As a victim she's a peculiar fantasy object, offering masochism without eroticism. (Even in The End of the Affair her nude sex scenes have a peculiarly objective quality, as if she could represent desire without quite embodying it.) Her kind of masochism is moral masochism--she's the idealized supersensitive female, too delicate for this coarse-grained world. Her performances are meticulously controlled, her face a liquid crystal display screen of unspoken pain, but she's limited by her own impressive control. At times she's so purposefully tight her technique threatens to take her all the way around the board and back to Tippi Hedren, square zero.
Paul Thomas Anderson's Magnolia (1999) was one time Moore showed some energy, and it didn't work, either. In her defense, the role of a woman who loves the dying old man she married for money so much she can't live with the guilt is unplayable nowadays. It's like a Joan Crawford role from the '40s, the inherently noble fur-clad sinner who can find redemption only in death. The part shouldn't burn that many calories--nobility just shone off the Crawford mask. Agitated to delirium, and throwing herself around the house, her attorney's office, the pharmacy, Moore pushes her technique in a role so tacky there's nothing technique can do for it. She's aerobically mannered without being convincing at the simplest level, as a girl who netted a rich husband with sex. It's a godawful performance, the most serious lapse in her natural good taste, which otherwise seems like the main thing holding her back.
I don't blame her for The End of the Affair (1999), Neal Jordan's overripe yet immaculately "literary" treatment of Graham Greene's unmatched work of classy spiritual porn. It's the story of an adulterous affair in London during World War II between a government official's wife (Moore) and her novelist lover (Ralph Fiennes), whom she walks away from, without telling him why, when he's injured in the Blitz and she promises God to give him up if he survives. The material needs a compulsive, trash-loving hand to keep the goo stirred up, but the movie is so earnestly narrated (and so insistently, lest we miss a particle of its richness) that Moore while unusually responsive nevertheless seems encased in it.
In her stunning period suits, with linings and kick-pleats in heated contrasting colors, Moore is an exquisite animated mannequin who suffers emotionally, morally, physically. Even the graphic sex scenes are too deliberate--the movie uses them to romanticize the characters' religious torment. The lovers are miserable and yet so dang glamorous the movie seems to think we'll envy them. You and I would just be screwing around on the side but when these two go at it they feel the earth move, and then heaven itself. (They tempt Fate, which deigns to respond.)
![The Last Days of Dolwyn [VHS]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/21QZQQRM0BL._SL120_.jpg)
Article comments
1 - Eric Olsen
excellent job Alan, very subtle and thorough analysis of Moore, I learned a lot - thanks!
2 - sadi
Alan , thx for this. I've always admired Moore's incredible beauty and you describe that well. I actually thought The End of the Affair was a really good adaptation, but that's okay. It was true to the book and the chemistry between Fiennes and Moore struck me as quite real and believable - she's very comfortable with herself nude and that's sexy to me. but that said, i see what you are saying about her holding back a bit - that sounds true enough. I thought she was magnificent in Magnolia, as was (incredibly) Tom Cruise who did a remarkable job.
Thx for this - as a fan of Moore, it gives me a lot of information and other films to see as well.
Cheers,
Sadi
3 - visualsimplicity
I never thought of Moore's acting in that way, but yeah, she does sort of have that restrained (maybe nervous) chuckle going. I'm going to have to disagree with Sadi and agree with you, Alan, on her job in Magnolia. However, I'm going to agree with Sadi on Tom though. I can't argue this point enough, but I thought he was completely robbed of the Oscar for his role in that film. As good as Michael Caine is, I felt Tom did much better that year. Oh well.
4 - Alan Dale
Thanks for all the comments. I feel a little guilty b/c Moore IS clearly talented and dedicated, way above average, plus she seems like a nice person. That said, I wish she could let loose more the way she does in Laws of Attraction. Is she really comfortable being naked on film or is it just that she does it if it fits her concept of the role (which is a way of not being in your naked body while it's being filmed)? I just can't see her shaking it in a movie for the hell of it.
As for Magnolia: I'm not a Tom Cruise fan. He's a hard-worker, with lots of energy and focus, but he's strictly "product." My favorite participants in that movie were Henry Gibson, Melinda Dillon, and the frogs.
5 - mb
Your not serious thinking your interruption of Julianne Moore is accurate. The two films that she's been chastise for, you think are her better performance? If you want to write a lengthy article about an actress then maybe next time you should do some research on what motivates the actress. Julianne Moore has publicly stated that she does not want to be a "movie star", she wants to be an actress. She does not want to be a larger then life character that saves the world, she simply wants to do stories about real people. Which she has done quite well.
6 - Dave Nalle
So I guess I'm the only one who finds her pompous, creepy and irritating?
Dave
7 - Alan Dale
I think I can "agree" in some sense with both of the last two posts, though mb isn't going to like this "interruption" of Moore's career any more than my original one: the problem with Moore is that she cares far more about her art than she does about the audience's enjoyment of it. The exception is Laws of Attraction, in which she lets loose with an amazing blend of skill and instinct. I kept rewinding little moments just to relive the kick I got out of her expressions and gestures and vocal tricks.