Change Your Image
pdoniger
Reviews
Beowulf (2007)
Let's kill a classic!
Admittedly, I only saw this movie in the 2D version, but my dislike is not based on the visual "effects" as much as it is on the content of the film. Also admittedly, I love Beowulf, the epic poem. It is one of the great works of Western literature. If one is to make a film of a great work of art, it seems to me one is bound to treat it with respect (note: I do not say "awe." Respect leaves the film maker open to creative interpretations, whereas awe prevents him from being daring and creative). Robert Zemeckis admits in his comments in the film's production notes that he doesn't even LIKE Beowulf. He claims to have been forced to read it in Old English when he was in junior high school: This comment, suggesting a highly unlikely reality, reveals much about his inability to understand or respect the subject in the first place.
Zemeckis has not simply failed to translate the story and characters of Beowulf into cinematic terms, he has damaged them. The King Hrothgar in this Beowulf is not the noble, sad Danish king of the original epic, a king who, like the king in Wagner's Parsifal, suffers from the symbolic "wound that never heals" and requires a heroic act to save him, but is instead a lustful, besotted, self-gratifying ruler of a band of thugs; in the end, he abrogates the responsibility as the original Hrothgar could never do. Queen Wealtheow, who is perhaps the most noble character in the epic (Wiglaf excepted), becomes a love object for Beowulf (whose character is here limited to the arrogant boaster that the original Beowulf only sometimes is), an absolutely absurd idea -- the sexual tension between them is a clearly modern idea that may make sense to young audiences but is completely absurd in the context of the story's culture. This Hrothgar and Wealtheow are childless, removing an important secondary plot from the original epic, because of Hrothgar's weird (and should be grotesque) philandering; this 21st century twist may ring true to some, but it destroys the characters of not only Hrothgar and Wealtheow, but also of Grendel and his mother! The whole notion of Angelina Jolie as Grendel's beastly mother puzzled me before I saw the film; of course, after seeing the ridiculously rewritten story, I understand why the ugly sea witch is now transformed into a seducer of kings. Unfortunately, this aspect so alters the thrust of the story that we no longer have Beowulf, but some other, mundane soap opera that uses the names and some elements of the Beowulf story as a weak foundation. Zemeckis excuses this major alteration of the plot by saying that we only have Beowulf's word that he killed Grendel's mother, but this comment again reveals the filmmaker's inability to read the original accurately.
There is so much more that is wrong with this film that I don't know where to continue. I hate the digital imaging that actually hides the acting (good or bad as it may have been). This is not like the incredible collaboration of actor and technician that we saw with Andy Sirkis's Golem in the Lord of the Rings films, but an elaborately slick animated Marvel comic book reduction. Where are the strong talents of such solid actors as Anthony Hopkins, Crispin Glover, Angelina Jolie, and Robin Wright Penn? They're buried behind the comic book. Beowulf himself is an empty, one-dimensional character and no longer the romantic hero of the original epic, who must discover the truth of his inner self over several decades and through many challenges (he's supposed to be much older when he engages in the fatal battle with the dragon at the end than he appears in the film).
Even the film's attempts to sound scholarly fail when Hrothgar mispronounces "scop," one of the many Old English words that pepper the script, and poor Unferth mispronounces his own father's name (the Old English 'sc' should sound like the modern English 'sh'). There is just no end to the problems with this movie. At best it's mere eye candy, and not much of that, since the candy is all artificially flavored.
Uncle Vanya (1963)
A classic production of a major work of world theatre
Olivier's production of Chekhov's masterpiece is rightly famous. In addition to following Constance Garnet's beautiful translation of the play faithfully and staging the play carefully (albeit in a traditional fashion), Olivier, who plays Astrov (the Doctor, who, as in all Chekhov's plays, represents the playwright himself) assembled a stellar cast of actors: Joan Plowright is a perfect Sonia and Rosemary Harris a subtle Yelena. The older characters are filled out by some giants of the 20th century English stage, including Max Adrian, Lewis Casson, and Casson's wife, the magnificent Dame Sybil Thorndike as the Nurse. Topping the list, of course, is a fine performance by Michael Redgrave in the title role. Olivier and his actors are able to evoke the classic Chekhovian mood from the opening and carry it through smoothly and warmly until the end. The result gives the viewer a gentle and bittersweet view into "country life" (see Chekhov's subtitle) and how people waste the gift of life with petty complaints rather than taking charge of it. This production is a perfect introduction to Chekhov and should be seen by all who love theatre.
Macbeth (1983)
Greatest Lady Macbeth ever
Although there are a number of flaws in this production of Macbeth, it is worth viewing for several reasons. First, Nicol Williamson, though he fails to make this Macbeth work completely, is always interesting; probably, this is due to his intelligence. One can always see what he is getting at, even when he fails to get there or when we disagree with his interpretation (and I disagree with much of this one -- especially the "Tomorrow and tomorrow" sequence). The gradual shift from a heroic, conscience-concerned warrior to a cold-blooded and ruthless tyrant is clear if not always heartfelt.
Second, most of the text is clear and unadulterated (some minor changes, including the happy cutting of the Hecuba scenes, which are not by Shakespeare anyway, actually help move the play along). The cast and director have worked so carefully to illuminate the text, characters, and situations that this particular version might be the best choice for school use.
Finally, Jane Lapotaire gives a brilliant tour-de-force performance as Lady Macbeth. For one thing, she is sexy, which apparently some reviewers seem to find objectionable, but which is quite accurate for Lady M. Why else would she have to call on the powers of evil to "unsex" her? Also, she is clearly in love with her husband and not with her own ambitions. It is imperative in any production of Macbeth that the marriage is based in love and devotion; otherwise, the tragedy is lost! When this Lady Macbeth tries to calm her manic husband during the banquet scene, we can feel her anguish over the loss of their former relationship (and her part in causing it), anguish that easily turns to madness the next time we see her. The sleepwalking scene is beautifully built by re-living not only the text, but the actions of the Act 2 murder of King Duncan and its effects on the Macbeths. Lapotaire is one of the great post WWII actresses, trained in the great British tradition, and her presence in this production makes the viewing worthwhile in itself.
Don't miss it!
The Last Tycoon (1976)
Misunderstood masterpiece
De Niro was an unexpected surprise as Monroe Starr in this brilliant adaptation of F. Scott Fitzgerald's unfinished last novel. He gives a thoughtful, sensitive, and intelligent performance as this character, who was modeled on MGM producer, Irving Thalberg. Fitzgerald wrote about Hollywood from the inside, and from the perspective of someone who was destroying himself by being inside. He could ask for nothing better than to have English playwright Harold Pinter create this stark, human screenplay and then have Elia Kazan realize it.
In addition to De Niro's definitive performance, we get a series of perfect cameos (usually an impossibility) from Tony Curtis, Jeanne Moreau, Robert Mitchum, and others. We also get two screen debuts of merit -- Angelica Huston (in a small, but memorable scene) and an excellent Teresa Russell as Starr's would-be sweetheart. The critics hated the movie, and it did poorly in box offices, but it was truly, like Fitzgerald himself, an American masterpiece.
The Ruling Class (1972)
O'Toole and Barnes are big winners
Peter O'Toole shines in this somewhat flawed, but delightful, adaptation of Peter Barnes biting satire which wowed the London stage. The piece demands an actor of boundless energy and physical and vocal panache. O'Toole, drunk or sober, had all of this and more, and he made much of this demanding role, an English Earl who first thinks he's Christ and then (after being cured by a psychiatrist) believes he's Jack The Ripper. Some flaws exist in the translation to the screen -- this is definitely a theatre piece -- but one can easily forgive them as not only O'Toole, but a stellar supporting cast (including Alastair Sim) bring this insane upper class British family to life. It's well worth the time and energy it demands of the viewer.
Hamlet at Elsinore (1964)
Long past, but not forgotten
This was an incredibly fascinating Hamlet ... at least that's how I remember it after over 35 years. I have not been able to see it since. Why is it not available on VHS or DVD? Christopher Plumber is always fascinating, and Robert Shaw was by far the best Claudius ever filmed (videotaped?)! Add the extra thrill of the REAL Elsinore, and you have a great experience. Bring it back!
Hamlet (1996)
This Hamlet is not worth the effort.
As usual, Kenneth Branagh has substituted all-star casting and "shtick" for real, in-depth, meaningful interpretation of Shakespeare -- only this time he's done it to one of the greatest icons of Western culture: Shakespeare's complex revenge tragedy, _Hamlet_.
Under the guise of an "uncut" version of the play (a term that requires interpretation in itself since we don't know exactly how Shakespeare's original was performed; the earliest versions are quite different from one another), Branagh has presented an often miscast, self-indulgent, periodically unclear mess of a film (why is it set in the 19th century?). His choice of actors is often puzzling. For example, the late, great Jack Lemmon is a wonderful actor, but as a mid-70 year old castle guard, he is out of place. So is Gerard Depardieu, who, wonderful though he is, cannot be justified as the spy, Reynaldo (where did a Danish spy acquire a French accent). Finally, Charlton Heston is downright poor as the First Player. Branagh, himself, is a dull and muddy-mettled Hamlet to be sure. His interpretations as both actor and director smack of "One from column A and one from column B" thinking.
The film is helped only slightly by the fine performances of Richard Briers (Polonius) and Derek Jacobi (an unusually sympathetic Claudius) and the interesting, though poorly directed and photographed Ghost of Brian Blessed.
Skip this one and go directly to the Burton stage performance, the BBC version with Derek Jacobi as Hamlet, or the classic Olivier film -- cuts and all; all three are far superior.