The Human Stain (2003)

It might just be possible that Phillip Roth is the greatest American writer currently living - great not only for his talent as a wordsmith, but also for the sheer audacity and genius behind the rather massive list of books he has written. And among all of his own books, The Human Stain is one of the very best. So, saying Robert Benton and company had a lot to live up to when adapting this novel to the big screen is sort of like saying that Andre the Giant is "rather tall".

Still, if there was anyone that could have pulled this off, I would have put my money on the team assembled for The Human Stain - at least on paper. Anthony Hopkins is basically the guy who comes to mind when one hears the word "thespian" and Nicole Kidman isn't too shabby herself. Though some people simply can't stand her, I say they're wrong; she's one of the best actresses we've got working today. And who on the face of the earth does supporting role work better than Ed Harris? Toss in Academy-Award winning director Robert Benton, and all of the sudden it looks like you just might be able to pull the whole thing off. That is, if you've haven't read the book.

So, should I be punished for reading (and loving) the book? Should I write off my initial dislike of this film because the book is so much better? Is that a fair reason to not like a film? After all, Roth set the bar rather high on this one.

But there is no getting around it, I have read the book and that has influenced me; to pretend otherwise would be dishonest. And the book was so powerful that, yes, of course I judged the movie for not getting it "right". Yet, I think that even if I hadn't I wouldn't have liked this film. In fact, if you haven't read the book, if you haven't seen how well this material can be pulled off, then you'd have to wonder how this stuff was ever the basis for such a brilliant and well-conceived novel. And for that reason, I dislike the film even more. It will, most likely, active discourage people from reading the book. Not because it's bad but because it's so ridiculously average, so mediocre in its delivery, so heavy-handed in its message. This film poses as good as an example as any as to the power of the written word - as to what novels can do that movies will never be able to. I was just hoping that this wouldn't be that lesson.

Coleman Silk (Anthony Hopkins) is a distinguished man when first we meet him. We are told he has taken an otherwise average school, Athena College, and turned it into one of the best schools in the country. A classics professor, and eventually a dean as well, Silk is nearing retirement when a charge of racism causes him to resign. Referring to two students who have yet to attend his class, despite it being the fifth week of the semester, he asks "does anybody know these two, or are they just spooks?". Of course, in the uber politically correct times in which the film is set (think all the way back to...1998), this is an outrage. Spooks is a racist term for African-Americans, and despite the fact that Coleman is about as far from racist as one can get regarding black people, he is nonetheless brought forth in front of a faculty tribunal of sorts and made to explain himself. Instead, frustrated and discouraged, he resigns. Later that same day, Coleman's wife of many years dies in his arms.

As you might expect, Coleman's life becomes quite different quite quickly. Deciding he needs to tell his side of the story, he enlists the help of author Nathan Zuckerman to write a book about the incident. He also falls giddy in love with Faunia Farley, a 34 year old janitor at Athena College (among other places). In reflecting upon his life to Zuckerman, and falling in love with Faunia, Coleman realizes he must confront a rather large secret from his own past in an effort to stop running from it. You see, Coleman Silk is actually a light-skinned black person who made the decision as a young boxer entering college to forsake his entire family and "pass" as white - in hopes of the better life he would be afforded. Instead of "black", he becomes "Jewish" and no one really questions the matter for the rest of his life. He never even told his own wife.

So you see, the makers of The Human Stain already had quite a task on their hands in attempting to film Roth's brilliant novel. But it's almost as if, seeing the long, hard race before them, they decide to shoot both of their feet at the starting line. Anthony Hopkins, while undoubtedly a tremendous actor, is just about the very definition of Anglo-Saxon - and to make matters worse, he even uses his own original English accent. Nevermind the fact that the actor playing Coleman as a young adult (Wentworth) has no accent and doesn't look a damned thing like Hopkins. The film attempts to explain it away by noting that Coleman taught briefly at Oxford, as if this would account for his distinctive Welsh accent some forty years later in life. Wouldn't it have just been easier to have Hopkins drop his accent instead? After all, Nicole Kidman wasn't wandering around speaking in her native Australian accent. It's accent discrimination I tell you!

Kidman, as great as she often is, is another of the film's big problems. And again, it doesn't really have a thing to do with Kidman herself; she turns in a powerful performance. The thing is, she is supposed to be working-class poor, beaten down by life, a wounded woman. But, instead, she looks like Nicole Kidman, who looks almost the exact opposite of the woman I just described. Expecting Hopkins to be able to act "black" and Kidman to act "poor" is simply poor decision making on the part of the filmmakers. Ed Harris is perhaps the only one properly cast in the whole picture, and he turns in a helluva scary performance as Lester, Faunia's abusive, Vietnam-veteran ex-husband. However, as his character was much further explored and given time to in Roth's novel, here Lester appears in only five scenes and the entire threat he posed throughout the novel is greatly minimized on screen.

When all is said and done, then, The Human Stain falls short. It's simplified - which is to be expected given the sprawling nature of the novel on which it's based - but it's problems run much deeper than that. The performances are good, but mostly mis-cast, several characters really only seem to be on screen as some sort of favor to the book (and don't really do or "add" anything to the story the movie is trying to tell), and the music strains to remind you at nearly every moment just how important of a film this is. If you haven't read the book, it will seem hopelessly melodramatic and maudlin, and if you have read the book, you'll be disappointed. Either way, this is one of the bigger disappointments so far in 2003.