of the story line.Look at James' narration following the opening gambit of dialogue: "The young lady inspected her flounces and smoothed her ribbons again; and Winterbourne presently risked an observation upon the beauty of the view. He was ceasing to be embarrassed, for he had begun to perceive that she was not in the least embarrassed herself. There had not been the slightest alteration in her charming complexion; she was evidently neither offended nor flattered. If she looked another way when he spoke to her, and seemed not particularly to hear him, this was simply her habit, her manner. Yet, as he talked a little more and pointed out some of the objects of interest in the view, with which she appeared quite unacquainted, she gradually gave him more of the benefit of her glance; and then he saw that this glance was perfectly direct and unshrinking. It was not, however, what would have been called an immodest glance, for the young girl's eyes were singularly honest and fresh. They were wonderfully pretty eyes; and, indeed, Winterbourne had not seen for a long time anything prettier than his fair countrywoman's various features—her complexion, her nose, her ears, her teeth. He had a great relish for feminine beauty; he was addicted to observing and analyzing it; and as regards this young lady's face he made several observations. It was not at all insipid, but it was not exactly expressive; and though it was eminently delicate, Winterbourne mentally accused it—very forgivingly—of a want of finish. He thought it very possible that Master Randolph's sister was a coquette; he was sure she had a spirit of her own; but in her bright, sweet, superficial little visage there was no mockery, no irony." That dialogue has to be filled in by the camera without commentary; the commentary/observation must be made by the audience which may or may not (mostly not) fill in. What the author saw as important, and the videographer saw as important, the audience may overlook completely. The omniscient narrator gives voice, while the videographer interprets that interior monologue and records in silence.So to say the film is 'faithful' to James' text is to speak to a lie and misunderstanding of the author's intent, the author's aesthetic, something that few films can capture without an extensive omniscient narrative voice over.The movie was worth seeing to revisit James' novella; it was competently produced with competent acting. But as always with any film adaptation of a novel too much subtly is lost, too much reliance on the audience to fill in the blanks, a capacity the audience may lack.

willwoodmill Daisy Miller is an adaptation of the novella of the same name written by Henry James. Daisy Miller was directed by Peter Bogdanovich, the same person who directed Paper Moon and The Last Picture Show. Both the film and the novella tell the story of Frederick Winterbourne, a young American man studying in Geneva, where he by chance encounters Daisy Miller, a young American woman traveling Europe with her family. Winterbourne and Daisy develop a deep connection with their short time together in Geneva, but eventually Daisy has to leave Geneva and head to Rome. Daisy wants Winterbourne to come with her, but Winterbourne says he most stay in Geneva for now, but will be in Rome eventually. Daisy is angry with Winterbourne for this decision and after a brief fight Daisy leaves. Eventually Winterbourne does go to Rome where he finds out that Daisy has been running around and flirting with several different men, and has been rejected by the high-class society there.Adapting Daisy Miller into a film was a strange choice for Frederic Raphael (the screenwriter) to make. Because, well let's face it, it isn't a good story like at all. If you've read the novella you know what I'm talking about, and the reason that it sucks so much is because Daisy is such an unlikable character. She is annoying, arrogant, rude, and manipulative, but even with her many, many flaws Henry James was still trying to hold her up as a symbol for innocence and how American ideals are different from the rigid European customs. Which doesn't really work if the character you using to try and convey this point is a cruel deceitful arrogant bitch, like Daisy Miller. The whole book falls apart, in fact the reaction to Daisy Miller at the time was bad at the time it was first published that Henry James had to come out and say what the novella was supposed to be about, because everyone was getting it wrong. I know I'm dwelling on this but it deserves to be dwelled on. Daisy Miller is probably one of my most hated characters of all time. But to be fair the filmmakers do to try to make Daisy a more likable character, however she still isn't even close to likable, but they do add some scenes that try to show that she isn't as bad as we think she is, and they also desperately shove the fact that she's "innocent " down your throat. The filmmakers also try to make the message of the book much more obvious. Which is good, but they do go a little to far, at some parts and even flat out saying what the message is several times during the film. Another positive I can say about the film is that all members of the cast and crew do really good jobs, all of the performances are at least good and some are actually pretty great. The set's, cinematography, and costumes are also all pretty good. Throughout the whole film I actually felt like I was in Geneva/Rome, not to mention that there is some fantastic lighting in this film. Even with all of its good parts Daisy Miller is still a weak film, but I would say that it's far superior to Henry James novella. The filmmakers do a good job of trying to lessen the weaker aspects of the source material, and add some pretty good scenes. In fact I would like to see the same cast and crew adapt a different story, because if they do this well with a bad book, I'm curious to see what they'd do with a good one. But I don't think I can recommend Daisy Miller, it isn't terrible, but it isn't good either.4.7

zpzjones Henry James, like Edith Wharton, is not easy to bring to the movie screen. They are better suited to the television miniseries. I did enjoy the recent movie versions of James's "The Golden Bowl" w/Uma Thurman & Kate Beckinsale and Wharton's "The House of Mirth" w/Gillian Anderson & Laura Linney. Bogdanovich's adaptation would've made a much better PBS miniseries with the storyline stretched out & elaborated, just like the multitude of classics that were being produced for the small screen by the British in the 1970s. Bogdanovich's movie "Daisy Miller" is an excellent adaptation of a James novel. Not perfect, but somewhere on the right track. Bogdanovich gets the visuals down pat and you get the feel of 1870s Italy, certainly a lengthy trip by an American in the 1870s. For those decrying Cybil Shepherd and blaming her, please give me a break! She's 23, she has nothing more to do than to look beautiful & vulnerable and utter a few lines. A lot of her scenes she doesn't say nothing. She even dies at the end. If Shepherd had died in 1974 after this movie was released y'all would be saying she was a 'great' actress taken before her time. Instead many of you are remembering Shepherd for her off stage shenanigans, personal life, her instances in the trash tabloids, her affair with Bogdanovich etc. Who cares, she's beautiful & effective in this, which surprised even ME when I first saw the DM. I much prefer Shepherd in DM than in the Last Picture Show. The movie is sumptuously photographed. The photography is really the star here. The costumes are well done giving the aura of nothing but 1870s. As I said, this would've been much nicer in a mini-series(it still could be) where the time & pace could be spread out. Instead Bogdanovich had to whittle his movie down to a 2 hour or less running time as audiences don't like to sit through a long period piece. Bogdanovich took a chance tackling a Henry James story in the early 1970s knowing how fickle American audiences can be but he may have been influenced by the British TV imports then first arriving on US televisions. Lastly I would recommend DM, especially for lovers of costume dramas, Masterpiece Theater and the like. Give this picture at least one viewing as you may come off surprised and liking it , as I did.

Gregory Leong I agree with the reviewer who finds Ms. Shepherd utterly wrong for the part, and quite destroying the film. Henry James is a much more subtle portraitist of Americans abroad during that period than either actress or director could represent. For a start, someone so obnoxiously shallow as Shepherd's Daisy, and whose attempts at vivaciousness and flirtation so blatantly stagy, that the young hero must have been an absolute dill to have been so smitten. Nor is the actress so beautiful (or really young) as to make his sexual infatuation credible. Still it could have been worse, it could have been the worst "simperer" of all time, Mia Farrow cast in the role. That would have been a pill. However, possibly her special brand of naive vulnerability may have made Daisy more sympathetic. Thank good EVERYONE ELSE in the cast (apart from an uncharismatic and therefore unconvincing, Duilio del Prete as Gionavelli) is not only believable, but put in amazing performances, especially Barry Brown, Cloris Leachman, Mildred Natwick and Eileen Bannen, all perfect in their roles.The theme of innocence destroyed by the social environment, not to mention evil schemers (as in Portrait of a Lady) or in this case, symbolically, the natural environment ("Roman Fever"), or even supernatural environment (as in Turn of the Screw) is a really central issue in many of James's novels and stories. To feel sympathy for the protagonist, she (as the protagonist often is) has to have not only innocence (which is misconstrued, exploited and/ or finally shattered), but also a kind of unshakable moral core. This could be as simple as a confident and self-possessed disregard of convention, or a genuine moral belief of the rightness of one's own actions. It is often represented as a subtle character trait. Although these themes are indeed present in the film, Bogdanovich' simply fails to capture the quiet intensity of James's work.