I humbly disagree with this thread as well. Thought M. Potter's performance was stylized but did not seem disingenuous. The settings and cinematograph were impeccable. A bit long, but I never got bored. One of my favoite MI films.

I sharply disagree with the opinions expressed in this thread. I found Verena, as portrayed by Madeleine Potter, to be quite magnetic and charmic. In fact, her portayal was the main reason I kept watching the film. There really is something very special about her.

Yeah, I still liked it but prolly the worst Merchant/Ivory film I have seen, out of like 6.
I liked the core ideas, themes, character motivations, but yeah miscast Verena, she wasn't vivacious or magnetic enough. Other people are saying they thought the character was being deceptive, and she was in a way. She didn't 100% believe the stuff she was saying, she started speaking about Women's Rights as a gig pretty much, and continued to be tutored by Redgrave because it was also a gig, Redgrave was paying her family a ton of money as "loans" every year.
And Reeves character just wasn't fully etched out. He is a poor, struggling Lawyer, from the south living in New York. Thats about it, oh and he is a real ass to ruin the speaking engagement at the end. His attarcation to Verena is never explained, nor his full views on feminism and why he is against it. Why not marry Verena and support her politics? If he is so madly in love he can make compromises.
And Redgraves lesbian characterization is a little stereotyped, but its based on a period novel so I didn't expect {insert best lesbian character study ever} or anything.
"Nobody knows anybody, not that well" - Miller's Crossing

<< It just never went anywhere, or seemed to have a point. >>
Well, as far as the point is concerned, I think it's intended to be a love story, primarily about Olive being attracted to the younger woman for companionship, and wanting someone to passionately share the fight for women's sufferage. But then Verena abandons her, and Olive is left alone. The idea works better as a concept than as it is presented here.
The film kind of pussyfoots around the various levels of Olive's attraction to Verena, as the book kind of did in its day, too. The author was gaybut couldn't come right out and explicitly present a gay character.

This message has been deleted.

I kept thinking as I watched the film that it would have been much more involving if the actress chosen had been more magnetic and appealing to explain everyone's attraction to her and to make the audience feel the same. While lovely in certain ways, the actress is not a good pairing for Christopher Reeve, nor to explain the infatuation of Ms. Redgrave, and the film fails in large part from this central character being miscast.

It wasn't the book's intention.