It's hard to imagine a more relentlessly somber basis for a movie than Jane Hamilton's 1994 novel, A Map of the World. In it, Alice Goodwin is a small-town school nurse whose neighbor's 2-year-old daughter accidentally drowns in the backyard pond. Alice blames herself--punishes herself, in fact, with guilt. Since her neighbor was also her best friend, Alice becomes emotionally isolated. At the height of her depression, she's charged with child abuse and sent to jail, during which time her husband has to sell the family dream farm to make her bail and pay for a lawyer. While in prison, she is beaten and her family members become outcasts. Endless guilt, introspection, isolation, and depression follow. And did we mention guilt?
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
Such morose material can work on the page, of course. Hamilton's prose is an insightful look at the emotional makeup of someone dealing with loss, and its nonlinear, free-association style, filled with flashbacks and should-have-been scenes, is an effective portrait of the way a grieving mind works. Still, most moviegoers aren't quite masochistic enough to sit through two hours of endless emotional pain, so why adapt such a story to the big screen? Two reasons come to mind. One is that Hollywood logic dictates that best-selling books must become movies. The other is that most "serious" actresses (and actors, to a lesser degree) love to show their range by playing characters undergoing nervous breakdowns, which explains the involvement of Sigourney Weaver and Julianne Moore. Even if the material is depressing, it beats having to pose on the arm of pinup boys and aging action stars.
Fortunately, the film version of A Map of the World, helmed by first-time director Scott Elliott, has squeezed out a linear narrative from Hamilton's novel and lightened things up. Its formula for making it more mainstream enjoyable is pretty simple: star casting, a little humor, and gratuitous nudity (Weaver's). In the character of Alice, Weaver manages to find the dark humor that is obscured by the unremitting emotional self-flagellation in the text. Julianne Moore is always a capable actress and brings Theresa, mother of the dead toddler, to life well, although her movie-star good looks are at odds with the book's portrayal, which had her in glasses with her hair tied back. As Alice's husband, Howard, David Strathairn is essentially playing the same kind of man's man he often portrays, most recently in Limbo. As with Moore's character, though, there's a visual problem: Howard is supposed to be the tower of strength Alice counts on in a crisis, but Strathairn looks like a cheap sight gag next to Weaver, who has a good six inches on him.
A Map of the World
Directed by Scott Elliott
Screenplay by Peter Hedges and Polly Platt, based on the novel by Jane Hamilton
Starring Sigourney Weaver, Julianne Moore, David Strathairn, Arliss Howard, Chlo Sevigny, and Louise Fletcher
Rounding out the cast are Arliss Howard as lawyer Reverdy (mysteriously changed from the novel's "Rafferty"; perhaps Howard didn't look Irish enough), and two more great actresses, this time in stereotypical roles: Chloë Sevigny as a white-trash waitress and Louise Fletcher as Alice's mother-in-law who, if not quite from hell, must hail from somewhere in the vicinity. Sevigny and Fletcher can play these cutouts in their sleep; if they didn't both have distinctive looks, you wouldn't know they were even onscreen. Howard is less generic, doing his best with an abbreviated version of the novel's most interesting character. Most of the quirkier aspects of his persona are, sadly, brushed over, but this is Alice's story, after all, and the movie's already more than two hours long.
It's hard to shake the feeling that A Map of the World might have been better served as a Lifetime movie. The nudity would have had to go, but the subject matter of false sexual-abuse charges and family tragedy are tailor-made for the movie-of-the-week demographic. On the other hand, the film doesn't handle the subject matter with the excessive sentimentality or oppressive sense of family values that those movies usually mine, so perhaps it's just as well. (The story even implies that prison may be the best cure for a nervous breakdown.) But it may make one wonder: Who, exactly, is this film designed to appeal to? Even with Hamilton's constant downer atmosphere muffled, the premise is going to sound like a chick flick to guys--the kiss of death. Yet it's not slick or romantic enough to be a great date movie. And it's not even really life-affirming in the traditional sense. Is it well-made? Absolutely. But without the promise of some kind of social issue or a cathartic climax, who goes to the movies to make themselves feel this bad?