So, why a frown for a film whose heart seems to be so much in the right place? After all, it is a movie in which a teacher (a la Mr. Chips and etc.) works diligently to elevate and liberate her students to be the best they can be, to follow their hearts, and develop their unique personhood apart from their parents' expectations or in some cases demands (a la Dead Poets Society). The problem that begins to emerge is all the "a la's". What does Mona Lisa Smile do that really is all that different?
Well, not a whole lot, really. You could say at least, that it is set at prestigious Wellesley College in the early 1950's with the ever pleasant and enjoyable Julia Roberts as the ground breakingteacher. She is easier on the eyes than say Robin Williams or Robert Donat. She endeavors to inspire the female students to dream bigger dreams than being well educated housewives married to the blue blood elite of America. Unfortunately, Roberts' portrayal of Dr. Katharine Watson never gets much beyond mild intensity and mild moral outrage at the housewife farm that she believes that this university had become. Incidentally, actual graduates from Wellesley complained that the film's depiction of the school during this period was inaccurate, causing a bit of controversy.
Roberts as Dr. Watson (pun intended) does have some good moments, to be fair...mostly in the last third of the film when she confronts Joan Brandwyn (played ably by Julia Stiles), a student whom Dr. Watson had pushed to be accepted into a very good law school. Joan confronts back, indicating that she truly wants to be a housewife rather than being a lawyer...building a life with her new husband and raising a family. It begins to dawn on Watson that perhaps her standards and her path are not for everyone...that what she was trying to do for her students was more similar to the agenda of the conservative establishment than she might want to admit.
This is redemptive not just for Roberts' character of Watson but also for the film as a whole. This reflective turn however, does not completely rescue the film from its preachy liberal stance that it applies with the force of a ball-peen hammer.In other words, you don't need to slam the viewer's face into the fact that the fifties were a conservative period in American history where women did lose some progressive movement that Rosie the Riveter had won during WWII.
Aside from it's thematic prejudices and its vast similarities to previous films about teachers, Mona Lisa Smile does emerge with some plusses to recommend it. It is beautifully filmed with locations at Wellesley....Kirsten Dunst and Maggie Gyllenhaal are very good in a sort of good girl/establishment girl vs. bad girl/outsider girl relationship even though it lacks some resolution along with its predictability.
But it seems in the end, that the students take Doc Watson into their hearts rather too quickly, riding their bikes alongside her taxi as she moves off into the sunset. While beautiful in execution this conclusion seems to be a bit too comfortable for a film that at one point wanted to be uncomfortable. Mona Lisa Smile, emerges as a film that wanted to teach without the syllabus like Doc Watson, but only ends up using much of the same old material. TH Reviews rating: 3 out of 5 stars!
