Film Festival

Review: HBO's 'Mildred Pierce' drags Kate Winslet through a long, frustrating story

Miniseries doesn't sell the mother/daughter obsession strongly enough

Review: HBO's 'Mildred Pierce' drags Kate Winslet through a long, frustrating story

Evan Rachel Wood and Kate Winslet in "Mildred Pierce."

Credit: HBO

I initially wasn't going to write at all about HBO's "Mildred Pierce," the five-part, three-week Depression era miniseries starring Kate Winslet, Guy Pearce and Evan Rachel Wood. Though it's not nearly as melodramatic as the 1945 film that won Joan Crawford an Oscar, the subject matter and style represent a genre that doesn't hold much interest for me.

But because of the talent involved - including director Todd Haynes ("Far From Heaven") - I sampled it out of the hope that the execution would elevate it above my usual prejudices. (As kinda sorta happened with "Downtown Abbey" earlier this year.)

Instead, I found it a slog to get through. It's tremendously faithful to the James M. Cain novel (Fienberg, who read the book a few weeks before watching the miniseries, was hard-pressed to identify anything that Haynes and co-writer Jon Raymond left out), and I suppose a lot of my problems can be pinned on the source material.

The miniseries is the story of how Mildred (Winslet) goes from being a destitute, divorced single mom to a successful (and promiscuous) businesswoman, always struggling to win the respect and love of her horribly snooty daughter Veda. And as played first by Morgan Turner, then in the final two chapters by Evan Rachel Wood, Veda is so radiantly unpleasant that only a complete sap would fail to see that she's rotten to the core and not worth so much sacrifice and angst. Parental love can blind you to your kid's faults for a while, but not for year after year, not after everything Veda says and does over the course of the story.

And as played by Winslet, Mildred is very far from a sap. She's a tough cookie, savvy negotiator and survivalist - the material about her rise from desperate waitress to thriving restaurateur is the miniseries' highlight - and she doesn't even play her as if she has a blind spot for her eldest daughter. There's scene after scene of Mildred looking like she knows just how toxic Veda is, yet the demands of the story require her to again and again make decisions that fly against what we can see on Winslet's face. It's supposed to be a tale of maternal obsession, but instead 90% of the miniseries features a wise character who randomly becomes self-destructively in thrall to her emotional vampire of a daughter for the other 10%.

So it's nearly six hours of an otherwise smart, likable, admirable character consistently doing stupid things for the benefit of someone who's completely insufferable - and doing it in a way that doesn't track with anything else we see about our heroine. You can blame Winslet, or Haynes, or both, but something doesn't fit, and it wrecks everything, above and beyond spending so much time on a story that could have been just as satisfyingly told at half the length.

Reaction seems mixed on this one, with a number of other critics finding it fantastic, and others having the same Mildred-Veda problem I did. (Fienberg fell in the middle, not having an issue with the mother-daughter relationship but still finding the whole thing far too long and worshipful of the book.) It looks great (I generally find Haynes to be a talented mimic more than a brilliant director, but he's a mimic with a great eye) has a lot of fine actors in it (the supporting cast includes Melissa Leo, James LeGros, Brian F. O'Byrne and Mare Winningham), and the parts that aren't about Veda but about Mildred picking herself up by her own bootstraps are quite good, but overall, if I could get those hours back, I would.

Alan Sepinwall may be reached at sepinwall@hitfix.com

Comments

  • Option 1

    Comment instantly as a guest Guest
  • Option 2

    Connect
  • Option 3

    Login or create a HitFix account Login Signup


  • I'm three hours in - I haven't hated it by any stretch, but it's extremely problematic and "slog" is not far from what I'd call it. And Winslet, whom I normally love, gives a performance that seems very mannered. She's going to be this year's Claire Danes, no doubt, but it's going to be tough to swallow for me.

    March 25, 2011 at 2:17PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    hbo= hot babe orifices

    Any nudity in this?

    March 25, 2011 at 2:56PM EST Reply to Comment


  • Alan -

    "the subject matter and style represent a genre that doesn't hold much interest for me".

    Which is that, exactly? Because depression-era/historical drama seems up your alley (Deadwood, Boardwalk, MM, Carnivale(?)), so I'm wondering if I should bother with this, either.

    March 25, 2011 at 3:33PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Midnight_run_mca255950_talkback_profile

      sepinwall Well, I don't want to just call it "women's drama," because A)that's dismissive of an entire gender, and B)I quite often enjoy dramatic stories about women. It's not quite melodrama - certainly not to the degree the Joan Crawford version was - but it's very very much about the mother-daughter relationship.

      I know that doesn't make things any clearer. It's like that Supreme Court definition of pornography; I can't quite say what it is, but I know it when I see it.

      March 25, 2011 at 3:46PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      berkowit28 Is it a level of sometimes-suppressed (or barely-suppressed) hysteria that was always associated with what *used to* be called "women's pictures" in the 1940s and '50s? If so, then I think I know what you're talking about.

      March 26, 2011 at 1:08PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Tausif Khan I guess this is Alan's equivalent to Donna Bowman's dismissal of the How I Met Your Mother episode in which Barney is reunited with his father. Her problem with the episode mainly came down to the fact that she has never been a father or son in a father son relationship. Alan however loved the episode.

      March 27, 2011 at 4:19PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Alison It's both more melodramatic and less melodramatic than the earlier film. You could say that the earlier film had more heightened emotions, but it also has a significant amount of film noir in its blood. Haynes' film (or at least so far) is much more of a straight melodrama in its narrative and concerns (focus on female characters, mise-en-scene, etc.).

      March 28, 2011 at 12:21AM EST
  • Default-avatar

    matt

    Alan-
    It sounds as though you're merely summarizing the story (an otherwise competent woman has an irrational attachment to her daughter.) I'm not sure where your criticism comes into play--is it that you find the story inherently illogical? Isn't the point supposed to be the lack of logic involved in parental love? I think you're being uncharitable by immediately rejecting the premise instead of analyzing the meanings behind it. Sure, it may not be a pleasant story to watch, but that is not, in itself, a legitimate criticism. It seems like this...

    "You can blame Winslet, or Haynes, or both, but something doesn't fit, and it wrecks everything, above and beyond spending so much time on a story that could have been just as satisfyingly told at half the length."

    ...should be the primary focus of your review, but you limit it to one vague statement.

    Also, I see where you're going with this idea...

    "90% of the miniseries features a wise character who randomly becomes self-destructively in thrall to her emotional vampire of a daughter for the other 10%."

    ...but doesn't *100%* of the miniseries feature "a wise character who randomly becomes self-destructively in thrall to her emotional vampire of a daughter..."? Do you mean that during 90% of the mini-series Mildred is a wise character and during the other 10% she's self-destructive?

    March 25, 2011 at 4:18PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Midnight_run_mca255950_talkback_profile

      sepinwall As I said, my problem was as much with the source material as the miniseries. I did not want to watch this particular story, and certainly not at this length.

      At the same time, I think Haynes, Winslet and company do a poor job of selling the tragedy of the story, because at no point do I actually believe the version of Mildred portrayed by Winslet in all the non-Veda scenes (and even many of the Veda scenes) would be this in thrall to her daughter. I'm not saying parents can't be suckers for their kids, even ones this horrible, but I never believed that THIS parent would be. So it's not only 5+ hours of a story I didn't inherently like, but 5+ hours of that story being told in a manner I found implausible.

      March 25, 2011 at 4:24PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Jessamyn I certainly see where Sepinwall is coming from on this. While I've known otherwise competent people who have an irrational weak spot for somebody, there's never a complete separation of church and state. In other words, whatever it is in them that makes them vulnerable to a particular person leaks out in other places, too. Not enough to make them bad at their jobs, say, or even vulnerable to any other people, but there are just things they do that show where their vulnerabilities lie. So when you get a character who does have a complete separation, is totally impervious most of the time and then behaves totally contrary to that for part of the time, it grates.

      March 25, 2011 at 7:28PM EST


  • While I'm sorry you didn't like the mini-series, I'm glad you took the time to write a mannered negative review and something outside of the NBC Sitcom/Cable drama dynamic. We all have our favorites, but i like seeing critics examine things out of their wheelhouse.

    March 25, 2011 at 4:36PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Batfink_talkback_profile

      chuchundra I agree. Good to hear your thoughts, Alan.

      I'll probably end up watching this, partially because it's kind of dead time for TV for me, but mostly because the Missus wants to watch it. I do love Kate Winslet, so it won't be a total loss either way.

      March 25, 2011 at 5:04PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    muckthefummies

    I'm glad to know that it isn't worth to watch. Now I've finally found the time to re-watch Treme on bluray.

    March 25, 2011 at 6:06PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Alex

    It's good that you state your prejudices upfront, but should you really have them? Any critic by definition has to like or at least appreciate all genres. Because what is labeled "genre" is really just a descriptive category. A work can transcend its genre, like The Exorcist is more than a horror film or Lights Out more than a boxing show. But if the critic doesn't look at the work and only goes by the description, he/she may never know if it shook up its genre or not. If you described Pulp Fiction as another crime thriller, you'd be missing the point by a wide margin. So my definition of a critic is one who always keeps an open mind to everything and judges the work by the work, not by the subjective biases against a particular type of story.

    March 25, 2011 at 6:12PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Alex9 A better example: I don't like Shakespeare because I don't want to read about kings. See how silly that sounds?

      March 25, 2011 at 6:18PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      cjones except he did look at the work...

      his criticism of the miniseries is in no way analogous to the shakespeare example. revealing his biases was merely a preface to his criticism, not the criticism itself.

      anyhow we're both glad he's open about his preferences, so here's to openness!

      March 26, 2011 at 5:02AM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Alex @CJones: But how much influence did that bias have on the criticism? I haven't read it because I like to have an open mind when seeing/reading something and don't want to be influenced by another's opinion. It becomes a reaction to the opinion and not the work, which I like to take as it is, by its own merit. In the same spirit, I believe a critic cannot bring his own subjective bias to a work. The criticism has to come from the text itself, not from the whims and unsupported opinions of the critic. There should be no pre-judging. Also the criticism is an example of analysis. Uncovering the text: finding themes, subtext, ideas, discussing form and how that reveals purpose, etc. Not "I don't like this because I don't like it." That's not good criticism. I'm not saying Alan is doing this. Most of the time, he's not. But going into an argument--and that's what reviews are: an argument dealing exclusively with the things in the text-- with subjective bias can make one miss all the things in the work. And not liking a whole genre seems to me antithetical to a critic. One can rate a genre piece as a genre piece. "It was a big dumb action movie, but by big, dumb action movie standards, it worked." Or, "The action movie was not exciting and the sequences were shot terribly." Those are an example of finding your critique in the text. Imagine a literary critic saying, "I don't like Jane Eyre or Chopin's The Awakening because these are women's stories." And then always having that in mind when reading. He'd be be kicked out of the profession.

      March 26, 2011 at 12:42PM EST
    • Default-avatar

      Alex @Alex: I hope that didn't come across as patronizing or strident or unfair. I broke my own rule and read Alan's review. Not familiar with the source material, I would think Cain had a reason for doing what he did, knowing that the character's weakness would come up again and again. Maybe there's an artistic purpose to why the character is like she is. Just like there are artistic purposes to the characters in Franzen's great novel Freedom being unlikable. My feeling is that a work is what it is for a reason and one has to uncover the reason, and critique based on the intention of the author. I don't know if Cain intended for the character to be understood; perhaps she has a fatal tragic flaw that should elicit sympathy. Perhaps he knew people like her. But there is a reason he wrote her like that and I personally would look at the film to find out why. And by the way, being surprised by Downton Abbey? You're always going to be surprised by the quality of work in genres you don't like. That's why its better to like all genres. Execution is everything.

      March 26, 2011 at 1:04PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    rowan729

    Hmmmm, all good points here, Alan. How do you think ERW did playing Veda? I'm just as interested in seeing her work in this as I am in watching it for Winslet and Pearce. As for the whole parent-evil child thing, I will save my ultimate judgement on this until after viewing, but just from personal experience, parental love can make even the sanest appearing person do things entirely out of character and even against their own interests/safety. It may seem realistically impossible, but I've watched parents stand by and do nothing about death threats towards them and others made by their "golden" child, year after year. It does happen, and is just as frustrating and unbelievable in real life as you found it to be in this movie.

    March 25, 2011 at 6:14PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Mom_s_camera_076_talkback_profile

    MsHopr

    They like this

    March 25, 2011 at 9:32PM EST Reply to Comment


  • "and I suppose a lot of my problems can be pinned on the source material."

    Um, no you can't -- what works on the page doesn't necessarily work on screen. (Which is why I'm really hoping the 'Game of Thrones' nerds are going to take a very deep breath...)

    "There's scene after scene of Mildred looking like she knows just how toxic Veda is, yet the demands of the story require her to again and again make decisions that fly against what we can see on Winslet's face."

    OK, let me make a proposition: Mildred Pierce isn't a sap. She's a divorcee in a time and place where for women divorce had a real social
    stigma (and practical consequences). She knows what a dreadful DOB Velda is, but if she ever took her out with the rest of the trash, she's as good as admitting that she really is worthless in a world where nothing's worse than being a bad mother.

    In 2011, that might make about as much sense as 'Far from Heaven' (where Julianne Moore's character even been seen talking to her black gardener in the street is a scandal) but it was real.

    March 25, 2011 at 11:36PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Jennface

    I always have to ask "Why?"; do they have to remake movies that were great? Why not remake the ones that were close but could be great? Or even better, come up with an original idea...oh yeah, those don't sell.

    Unless Mildred is beating Veda with wire coat hangers, I'm just going to rent the original. Any movie that has Jack Carson acting sleazy and seedy is fun because he always played such a dope.

    March 26, 2011 at 12:36AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      Jamie I think they remade this particular story because the original really wasn't very faithful to the book. Like most of the stuff churned out by the studios in those days,it was sanitized,re-worked and,in this case,had noirish elements added that never existed in the source material.

      That being said,Crawford was excellent portraying the hard-nosed Mildred and as you mentioned,Jack Carson was entertaining. In fact,as I was watching last night,I kept thinking how much more I enjoyed Carson's version of Wally, than James Le Gros.

      March 28, 2011 at 6:14PM EST
  • Avatar_18895_80_bigger_talkback_profile

    PopCandy

    I'm not sure this is the place for it, but I just wanted to say that I really miss your Fringe recaps. Now that the show moved to fridays, and it's getting more and more serialized, wouldn't you consider putting it back in rotation? Pretty please?

    March 27, 2011 at 11:17AM EST Reply to Comment
    • Midnight_run_mca255950_talkback_profile

      sepinwall As I said when the show moved off of Thursdays, it's just very difficult for me to write about any show that airs on Friday these days, because the weekends are for my family. And since HitFix has Ryan McGee (who's always been more passionate about Fringe than I am) doing weekly write-ups, it seemed an easy call. Ryan's latest post is here:

      http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/monkeys-as-critics/posts/recap-fringe-bloodline

      March 27, 2011 at 12:12PM EST
    • Avatar_18895_80_bigger_talkback_profile

      PopCandy Okay, I totally forgot that was the reason why you stopped doing regular fringe recaps. Family always comes first off course!

      But maybe you could at least talk about it in the podcast? I know this week (and maybe the next? I can't remember) will be very busy, but maybe once this settle a bit? Because even though I like Ryan's reviews, it's just not the same.

      March 27, 2011 at 2:13PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    virginia

    Time to rewatch Douglas Sirk's "All That Heaven Allows" for another compelling and believable portrait of a mother so enthrall to her children that she veers off track. Although the tone is inherently (and amazingly)less fraught in Sirk's film. Ray's fate--and its impact on Veda--plays a big part in "Mildred Pierce" and shouldn't be overlooked -- nor should Mildred's own assessment of what Veda represents: MP's own ambitions. I think the first two hours captured all of that beautifully. A bit slow but terrific job of conveying just how hard Mildred worked to achieve the first stages of success and just how delicious a release for her was the time spent with Monty. Cruel cruel fate.

    March 27, 2011 at 11:32PM EST Reply to Comment
    • Default-avatar

      virginia entrall should be in thrall -- sorry

      March 27, 2011 at 11:34PM EST
  • Default-avatar

    Jay

    Just because my wife lovingly corrects me every time I say it -- it's Downton Abbey rather than Downtown.

    March 28, 2011 at 1:31PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Tessa

    I totally get the statement"something doesn't fit". I felt that too. I was looking forward to this premiere and it just fell flat for me. I actually did not like Mildred...I did not sympathize with her a great deal and until Ray's death felt the character was rather devoid of emotion. Personally, the star of this series for me,is the set design and all the details of that period. Loved it. Hopefully next week will be better. I won't give up on it...but I'm not expecting dramatic miracles either.

    March 28, 2011 at 3:21PM EST Reply to Comment


  • Chiming in a bit late here, but: "promiscuous"? Who did she sleep with besides Monte? And if she's divorced, who cares?

    April 13, 2011 at 12:13AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    zman

    Didn't understand how Veda became so self absorbed.
    **SPOILER* Why did she have such a need to start a relationship with Monty? Why did she hate living in beautiful Glendale,CA.? She acted like she was living in a poor mining town or something. Movie needed to explore Veda's motivations. I was perplexed and unnerved by Veda's character. All the while the other characters closest to Mildred tried to portray Mildred as the control freak. She seemed normal all but for one weird maternal kiss that thru me off. This movie is really just about people with mental disorders. That's why ...in summary Mildred, Veda, and Monty's motivations' make zero sense.

    April 13, 2011 at 2:00AM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Donald D'Haene

    thank you for your review of Mildred Pierce. It was interminable! I love Winslet as an actress and believe Crawford probably did better acting with a wire hanger at home, but that mini-series made me long for black and white, big shoulder pads and close up shots. The scene of Mildred and her friend walking on the beach made me want to scream! LOL
    Cheers!
    Donald D'Haene

    http://twitter.com/#!/TheDonaldNorth

    April 15, 2011 at 2:24PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    Lo

    Parental obsession shouldn't be too hard to understand in an age of "helicopter" moms. And "entitled" children who don't know the world doesn't revolve around them are a dime a dozen. Adults that can't stand that they aren't the next "Housewives of...." and children that hate the suburbs they grew up in can't wait to run amuck in collage.
    These aren't new or ground breaking ideas. But very valuable to examine. Study the history of this book and you find the author was guided in it's writing by a single mother of a successful actress. But as a mom, I can say with certainty, I'm glad someone took the the time to examine this topic. Mundane as it may seem to you, I doubt there are very many murderers in prison that don't get visits from their mothers...chilling.

    April 20, 2011 at 8:05PM EST Reply to Comment
  • Default-avatar

    rob alka

    Alan Sepinwell expresses precisely my disappointment with this tv version of Mildred Pierce. For the most of episodes Kate Winslett was a true heroine, intellectual, entreprenurial, emotionally mature, sensitive and a loving mega-tolerant parent. Then she spends her business reserves on her daughter who is (a) earning her own mega bucks and (b) so obviously an evil poisonous personality who any sane parent would steer clear of. And when confronted by her banker-backers who are trying to get her back on track she simply doesn't "get it". The puzzled knotted eyebrows became her number one facial expression. The last 2-3 episodes would have only made sense if she was taken away by the men in white coats. At this stage all there was to admire about our heroine was her well tailored clothes and sensual legs. The ending was a lead balloon. Like Alan I too wished I hadn't wasted time on this handsome but ultimately unconvincing and hollow series.

    July 25, 2011 at 5:04AM EST Reply to Comment
Alan Sepinwall

About This Blog

All through his childhood, Alan Sepinwall's relatives told his parents, "All that boy does is watch television! How's he going to make a living doing that?" His career as a TV critic has been 15 years and counting of his attempt to answer their concerns. "What's Alan Watching" is a blog whose title is self-explanatory: Alan watches TV shows, then writes about what he watched. He can be reached at sepinwall@hitfix.com

Get Instant Alerts on What's Alan Watching

HitFix Poll

Will you still watch Community without Dan Harmon behind it?

Latest Posts
More Posts
Recent Activity on Facebook
Most Popular on Facebook