Review of Maurice (1987) by Chris L — 05 Dec 2009

Even decades after his death, EM Forster is known as one of the great literary minds of the 20th century. He wrote six novels in his life, but Forster decided to have Maurice published posthumously because of its controversial subject matter; a story about homosexuality with a happy ending. Although the book was enjoyable and at times, poingant, it still isn't considered to be one of Forster's best works. How do you take a book like that and turn it into a brilliant film? It takes skill.

Much of this skill is due to some of the changes that were made in the adaptation process. For example, Clive's character (Maurice's first love) in the book magically becomes straight when he travels to Greece and in the screenplay, it was changed so that Clive is still gay but chooses to live a heterosexual lifestyle. As anynone with brains knows; being gay is not a choice. To Forster's credit though, the book was written right before WWI and hardly anyone except for doctors knew terms like "homosexuality" and "bisexuality". Maybe he believed that some people were capable of changing.

On the subject of Clive's character, Hugh Grant delivers what he called in an interview his best acting job, and I would have to agree with him on that 110%. He plays a seriously insecure person who actually is (unlike many other characters he's played) a three-dimensional character. People often say that Grant's best performance was in Four Weddings and a Funeral and honestly, I want to vomit every time that I hear that. His role in Maurice was ten times deeper and above all, it was before he was hopelessly typecast.

As much as I love this film to bits, I painfully have to admit that I did take off a star for a reason. I had little nit-picky problems that were mainly to do with the low budget. The film had good transition shots, but occasionally some parts were a bit quiet and generally empty. The score wasn't too brilliant either. These faults bothered me a bit because I thought that they didn't do justice to the revamped story. For this reason, I wouldn't disapprove of a remake.

Another issue I had was with Alec and Maurice's relationship. Don't get me wrong, I loved their relationship, but I don't think enough empasis was put on it to make it 110% convincing. I was only really convinced that they loved each other towards the end, because some of the other moments between them were a bit awkward. This wasn't a huge issue, I can still forgive it.

I think the most controversial thing about this movie is not the occasional full-frontal nudity, but the message that a gay couple can have a happy ending. If they had a happy ending back in 1914, they sure as hell can now! I mentioned in my review of Brokeback Mountain that the only reason why it was so controversial was because it was popular. Well, Maurice was popular with the critics back in 1987 and it's a gay classic, but today it remains an almost unheard of indie film. Thus, no annoying conservatives protested against it. That may be a good thing, but the bad thing is that not enough people have seen this film.

Overall, this film is a triumph on so many levels. It's a triumph in being a great adaptation, well directed and providing social commentary which is still relevant today. It may have little nit-picky faults, but I can forgive them for the rest of the film's brilliance. It teaches people that it's okay to be gay, and that any homophobe who has a problem with that deserves to stick it.