|
First a New Yorker article and then an expanded nonfiction book, Susan Orlean’s The Orchid Thief is the type of unexpectedly captivating read that screen adapters distress over more than admire. Her biographic sketch of John Laroche, who was arrested
for stealing orchids from Florida preserves (as a means to bring attention to endangered species), turns into a chronicle of the power of the flower and immediately coming into a reader’s mind is that it would make a great National Geographic special. But for screenwriter Charlie Kaufman, who wrote Being John Malkovich and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, the difficulty in making a narrative movie out of the fascination for orchids becomes instead the critics’ darling about
what countless numbers of authors deplore about what movie makers do to original works. If there’s a crippling decline in criticism, the movie version of Orlean’s story entitled Adaptation is more than an example, it is warning. What else accounts for a screenplay that turns the legendary orchid into a “tall tale” hodgepodge of sex, drugs and violence winning a slew of critics’ honors? Not sure when it started—perhaps in Peggy
Sure Got Married or Moonstuck and if not those then certainly with Leaving Las Vegas—but any movie starring Nicholas Cage is already a severe handicap for viewers, so imagine the agony of a double dose of him. (On TheHuffingtonPost.com: “The very idea of a Cage movie usually strikes fear in the American public that the Taliban only wishes they muster.”) Once you valiantly
try to get past the two roadblocks, and some of us don’t, the movie holds a modicum of curiosity in how it will close. Borrowing from Romancing the Stone, what with the alligator munching, the climax doesn’t cut it as award-winning, though you know something eventually deserving is coming when Meryl Streep (tiresomely breathless as Susan) and Chris Cooper (as John) keep wading through the swamps. When Adaptation was released, Streep did the usual round of interviews and in one of them I heard her say that the script was one of the best she had ever read. Also saw an interview with Orlean who admitted to initial misgivings about Kaufman’s screenplay until she found out Streep was playing her. How both managed to hit aesthetic breaches this low is perplexing, unless they were flying on the dust of the Golden Orchid.
LUSTBOXING: After bagging
a married “bird” in a parked vehicle, Michael Caine's
Alfie says directly to us, “They never make these cars
big enough, do they?” The 60s mod “dirty beast,” charming
in his Cockney and blond hair, Alfie takes us on a London tour of his sexcapdes
and for a while it works—caddish drollery without the affrontery. He's
the bon vivant as sexual therapist dispensing remedies to a dry cleaning
clerk, to the Monday-Wednesday Dora, to Gilda the mother of his out-of-wedlock
son, to the good nurse Shirley Anne Field who asks “Would you like me
to give you something to sleep?” already knowing the answer. And there's
“How do you want me?” Shelley Winters, about whom Alfie assures
us is in “lovely condition” as he amorously rubs her fat. (With
mirrors on the ceilings, she's the “lustbox” disdainful of romance;
when she's ready for action she snaps her fingers and commands,
“Bedroom!”) Then the preggers dramatics: seems Alfie's too potent
in the baby-making department and one of his birds—drab Vivien Merchant
giving the movie's single poignant performance—faces the awful illegal
decision. As viewers we're taken aback—this may be a more powerful sequence
than director Lewis Gilbert and screenwriter Bill Naughton had originally
intended. (Though Terence Stamp, Laurence Harvey and Anthony Newley turned
the role down because of it.) Obvious are the consequences of
irresponsibility—Alfie admits that his understanding of women goes only
so far as the pleasure (he does ask his birds when their “little
friend” is due)—yet what we're watching becomes harrowing. It's
rather a slap in our faces that the moviemakers are very intent on not even
slightly redeeming their loverly bloke: Alfie never considers the benefits
of Trojans. If sometimes over-chatty, Caine engenders a rascal rapport that's
still emblematic; this is a performance that speaks to many men. As a NHS
doctor, in thick-lensed, black-framed glasses, Eleanor Bron is incessant
with questions but this may have been the last time she looked this pretty.
Sonny Rollins does the jazzy score, and Cher sings the title song (for the
American release). Gilbert would years later have another go at the
“talking to the audience” format with Shirley
Valentine. (Don't get me started on what Jude Law and his fellow idiots did to their version of Alfie.)
The
Appointment
has to be a prime contender
as Sidney Lumet’s worst picture. Not even a guilty pleasure, you watch
transfixed by the appallingness of the whole thing, on every level. The first
sight of Omar Sharif in that Hitlerish John Waters mustache is more than
enough to frighten the horses. The watery eyes and bad hair style (suggesting
a toupee) further creep us out. When Anookie Aimée arrives, walking
down a street filled with swanky shops, she retains that chic Un Homme
et une femme somnambulism, and in no time she pretends to be an even
more vacuous puzzle. With Capucine’s thinness and wearing that wallabalsam
hair up in an Irina Demick number, she’s nothing if not a nincompoopish
nympho. Her English has improved, though it’s not nearly as appealing
as in her previous bummer Model Shop. Poor Fausto Tozzi: ever
since playing Dolfus in El Cid, he’s never sounded like
a human being; his voice, thought to be but apparently never dubbed, sounds
as if it is—mechanized, hollow, without integrity. He has
a handsomeness here, especially when he’s wearing a fedora, and you
end up wishing he had kept it on in all his scenes. Lotte Lenya is back selling
flesh again, absent the contempt she sneered in 1961's Roman
Spring of Mrs. Stone. It's a safe guess
The
Appointment is a multi-purpose
homage to Antonioni, Resnais and Fellini. They were masters at leisurely
constipated Eurotrash; Lumet’s a maestro of farty
fumblings.
redbox
SPECIAL: If you
haven't seen
Australia yet and you're within walking distance of one of those
handy redbox DVD vending outlets, the $1.00 cost makes it worth
picking up. If you rent it early enough the first day, you'll find the time
to replay it for your friends so you can all howl, “WTF was Baz Luhrmann
thinking?!”
Australia is a CGI merge of Giant, The
Sundowners and Dusan Makavejev's 1985
The Coca-Cola Kid,
with Nicole Kidman—turned into a bad variant of Grace Kelly
and Deborah Kerr burdened by bitsy steals from Scarlett—and
Hugh Jackman, the healthiest specimen of Aussie stud the movies have ever
known, trapped in an equally bad reprise of Rhett as Indiana Jones. Perhaps
unfair but Baz, who would claim he's not, is a closet case as incompetent
moviemaker. How can it be that he spent $130,000,000 making this overload
of clichés and not give viewers more of Jackman, to give viewers what
they want—some heat in the inguinal regions? Reportedly Baz
originally had Jackman killed off at the end, until Fox read the preview
audience cards. It's easy to conclude Baz fooled himself into believing Kidman's
blanched physicality and (early on) overacting would serve as major
attractions—he deems her a timeless Chanel #5 princess ever
since their success together with the kewpie doll glam of Moulin
Rouge—but it's pure sadism to think of giving
the movie's only attribute a death sentence. (Though the execution
didn't make the final cut, viewers can see how it could have come about at
the climax.) We wouldn't be able to bear the mystic aborigine deserts, plains,
rocky terrain and a fired-up stampede without Jackman, even when he's being
photographed inside a studio for some of those goofy outdoor scenes. Not
yet a particularly good actor, he's the best ad for form-fitting T's since
Denzel Washington rejuvenated the white sleeveless in Devil in a Blue
Dress. What's infuriatingly unsatisfying about the whole god damned
botch is Baz's reluctance to go the distance he sets the audience up to expect
from him; viewers perceive his bent more clearly than his efforts in trying
to hide his tendencies. And surely it is more than enough already for
an eternally noodle-headed romantic like Nora Ephron to use “Over the
Rainbow” in You've Got Mail but for Baz, who apparently
didn't know or care that Nicole sang the lyrics “somewhere over the
rainbow” in My Life, to con us by borrowing it as a central
linking device is the height of repressed idolatry; he just couldn't
resist making sure that even the aborigines got Garlanded to
death.
SMOOTHED
OVER: Inarguably Julie
Christie gives a good—okay, very good—performance
in Sarah Polley's Away From
Her.
Every step she takes toward Alzheimer's seems like another
vote for the Academy Award, just as her display of measured nuances in the
appalling Afterglow was. Maybe that's part of what held me
back: you can virtually see her and the director(s) at the controls, modulating
the performance to guarantee the rougher edges of the disease(s) are smoothed
over so as not to frighten us too much. (In Afterglow she seems
to be suffering from an overdose of esoterica.) The fear is valid: the baby
boom generation will soon produce the largest segment of victims, an ironic
belated thank you for being the caretakers of the next largest group—their
parents. Without meaning to,
Away From
Her suggests it won't be
quite as bad as we might believe it to be. That is, if you're lucky enough
to live in Canada and find the kind of facility Julie enters. (Having recently
visited depressing facilities for both long and short term rehab in Houston,
I'm even less optimistic about conditions for Americans with Alzheimer's.)
The movie's other discomfort is that not one of the majors—Christie
and her husband Gordon Pinsent, Olympia Dukakis and her hubby Michael
Murphy—ever has an outburst resembling the disheartenment of their
situations. Sure, Dukakis is a bit prickly, and Murphy has a crybaby moment
but that's it; the level of suppressed emotions is too managed to relate
to real experience. The most unbelievable of all is Pinsent, one of Canada's
premier talents. Educated, a playwright as well as novelist—his most
famous work The Rowdy Man, made into both a movie and a
musical—Pinsent with well-groomed beard and Body by Pantene hair is
2007's most patient and tolerate adulterer spouse. Albeit a fat-gutted one.
Cost to make: $750,000.
NOVOCAINED:
Only Joseph Mankiewicz would
dare pull this kind of rubbish on us: Ava Gardner as
The Barefoot
Contessa not
insisting on a hot fuck or two from Rosanno Brazzi prior to their nuptials.
Moreover, Mankie has her getting some really bummer news on her wedding night
and then, thirteen weeks later, he has her planning to inform her schwantzless
count that she has a big surprise for him, one that will restore him to the
public as face-savingly potent. Since this is 1950s stuff, Brazzi's
“climax” is the necessary perverse morality to make amends for
Ava's needs. Smart audiences concede early on that there's no way to believe
what they hear and see in Mankiewicz's pictures, except the applaudable
determination of his actors giving the nonsense all they've got, like Bette
Davis in All About Eve, Ann Sothern and Paul Douglas in A
Letter to Three Wives, Katie and Liz in Suddenly, Last
Summer, or Olivier and Caine in Sleuth. In
The Barefoot
Contessa, with no earnable
applause for its acting, the disbelief factor is so off the scale that we
watch out of compulsion. Because Mankiewicz's characters here chatter on
so neurotically they seem not to be of this world or from any other world
any one's ever heard about. (Much of the movie was filmed in Italy but it
often looks like a garish mausoleum junkyard.) When Warren Stevens as
a movie producer is at a cocktail
party and he starts his Karl Rove
routine against a supercilious Italian director, an act that would otherwise
be the latest dish reported by ragsters Hedda and Louella, who can figure
out why he's this worked up? Mankiewicz is shameless with
verbalized diarrhea that to a pinhead degree makes him the semi-literate
John Waters of retard quip; he's Hollywood's ultimate conjurer of pre-feminist
fantasies of sexual horrors. (You can certainly envision the deeply missed
Divine sending up Ava's itching-to-be-unleashed Maria Vargas.) Humphrey Bogart
does what he can with endless lines he was surely embarrassed by; Edmund
O'Brien sweats; Stevens sickens; Brazzi slaps the right pain in the ass.
There's one good moment from Ava: standing before oglers on
a yacht, she throws down her sun jacket as if it's a gauntlet and at the
same time gives the classic black bathing
suit its greatest plug. Providing
excuse for Ava's indifference throughout, O'Brien tells us that she's
“loaded
with
Novocain.” The audience feels equally numbed.
Black
Orpheus isn't for everyone.
If you're able to accept its terms, which more than anything else is a demand
of tolerance for dirt dancing amateurism, there's a good chance you'll find
Marcel Camus's 1959 updating of the Orpheus and Eurydice legend watchable.
If not, if you just can't take the bad looping and often cheesy performing
and the extras staring into the camera, if you find that the myth is too
antiquated and transparent, if undulating Carioca “ballet” al fresco
isn't your bag, you're going to have a very hard time of it. I'm divided.
The hyper-shrillness of the females gets to me—I laugh only
partly because it's intended, mostly because it's out of control; the character
Mita (Lourdes de Oliveira), for instance, is one of John Waters' teenage
dreams of a thin Divine. And the leads—Breno Mello and Marpessa
Dawn (born in Pittsburgh, went to England as a teen, became a dancer/nightclub
singer in France)—border on the clumsy. Yet who amongst us
can resist the location—Rio, during
Carnival—and it's about as apropos as any place to refresh
the legend. There is a fatalism in this most spectacular Atlantic
coast metropolis built on jutting hills, slopes and
mountains—a living, throbbing juxtaposition which explodes
into a melee of emotions once a year. (And during the rest of the year into
mini-eruptions on those famed beaches.) As with other world citizens, the
poorer the poor are, the more acquiescent to doomy scenarios. Only here the
pulsing, vibrating, ass-shaking music is one half of the antidote, providing
a fast recovery. No visitor doubts that power, nor doubts the other half
of the remedy—the overwhelming pulchritude of Rio. Camus
is essaying that in spite of tragedy inherent in the poverty of Rio, where
death can sweep in as fast as torrential rains come down, where death squads
have been known to move in as menacingly as a raging flood, the sun never
fails to rise over the paradisiacal setting, the sensual music never ceases
its medicinal dispensing, the samba transporting the survivors forever onward.
I'm making the movie sound more pleasurably lofty and less fraudulent than
its critics will argue; for sure Camus pulls a few too many doomed bits on
us, especially after Eurydice's demise and before Orpheus meets his. (There
are oppressive echoes of South American fascism in the high-rise's paper-filled
floors.) It's also been reported that when
Black
Orpheus opened in Brazil,
its moviegoers were insulted that the world would get the impression that
the only thing Rio dwellers do is shake their booties. And the acclaim for
Antonio Carlos Jobim and Luis Bonfa's score not quite so deserving, especially
in light of the fact that it took TV's “Kraft Suspense Theater,”
in an episode filmed in Rio starring John Forsythe and Diana Hyland, to bring
Jobim's “The Girl From Ipanema”—and the groundbreaking
Getz/Gilberto album from which the song came—a much wider
audience. What's not in dispute: considering the competition,
Black
Orpheus was easily the Oscar
winner for best foreign picture. But here are the movies it wasn't up against:
Truffaut's The 400 Blows, Satyajit Ray's
Aparajito, Bergman's Wild Strawberries.
Blu-ray restoration now available.
AGREEABLY
CHILLY: Ann Beattie's
Chilly Scenes of
Winter will recall for readers/viewers
that other Anne—Tyler, who wrote The Accidental Tourist
and Breathing Lessons. There's the same quirkiness,
the same bent toward ordinary lives. Tyler goes in for extensive character
bric-a-brac; there's no small detail she'll leave out. Beattie, however,
is close to laconic; she writes as if giving instructions and she's blessedly
unsentimental. Joan Micklin Silver's version of
Chilly
Scenes is reasonably faithful in
both content and mode. The novel's major attributes have been preserved:
Charles, played by John Heard, and his mother, played by Gloria Grahame in
her last American movie. Appearing relaxed, enjoying his character's openness,
Heard is at his most likable (until he became Shirley MacLaine's spiritual
guru in “Out on a Limb”). Borderline neurotic—eating a box
of laxatives—and contemptuous of duties and proprieties, Grahame is
also enjoying herself and most agreeably when she announces that “there
isn't any dinner” to her son and his friend who've come for a holiday
turkey meal. But like Tyler's troubles with her leading female characters,
Beattie can't quite make Laura, who Charles has fallen head over heels in
love with, someone we care about. It may be that these writers simply don't
like their drama queens, and Mary Beth Hurt playing Laura follows suit. When
originally released, as Head Over Heels, it bombed. Later
re-released with the book's title restored and with one major and critical
change—the ending—it failed to garner any more attention. The novel
has a half-full/half-empty conclusion, with Charles and Laura rocking in
the chair he gave her, and in HOH Laura returns to Charles
after he says goodbye. The current version has them separating, which of
course flies in the face of Charles' obsession. What's the point of all this
if he doesn't get what he thinks he wants? Isn't
Chilly Scenes of
Winter a reflection
of the 70s? When many of us got what we thought we wanted, only to end up
regretting that we got what we didn't need at all?
HOGS THE CAMERA: Takes a great deal of forbearance to sit through Kevin Costner’s Dances with Wolves, a deeply tanned epic of 80s-minted American mythology. Laughably mired in romanticized heroics that it produced a typical inevitability: when Marlon Brando refused his Oscar for The Godfather because of the way American Indians have been treated, he was promptly criticized by his fellow Academy members for his public stand; Costner earned a standing ovation when he wins Best Picture for his. An amalgamation of Ford’s The Searchers and Cheyenne Autumn and Huston’s The Unforgiven, Dances with Wolves wouldn’t be too objectionable if it didn’t have that saphead narration and delivery. For every good thing Costner tries as an actor—working to build up authority, strength and sympathy—his simplistic accounting destroys by the use of his little-boy Tom Selleck voice that bears no kinship to his on-screen character. And transplant squaw Mary McDonnell can’t get us passed how she looks too much like a blitzed-out combo of Gracie Slick and Jane Fonda. Other uncomfortable borrowings: John Barry’s score is a lazy lift from his Out of Africa; some of the Indian costumes, makeup and hairdos (particularly the first ones viewed) look like rejects from The Road Warrior; the buffalo stampedes resemble those in Never Cry Wolf; the romantic rolls in the snow courtesy of A Man and a Woman and Mrs. Soffel. After watching the movie a friend emailed me noting that Costner evidently can’t get enough of himself on screen and quipped, “Why do they keep calling him Dances with Wolves? Shouldn’t he be called Hogs the Camera?”
THE
COOTIE DUET: The
grasping, growling, harping, bellowing, drunken, wailing sounds that come
from Albert Finney as an aging, ailing second-rate Shakespearean actor in
The
Dresser are the closest
to audible carcinogens since George C. Scott's smoky throatiness in
Patton. There's undiluted power and majesty in Finney's voice,
but also things malignant and menacing. Hearing those excruciating cries
of his Othello are almost the real thing, and the brief glimpses we see of
him as King Lear are we hope test takes for the Lear he'll eventually do
for us. Finney looks tragically grandiose, weighty and towering, fatigued,
affected but still kiddishly impetuous, diseased through obsession with
Shakespeare and diseased by the possession Shakespeare has of him.
The
Dresser, however, isn't really
about actors and how the Bard consumes them, and that's what's partially
the matter with it: as much of a joy it is to watch Finney in his getups,
becoming perplexed, spitting out ground rules to support his sagging vanity,
there's nothing deeper than an actor's artifices to respond to his character.
Whatever there might have been is soaked up by the movie's major
drawback—Tom Courtenay as Finney's backstage dresser. Courtenay's
effeminacy—the whining, the whimpering, the shrill theatre babble he
spouts, the way he holds his hand to his face, his arched fingers (that pinky!),
the pulls at his shirt, how he so precisely bends his knees or
curtsies—it's all so controlled that it's out of control. And itchy:
he gives us a case of the cooties. (He's like TDC's Christopher Lowell without
the humor and relieving commercials.) This is partly due to Courtenay having
done the role in London and on Broadway as the star, which
gratefully he isn't here, so we can see how rehearsed his deadly mannerisms
are. In a larger sense, the part is too vaguely written; we're not at all
sure if he's supposed to be this homosexual, or asexual, or
a theatre precisian as toxic mutation. It's an overpowering and terminal
performance: when Finney succumbs, you believe the lethal power of the louses
that got him. Playwright Ronald Harwood based the play on his experience
as a dresser to actor-manager Donald Wolfit (Laurence Harvey's future
father-in-law in Room at the Top, General Murray in
Lawrence of Arabia, the Bishop of London in the movie
Becket) who, from 1937 to 1959, toured with his own repertoire.
It's unpleasantly revelatory that Harwood's relationship with Wolfit is the
same as the one played out in the movie, but whatever Harwood is trying to
say about theatre seems a desperate melancholy. Director Peter Yates, who
gives way to Finney's and Courtenay's stunt work, gets England's bleakness
right. Everything's dark, grayish, sooty—very unlike his Breaking
Away, a cheery and sunny A & P symphony. During the movie's initial
release, a private research group in England reported that England had the
highest number of neurotics in Europe, downing the most tranquilizers, sedatives
and anti-depressants. After enduring
The
Dresser you're convinced it's true.
All major movie stars have had their share of bad movies
and Ingrid Bergman's no exception. In
Goodbye
Again,
a 1961 sudser directed by Anatole Litvak, based on the supposedly ground-breaking
novel Aimez-vous Brahms? by Françoise Sagan, Bergman
uses every ounce of savoir-faire she can muster to get through it
without too much embarrassment. Not only is she stuck opposite Yves Montand,
suffering from the dual curses of Parisian caddishness and droopy eyelids
(hilariously evident while driving a car in which one of his bimbos is nibbling
at his ear and later on the dance floor at a pissy-swank restaurant), but
she's also involved in a rebound fling with flesh-crawling Anthony Perkins.
His animation and apparent relaxation in the role won him the Cannes Film
Festival's Best Actor trophy, but that shouldn't preclude our wanting to
hand Ingrid a barf bag after she kissed the creep. (A year later in Jules
Dassin's Phaedra, we'd end up much less sympathetic to Perkin's
co-star, the gargoylian Melina Mercouri—her emoting and Tony's finale
are Razzie worthy—and we like it a lot when Sophia Loren runs her car
over him a few times in 5 Miles to Midnight.) Ingrid's got
one good scene—in her bathroom, when she realizes Yves's weekend trip
wasn't for any business other than monkey business. Less nervous here than
she was in Litvak's Anastasia, but not all the jitters are
gone: after receiving a phone call soon after her nuptials, she faces the
mirror and perceives that cold cream is an interior decorator's best friend.
More than a few designers-as-viewers claimed to have seen it coming via her
style: while inclined towards antiques and French provincial, it really failed
her with that chintzy uninviting artist-sketched headboard in her
bedroom.
“NOW WHAT?”: Mike
Nickols said about
The
Graduate: “I wanted to stop
the Los Angelesization of America.” Ironic, isn't it, that he ended
up making the L.A. movie of the 60s? Four decades later, it's
still very entertaining as one of those “social commentary” period
pieces pretending to want to say something derogatory about the materialist,
rat-eat-rat world of the parents of baby boomers. That it ends up condemning
their kids for being just as blankheadedly narcissistic is of course the
bigger joke, though at the time of the movie's release, few from the baby
boom generation wanted to accept or see the “insight.” Like most
of Nickols' movies, this one is ready-made for the box: you don't lose much
if any detail, scope, or composition because the director hasn't a real
moviemaker's eye; he's theatre as boob tube. And since the movie has its
own built-in contempt, you can feel yours as you pause for the commercials:
all the characters over twenty-five are stereotyped as cretins or boozers
or maliciously both; they're plastic inserts from a catalog of disdain. Dustin
Hoffman becomes so blurty and nerdish that you begin to understand too clearly
why his Berkeley landlord hates him. He's got his moments, though, all of
them with Anne Bancroft. As Mrs. Robinson, Bancroft's never been such a trenchant
viper, an upper-middle class glamour sourpuss, what with gold-blond streaks
in her dark hair and the leopard print coat and slips. It's okay for Ben
to screw her, just don't screw her daughter. (Simon and Garfunkel sing that
Jesus loves her more than she'll know but surely he'd want to run like hell
from her as well.) We're not suppose to have much if any sympathy for Mrs.
Robinson, but it doesn't take much to understand why it's untenable to her
for Benjamin to date her daughter Katharine Ross. Doesn't it make sense for
Ross to be outraged that Benjamin's been pumping away on Mommie? And why
are her divorcing parents so apoplectic that they rush her into a marriage
to one of those bleached pansies? The famous ending silently asks what is
the boomers' ultimate goofus mantra: “Now what?” Playing Benjamin's
mother, Elizabeth Wilson has just about the greatest, most penetrating scream
ever heard in a comedy.
Karel
Reisz's
Isadora gets taxing not long into it; Vanessa Redgrave as Duncan
the pioneer expressionist-dancer is so infused with flippant free spiritedness
that she tires you out. This is dangerous: as the movie jumps back and forth
to squeeze in as much of her bio My Life as possible, you're
feeling less sure that it's about Isadora's social and artistic impact and
more regrettably sure that it's scenarists Melvyn Bragg's and Clive Exton's
crash course on the boozed trendsetter's sex life and scandal-peddling. By
the time Isadora's finished with her Russian lover and is onto to her fateful
next, you're relieved when the red scarf gets caught in the spokes of that
Bugatti. There's something fundamentally lacking—not the shocking,
hell-raising uproar of her groundbreaking art but her artistry. With what
dancing Redgrave does, it's difficult to assess if she approximates the kind
of choreography Isadora made famous and was made infamous over. One critic
called Duncan's nearly nude, flowing movements and pantomimes to music like
Chopin's “Funeral March” and Beethoven's 7th Symphony “a species
of surgical bandage of gauze and satin.” In an age of staid formalism,
though, her swirling, twirling rejection of rules and rigidity was an attraction
and reflective of defiant pulse. (Penelope Gilliat wrote: Isadora “looked
as if she longed to unlace the corsets of the art patrons whose malicious
graciousness incited her to shock them.”) Redgrave isn't and doesn't
have to be a dancer but she has to convey Isadora's singularity so that we
understand why audiences both applauded and jeered her. The private sins
and public infamies, which the actress engages in with monumental persuasion,
add allure to the legend, yet they're not why Duncan's a giant in dance.
Instead of tempting the foolish, Redgrave only abbreviates eight of Duncan's
famous diaphanous pastiches. Dance critic Arlene Croce hits close as to why
they're not enough: dance itself is probably the most untouchable of the
arts to replicate. Redgrave slacks off occasionally: her cold emotionality
often stalls over us, she's in and out of accents ala Angela Lansbury, frequently
looks like a rag-picking Ann-Margret, and throws off a few flashes of Geraldine
Page. Universal has been blamed for what's not there: it released
Isadora several months ahead of schedule, denying Reisz a
director's cut. Originally released at 168 minutes; a version entitled
The Loves of Isadora runs 131 minutes. Reviewed here is Reisz's
personally restored 153-minute version.
In
Julie
& Julia Meryl Streep has finally
unleashed her first contagious performance. It's absolutely impossible not
to be infected by her ecstatic romp as Julia Child. From start to finish,
she's the famously sloppy chef who got turned on not only by her attaché
hubby but also by butter, mayonnaise and boneless duck. We all know that
as actress Streep is extremely studious, sometimes to the detriment of the
audience's forbearance because the labor can seem too heavy, as in, to name
only a few, Sophie's Choice and Ironweed. Even
when she slips the finger to critics during an interview with Sally Jessy
Raphael in She-Devil or shows very foxy wit in stealing her
own death scene in a trashy movie inside the comedy Death Becomes
Her, we're amused yet acutely aware of the pupil mechanics. In
J &
J, we can see she's watched the
tapes of Child and hear once more how she's in magical touch with her unmatchable
as well as unfathomable actor's ear to get that Edith Evans-like voice down
so wondrously. But never before has she reveled in the joie de vivre
of an impersonation and we instantly pick up on it. She's beaming throughout,
enjoying the flaunting and flouncing and so do we—every delicious
minute. A mesmerizing turn—a virtually flawless if unintended
mix of Julia, Barbara Bush and Harvey Korman's Mother Marcus from “As
the Stomach Turns.” Unfortunately, the movie's two stories with
two different time periods don't provide an entirely satisfying mesh.
Like Anne Hathaway's love life travails in The Devil Wears
Prada, Amy Adams's Julie keeps interfering with the audience's hunger
for more of America's greatest actor. (That honor, held in reluctant reserve
by some of us, is no longer in dispute.) What's more, director Nora Ephron
apparently can't get passed laptop intercourse. Charming for Meg Ryan and
Tom Hanks to goo-goo gaga with computereeze in You've Got Mail,
but it's not terribly engaging to watch Adams blogging her way through Child's
recipes. There's an ass-kissiness about it, and though innocuous, hardly
worthy of our attention. Streep's husband is Stanley Tucci who, as in
Prada, wears a ring that steals attention; Adams is pleasant
and her love interest Chris Messina an attractive Ben Gazzara type viewers
of You've Got Mail might remember as the dummie children's
book clerk and watchers of “Six Feet Under” will remember as the
Republican with hour-glass sideburns who becomes the eventual husband of
Lauren Ambrose's Claire. The supporting performance most noteworthy
is Jane Lynch as Dorothy, Child's sibling. With twin winks of huge hip cleverness
from Ephron, Lynch and Streep make for the splashiest older sisters act in
years and the flip story you'd much prefer to see. Their
likability—and Streep's is phenomenal—surely
doesn't come from their McCarthy-loving father.
DOWN
SANCTIMONY:
The nightmare of genocide can be a photographer's dream and Chris Menges,
who justly won an Oscar for his cinematography, has recreated some shots
in Roland Joffé's
The Killing
Fields suggesting
what Cambodia was most probably like under the brutal Khmer
Rouge—shots nearly inconceivable to us because they're horrifying
while at the same time incongruously beautiful and obscenely serene. When
Haing S. Ngor, crawling through the mud and rice paddies, comes across rows
and ditches of skeleton heads and remains, the mass murder is shocking; we've
become so numbed by blood and gore that death's stacked fleshlessness can
be almost too much to bear. Menges' images are like celluloid editorial cartoons.
Based on N.Y. Times reporter Sydney Schanberg's magazine piece
“The Death and Life of Dith Pran,” about the reporter's friendship
with his Cambodian interpreter Pran and their eventual reunion after a painful
separation, the movie is a romanticized ode to their bonds and quite affecting.
Unlike The Deer Hunter and Under Fire, in which
the directors don't allow their macho guards to come down, Joffé,
in his directorial début, goes all out for an emotional wallop: when
the audience catches sight of the Lawrentian-bearded Sam Waterston as Schanberg
standing at his taxi and then embraces Ngor's Pran, there's no holding back;
a polemic becomes a heartfelt, prestigious thriller of escape. If Waterston
and Ngor give credible performances, they're also a bit on the pansy side,
with flabby Waterston right out of a Yale Yuppies Yearbook and Ngor willowy,
thin and furtive-eyed. (He wasn't surprised that he won a best supporting
actor Oscar: “After all, I spent four years at the Khmer Rouge school
of acting.”) On the other hand, John Malkovitch, one of the movies'
perpetual pansies, is surprisingly butch, bringing a pleasing surliness to
the proceedings—a relief from his measured prostitution in
movies like Places in the Heart. No film in recent times has
a more atrocious score, or a more badly integrated use of classical music;
you bang your head against the napalmed palms. Joffé isn't content
with the theme of male loyalties: he's got to throw in his judgment that
Nixon's 13-month secret bombing of Cambodia is mostly responsible for the
deranged Pol Pot having come to power and annihilating some two to three
million Cambodians. That judgment is arguably accurate but here it's truncated,
superficial. (Joffé would continue his regrettable contractions with
Dominique Lapierre's The City of Joy.) His shallowness, however,
didn't stop reviewers, editorial writers and essayists from penning some
of the most sanctimonious, often incomprehensible drivel about American military
involvement in Asia, the state of journalism and the movie. I include myself
in that list of drivelers—having written a 3,000 word piece
that stayed locked in the basement until now. You've just read what's left
after expurgation.
 Jan Kounen is right now the most pleasing-to-the-eye director most of us don’t know anything about, even though he’s been around for more than a decade. Born in Holland in 1964, educated at Nice’s
Arts Décoratifs, Kounen has a love and strongly discernible penchant for animation, earned a high reputation for making popular music videos, and to higher acclaim used his acquirements for slick and successful commercials for Peugeot, Tang, Gordon’s Gin and Adidas in Europe. His first movie Doberman (1997), about an enigmatic Parisian criminal played by Vincent Cassel, is described as a live action comic book, a forerunner to what he’d do in 2004’s Blueberry—ineptly
distributed in America as Renegade—a version of the Belgian/French Western comic series originated by Jean-Michel Charlier and with graphics by Jean Giraud. Using the terrains of Durango, Torreon and Chihuahua (as well as Andalucia, Spain), Renegade is beguiling as dramatic travelogue; the visuals are immaculate, filled with natural grandeur,
and the only thing that’s really disappointing is that they aren’t held in view long enough. Kounen uses the cast—Cassel as Blueberry, Michael Madsen, Juliette and her father Geoffrey Lewis, Ernest Borgnine (cleverly confined to a wheel chair), Colm Meaney, Temuera Morrison, Djimon Hounsou (scalped but still living) and Eddie Izzard—as iconic fixtures populating the vistas. But Madsen, who sometimes in other roles resembles Elvis, has the misfortune of resembling Mickey Rourke in this one and he’s deprived of
a badly needed kiss-off, missing in part because Kounen seems unable to reconcile his genuflection to the Charlier/Giraud comics with his deeper bow to and the meshing of Peruvian/Brazilian-based Shipibro-Conibo cultures and Shamanism, a term describing a communication with the spiritual world in order to heal sick souls. Yes, it becomes “one of those” and not helping matters is that, in my estimation, the animated head trips are ineffectual rip-offs of 2001 as well as being stuck in ophidian
juvenility; they’re also too contemporarily digital to be convincing in the settings. The opening credits, however, are very classy and the same polish, kaleidoscopically, will open Kounen’s Coco Chanel & Igor Stravinsky, a factually minimalist bio that's also a victim of poor release. This one, like La Vie en Rose,
is another example of what the current crop of French and French-inspired movie makers are becoming masters at—presenting minutia with such impeccable evocation that things look unquestionably authentic even when they're not. While there have been vicious swipes at La Vie, no one who sat through all it would debate how it had the sick ambiance of Edith Piaf, that what it purported had the sting of truth. Coco & Igor
has its truths—the social upheaval of the opening of Igor’s Le Sacre du Printemps, his wife’s medical problems, Coco’s invitation for Igor to use one of her homes to write his music, the emergence of Coco’s black and white essentials (in dress as well as decor), how Chanel # 5 was tagged, the mirrored spiral staircase. Most of its purportings—primarily their affair, which has never been confirmed and can only be assumed since both were serial adulterers—are less important to veracity than how Anna
Mouglalis’ Coco (a ringer for Christine Lahti) and Mads Mikkelsen’s Igor are somnambulists posing for Architectural Digest portraiture, which is to say Kounen's exquiste eye compensates for his weakness in not concluding story-telling with substantiality. Recommend you snooze before viewing, and if you want to know more about the designer, the Shirley MacLaine-Barbora Bobulova Coco Chanel is more informative.
Don’t want to waste much time on
Letters
to Juliet. It’s lovely
to look at, nice to see Verona so prominently in view, but I think the days
of Amanda Seyfried will be limited. She's not someone with a lasting major
star power, she gets lost not only in scenes with other actors but also among
the extras. She disappears from memory fast and, frankly, the faster the
better. In this movie, she’s coupled with Gael
García Bernal as intentional bad fit, which initially may be
objectionable to the audience because who she ends up with is a ringer for
that Austrian Nazi Rolf in The Sound of Music. (Bernal, by
the way, has his own
problems—his shortness of height is becoming a handicap.) What's worth
the wait is the ultimate reunion between Vanessa Redgrave and Franco Nero.
It doesn’t have a thing to do with the dumb-dumb plot, it has to do
with movie lovers who know the actors' personal histories. Admit to
having
cried—for Vanessa, who within 14 months lost her daughter Natasha
Richardson, her brother Colin and sister Lynn Redgrave. And those tearing
it up also know that she once had a sizzling affair with Nero (when they
were filming Camelot), and with whom she has now reunited.
Despite the cloying chick-flick philosophy, Vanessa's dignity and Franco's
chivalry earn our emotions.
LIGHTS
OUT: Olivia de Havilland works against
the odds to pull off Light in the
Piazza, a tourist soaper set in Florence,
and that's not such a bad place to visit for some 100 minutes. It's the baggage
Olivia carries that's quite the load: she's agonized mother to
kicked-in-the-head-by-a-horse retard Yvette Mimieux—beautiful enough
at 26 to attract marriageable suitors while still splashing around in a bubble
bath with her rubber duckie—and politely unobliging wife to enviably
thin businessman Barry Sullivan, who thinks it's best to ship the daughter
off to a big bucks funny farm. On holiday in Florence Yvette falls for Italian
George Hamilton, in spite of Olivia's pragmatic interventions. Her dilemma
this time is decidedly more complicated because her daughter's sexual battery
is charging up. Does she reveal the secret to Hamilton's daddy Rosanno Brazzi?
Will she agree to commit Yvette to the fate of looney bin confinement when deep inside
she hopes the handicap could be healed by love, a solution no one else considers?
There's a peculiar gaudiness to Mimieux's retrograde scenes and collateral
social embarrassment; still, you're not sure if it is a compliment
that you come to believe her performance. De Havilland shows her customary
grace wading through the deluge of suds; given her exhausting 24/7
protectiveness, it's she who deserves the sanitarium. The audience can't
help wondering if perhaps debonair Brazzi's got his own little family secret
to tell Olivia—that boy Georgie's dim wattage makes him the other half
of a fitting union of two of a kind.
(About the only real embarrassment associated with this movie is Hamilton's BAFTA nomination as Best Foreign Actor.) Director Guy Green keeps the suds from clogging; Otto Heller's cinematography might be too bright.
RUEHL RULES: Though
the Oscar and other awards for best actress in 1993 went to Holly Hunter
for The Piano, the best “talking” performance by
an actress that year belonged to Mercedes Ruehl in
Lost in
Yonkers. But few saw her it in
and yes, there are reasons why this movie bombed: it's the least insulting,
most intelligent of Neil Simon's barrages of shit-loaded one-liners as plays,
thus making it at once a turnoff to the “low information” mob.
The picture also feels less a movie than a Hallmark Hall of Fame special.
(To get a wider audience it needed to have been presented as one.) Because
it exited so fast from theatres the rest of us who cringe at just about
everything Simon writes didn't get a chance to offer him rare praise. At
center is Mercedes, who can frighten audiences not prepared for her kind
of acting. There's definitely something scary about her as Bella when she
first appears: in a pink doll's dress that's rising high above the waist
and too short at the knee, in saddle shoes and carrying a purse that looks
like it's made of heavily starched doilies, why, Oh God, no, she's Shirley
Temple as pre-Gump. While her nephews—one who's like a
miniature Comedy Club Barbra Streisand—warn us that there are to be
“no jokes about Aunt Bella” even though “she missed the first
year of high school because she couldn't find it,” our first impression
of her is that she might be suffering from a new form of Cliff Robertson's
Charly disease. (In ways she does: she suffers from close proximity
to embittered, stifling, repressing mama Irene Worth playing Golda Meir as
a near-harridan.) Mercedes isn't from the old school of acting exactly, she's
not a diehard Stanislavsky heavy with method baggage, but if her larger-than-life
characterizations—here, and in her Oscar-winning role in The Fisher
King, and as the bitch moll in Married to the
Mob—are more theatrical than movies audiences are generally
accustomed to, I want to defend her by saying that she's not a natural for
the camera. Yet that's not quite true: she takes what are sometimes gross
outsizings of relics and scales them back and in the process does some
sensational modulating with her voice. And how she speaks her parts may be
the key to why she never quite lops over into the grotesque, as evidenced
sublimely in The Fisher King in which, playing opposite America's
most underrated actor Jeff Bridges, she says, “I'm not a modern
woman.” That's the most revealing line she's been given to read as an
actress thus far and that's precisely how we feel about her. Easily passable
as the less attractive twin of Jess Walton (the irrepressible Jill on “The
Young and the Restless”), Ruehl is a bit unnerving on a psychological
level, too, further explaining why people back away: as actress her edgy
rocky emotionality shakes some of us because deep in the recesses of our
buried privacies we are like or have an affinity with the characters she
plays. She does them on stage or screen or during interviews, while we are
them behind closed doors: the child-forever-in-us of Bella in
Lost in
Yonkers conjures
up our own secret quirks, weaknesses and especially those resentments most
of us have buried regarding our family. When Irene Worth attempts to destroy
Bella with “You are a child, that's what the doctors told me. You will
always be a child,” and Bella hits back and says to her, “You make
me stupid and crazy,” those utterances—going way beyond the blotto
bliss of Gump—are painful flashes from our own memories,
ones still not resolved and probably never will be. Of course, the mass movie
audience didn't want to hear these kinds of bitterisms and surely not from
the King of the Schlockliners. Some time back, before a gathering of the
press, Simon said that his original concept for
Yonkers was confined to the boys and how they
responded to being stuck with grandma. Gradually in rewrites Bella took over.
When accepting the Pulitzer Prize for the play, Simon must have felt a strange
irony: having become a multimillionaire for dumping turds on the masses,
his most delicate creation, a woman as universal adult child in all of us,
earned him his first deserving respect.
WIRED: Though the
boobish Two Weeks in Another Town is pretty hyper, Vincente
Minnelli's most wired movie is probably
Lust for
Life. Its intensity is true to
Vincent van Gogh's chronic madness, as is Kirk Douglas's portrayal. Even
without Miklós Rózsa's equally agitated score, the movie embraces
the temper of the artist's seizures—his flares of excitability, of
inspiration, his fits of emotions and rage. Purists regard Tim Roth's van
Gogh in Altman's Vincent & Theo as close to definitive;
Douglas of course doesn't have the painter's delicacy, because he's always
been this chunk of melodramatic weight, and thus van Gogh's fragility gets
displaced. But Douglas is saved by his own tremendous desire to do right
and by Minnelli's concept—using van Gogh's paintings with integral as
well as augmentative intent. In this,
Lust for
Life may be the only picture that
more than benefits by letterboxing—it becomes an instantly framed movie
museum. When the masterpieces come into view—interspersed chronologically
and thematically—they serve not only the purpose of appreciation but
also provide a double visual history. Minnelli, art directors Cedric Gibbons,
Hans Peters, Preston Ames, set decorators Edwin B. Willis and F. Keogh Gleason,
photographers Freddie Young and Russell Harlan put together an ambient feast
of period and settings. Van Gogh's work was progressively reflective of his
dementia; by the time he started doing his landscapes, every stroke of the
brush was a warning of what was to come. The movie would be much better without
Rózsa's frenzy and it would be more powerful had Minnelli given the
audience the punch that makes the story an even greater tragedy: brother
Theo, played by James Donald, died six months after Vincent. (Altman's movie
does.) With Anthony Quinn, who mysteriously won an Oscar for his Gauguin.
But if recent speculation from scholars becomes accepted—that it was
Gauguin who sliced away van Gogh's ear—then Quinn's performance will
be hailed for its prescience, for he does seem ready to do the bloody
deed.
Go to Top of
Page
ralphbenner@nowreviewing.com
Text COPYRIGHT © 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 RALPH BENNER All Rights
Reserved. |