LEE. Through Hell with a Camera [REVIEW]
The story of American war correspondent Lee Miller was perfect material for a truly spectacular screen adaptation. The “Vogue” photojournalist kept secret until her death what she had done during World War II, how much human suffering she captured in photos that are now in demand worldwide but were consistently censored at the time. Miller’s extraordinary life story only came to light after her death, and it’s hard to believe that it took several more decades to bring her experiences to the screen. Unfortunately, after watching “Lee”, starring Kate Winslet and Andy Samberg, it’s hard to shake the feeling that the creators were more eager to rush toward the upcoming Oscar race than to fully tell the story that had been hidden for years—a feeling that is especially evident in the overly dramatic acting performances.
The production, which also involved Polish creators (the cinematography for “Lee” was by Paweł Edelman, and the film’s director, Ellen Kuras, has Polish roots), begins in 1938 in picturesque France, as far removed as possible from the unsettling war tensions elsewhere in Europe. Lee Miller (Kate Winslet), a former model and now a respected photographer, is spending carefree holidays with friends, lazily sipping her favorite drinks and entertaining her companions with her remarkable personality. It’s there that she meets her future husband, Roland (Alexander Skarsgård), but at the point when we enter her life, starting a family is far from her priority. When Adolf Hitler begins his European expansion, Lee, against the advice of friends and the patriarchal norms of the time, decides to leave her safe London haven and experience the horrors of war firsthand as a correspondent for the legendary magazine “Vogue”. We embark on an emotional journey with her and her friend Davy (Andy Samberg), from Normandy to the Dachau concentration camp, uncovering piece by piece the truth about the Nazi atrocities that were concealed, even by the Allies.
Kate Winslet, who has long been vocal about the position of women in the acting industry and strongly opposed to their objectification, particularly due to their appearance, was seemingly given a dream role. She portrays Lee Miller as a true heroine, flawless and admired by all around her for her courage and confidence. Indeed, for most of the film, it’s her determination and defiance that carry Kuras’ movie. From the very beginning, when she recounts her story as an elderly woman to a young journalist, Tony (Josh O’Connor), it becomes clear that “Lee” is more of a tribute to the American heroine than an honest account of a specific period during the six years of war. However, it’s hard not to feel disappointed right from the start, as we are immediately drawn into a storytelling convention as old as time and worn out by overuse. We get a sentimental tale of a legend who, after years in hiding, finally decides to reveal her accomplishments. It’s entirely unnecessary for Lee Miller to become the literal narrator of her story. Every part of her journey is interrupted by short scenes featuring an aged Winslet and Josh O’Connor, which, instead of intriguing us or casting a shadow of mystery over the unresolved present, throw the viewer off balance with their overly emotional and fairly obvious commentary. This brings us to the most disappointing aspect of “Lee”—the film’s unwillingness to deviate from the norm, highlighted by a formulaic script that avoids potentially sensitive topics and delivers only the bare minimum from the immense potential of this story.
As the title suggests, the spotlight is on the daring Kate Winslet, but even another powerful performance that only reaffirms her skill at portraying strong and independent women cannot turn “Lee” into a dark horse in the upcoming awards season. Almost the entire supporting cast, from the exaggerated acting of Andrea Riseborough to Alexander Skarsgård, whose Roland fades in every interaction with Winslet, only adds to the disappointment. Marion Cotillard, too, delivers a performance that feels increasingly predictable, as her character is eerily reminiscent of Marianne from “Allied” and fails to bring anything new to her acting repertoire. The surprising exception, however, is Andy Samberg, previously known mostly for his comedic roles (such as in “Brooklyn Nine-Nine” or “Palm Springs”). While finding sincerity among the supporting characters is nearly impossible at times, Samberg, despite his relatively small role in the production, proves that dramatic roles may be the fresh start his career needs.
Despite appearances, “Lee” does not always prioritize the massacres of World War II. The reports from Dachau or the touching scenes of French prisoners returning home are isolated moments, presented in the least invasive way possible. Watching “Lee” feels like witnessing a feminist manifesto, a showcase of Winslet’s dramatic abilities, and another extraordinary life story reduced to a commercialized biopic, one that at times strays from reality and follows established genre conventions. Aside from Winslet’s proven talent, “Lee” offers little in the way of the soul or charisma necessary to carry and drive this story. Ellen Kuras shows only a fraction of her directorial potential, presenting a plot twist that, after so many hints, will leave the audience unfazed. Despite its obvious ambition, “Lee” is unlikely to make much of an impact in the upcoming awards season, whether in acting, editing, or music categories, with Alexandre Desplat’s score being particularly average.
What’s missing is heart and a sincere, unembellished telling of the story. In comparison to recent films like Alex Garland’s “Civil War“, “Lee” falls flat and lands in the category of sentimental titles destined for oblivion. It’s a shame to waste so many outstanding names, the potential of the story, and the legacy of a female icon who deserved more than another formulaic biopic. Could Kate Winslet really dominate the screen? Given the superficial and drawn-out script she had to work with, I regret to say she had no other choice.