Mona Lisa Smile: When 2000's Feminism Meets 1950s Society
By Morgan Wilding

Julia Roberts, a multimillion-dollar movie star with 34 acting credits to her name, seems to have one character regardless of the role she plays. Ever the sweet, uncertain redhead with the hi-beam smile, her approach to every character is almost identical, which is a rather unfortunate way for an actress to spend her career.

I agreed to see Mona Lisa Smile simply because I was not alive to see Pretty Woman when it made it to theaters. Despite the aforementioned similarity in all of Roberts' performances, I decided to give her the benefit of the doubt despite my gut instinct about the nature and quality of the film. Set in 1953, Mona Lisa Smile has a fairly stable and intriguing concept-a young female teacher, Katherine Watson (Julia Roberts), comes to Wellesley College hoping to change the minds and way of thinking of students at a college that was considered to be a finishing school with a refined name. At first she meets opposition to her ideas from student Betty Warren (Kirsten Dunst) and her classmates, but (predictably) by the end of the film she has opened the eyes of most students in her Art History 100 class to the concepts of modern art and creators such as Jackson Pollock, as well as feminist ideas that seem truly out of place for the time period.

Ultimately Mona Lisa Smile fails in that it tries to make too many societal points at once. Credit must be given to writers Lawrence Konner and Mike Rosenthal for providing at least one legitimate counterpoint to the wearying pro-feminist doctrine preached throughout the film by Professor Watson. However, in the politically correct style of 2003 (and not the chauvinist society of five decades ago) Watson's preaching is generally seen as right, or a perspective the students at least seem to seriously consider. The film becomes overly formulaic and predictable-Betty Warren, anti-feminist preacher-student, becomes utterly unhappy in her traditional marriage, while forward-thinking student and law school applicant Joan Brandwyn (Julia Stiles) decides to settle for a housewife's life despite the encouragement of Watson.

Perhaps the only thing that Mona Lisa Smile succeeds at is having an ensemble of some of the most popular female actresses (and, despite a poorly written script, some of the best actresses our time has to offer) and managing not to have the entire film seem like a grapple for the spotlight. The more experienced Roberts, while the undisputed star of the movie, makes room for her protégés Stiles, Dunst, and Maggie Gyllenhaal, who seem to spread the spotlight around equally in scenes that present them together, while soaking up center stage when presented alone or with their lovers. This is probably due not to the actresses' self-control but the directing of Mike Newell, of Four Weddings and a Funeral fame, with an impressive 70 directing credits to his name.

In essence, the downfall of Mona Lisa Smile (and it is a significant one) is not in concept or directing, and certainly not in multimillion-dollar acting talent, but in writing. Konner and Rosenthal managed to take an intriguing concept and completely miss with their writing of the script. Mona Lisa Smile is a valuable lesson to the Hollywood community-no matter how good the actors, how experienced the director, your film will fall flat on its face if the writer(s) don't have enough sense to stick to one or two themes rather than attempt to deal with a half-dozen.

Pros: Stars share spotlight well, decently directed
Cons: Horribly written, overdone, formulaic, predictable.
Bottom Line: Unless you're a die-hard Roberts fan, don't bother.