Donne and Gone
In London's theatre-land exists a class of plays
called "coach-pullers." These plays, among them the
entire opus of Sir Andrew Lloyd-Webber, appeal to
comfortable suburbanites looking for a well-made play
that will exercise their emotions but leave their
preconceptions undisturbed. HBO's adaptation of
Margaret Edson's Pulitzer Prize-winning drama, Wit,
drops firmly into this category. The film orchestrates
predictable swipes at crowd-pleasing issues (the
distance of doctors from patients, the inhumanity of
technologized research medicine), but carefully
removes any sting death retains by turning the
protagonist, Dr. Vivian Bearing (a particularly
steel-and-gossamer portrayal by Emma Thompson), into
that overworked parody of the clever woman, the
menopausal spinster scholar.
The film inches through the dying months of Bearing,
an imposing academic who has devoted her life to the
works of the early modern metaphysical poet, John
Donne, and now faces experimental treatment for
stage-four metastatic ovarian cancer. She is treated
by the urbane but ruthless clinical director, Dr.
Kelekian (Christopher Lloyd) and his acolyte, Dr.
Posner (Jonathan M. Woodward), who openly plumb the
gold of research data from patients' suffering, and
she slowly befriends sensitive, warm-hearted Nurse
Monahan (Audra McDonald). Each character is as cliched
as Bearing, and more one-dimensional: Posner is
allowed no moment of sympathy for his patient and
Monahan remains an idealized patient's advocate.
But beyond the simplistic characters lie deeper plot
problems. Boring old network television has already
covered every issue on which the film touches, but
with more nuance, more subtlety, and more
flesh-and-blood humanity than Wit can summon
throughout its ninety high-talent minutes. ER alone,
for example, has meditated movingly on doctors for
whom the thrill of medicine lies in their own
prestige, and not in the lives of their patients. It
has highlighted the competing and unequal demands on
clinical trials that fund hard-pressed hospitals and
the ethical treatment and care of patients. It has
kept vigil at deaths more traumatic and, ultimately,
more affecting, than that of Vivian Bearing. More
realistically, too, it has breached the somewhat
sexist divide between dispassionate males doctors and
empathetic female nurses in which Wit indulges. The
lack of originality, which live performance may have
masked in the play itself, is mercilessly exposed by
television's domestic frame.
The film itself seems unsure of its own trajectory.
The graceful parabola of middlebrow angst continues
unchecked, seizing in lieu of creativity, but in
search of credibility, a decoration of Donne (though
not very much Donne -- it's as if he wrote one poem
and a few catchy phrases). Nor does the film ever
resolve the contradiction at its heart. When Bearing
feels regret over her intellectual rigor in the
classroom, or Posner confesses to this patient who has
survived eight months of ravaging chemotherapy that he
cannot wait to leave the messiness of the ward
rotation for his research lab, the film seems to
indict the world of ideas, and those who live there,
as a diminished humanity. Against reason, the film
pits Monahan, whose kindness apparently encodes the
transfiguring power of ordinary human warmth.
Yet the film celebrates Donne, that most intellectual
of English poets, whose entire body of mature work
reveals the sensual and spiritual transcendence a
fervent rationality can produce: Wit's most
emotionally unexpected, and thus rewarding, moments
flow from the intellect expressed in language. Like
Donne, Vivian herself finds in words (themselves mere
codes for the ideas they represent) and the exercise
of her mind a powerful mediation between the screaming
terror of death and the public persona willingly
enduring the bleached white beds of the hospital. Like
a more refined version of the wisecracking dame joking
her way to extinction, she survievs by deploying irony
(as she notes of her cancer, "There is no stage
five"), anger (offering her name to yet another doctor
as Lucy, Countess of Bedford), and precision (the
estimate she gives the nurse of her vomit's volume).
And when even irony leaves her, the word still saves
her.
In the most moving scene of the film, Bearing's
academic mentor, Dr. Evelyn Ashford (Eileen Atkins),
visits her in hospital on the day when she learns of
Bearing's illness, a day when Vivian is long past hope
or recovery. In a tiny moment that counteracts the
film's apparent thesis, that the life of the mind
cannot comfort the body, the rational academic Ashford
knows to climb into bed with Vivian. Letting Vivian
clutch her well-mannered clothes and cradling her
sometime student's head, Ashford begins to read The Runaway Bunny. She reads not as a great-grandmother
to a child, but with the delight of one scholar
reading a text to the other, including full
bibliographical details and her own theoretical gloss
on the story as "a little allegory of the soul." By
the end of the book, Vivian sleeps so peacefully that
Dr. Ashford can draw her shawl from Vivian's grasp
without disturbing her (in itself a fleeting, poignant
image of the way in which the living subliminally
withdraw from the dying as they themselves withdraw
from life).
When the film forgets its unsustainable opposition
between intellect and human warmth, it slips its
formidable limitations, and begins to match the
eloquence of the performances and the unnerving beauty
of the cinematography, set design, and direction.
Stuart Wirzel's sets and Seamus McGarvey's lighting
infuse almost every scene with a blue-tinged white so
intense it seems on the brink of overwhelming the
camera, an eloquent allegory for the death that is
also, always, on the verge of removing Vivian from the
screen. Perhaps only Emma Thompson's unconventional
beauty, slightly flat north London intonation, and
sheer power of projection could battle such a rival.
Here she conveys, as she did in Remains of the Day,
a knot of conflicting emotions in the turn of her head
to the camera, the raising of an eyebrow or a rough
edge to a single word. But too often, the acting,
direction, and cinematography seem like art in the
service of the mundane.
It's hard, then, to explain the plaudits that greeted
the film during its preparation and after its
premiere. In the end, Wit may be remarkable not for
what it is but merely for the fact of its existence --
a serious, quasi-intellectual drama filmed by two
Oscar-winners miraculously commissioned by and shown
on TV. But the genre that was once the mainstay of
prime-time drama cannot be revived, however good the
critical intentions, through a "criticism of
attractions" that applauds the second-hand in Wit,
yet ignores the ground-breaking that goes on during
the 10-to-11 slot, on weekday nights, on network
television.