Back in the heady days of the early 1990s when New Queer Cinema was at its nascent best, Gregg Araki broke through at Sundance with his anarchic road movie The Living End. I managed to catch the original showings back in 1992 in New York and came away somewhat impressed by the director's freewheeling style. He went on to craft similarly loosely plotted films including his "Teenage Apocalypse Trilogy" (Totally Fucked Up, 1993; The Doom Generation, 1995; and Nowhere, 1997) before turning to slightly more mature themes in the romantic comedy Splendor. He displayed a newfound maturity with the poignant Mysterious Skin (2005). I haven't yet seen Smiley Face (2007), his last released film to date.
Since I upgraded my cable system, I'm now able to stream films over the Internet and so I took advantage of my Netflix subscription to watch The Living End. I can't say exactly why I chose this one to watch except that it had a shorter running time than most of the films in my queue, it was World AIDS Day and perhaps I was just in the mood for a rollicking road movie about two HIV-positive gay men acting like Thelma and Louise.
Araki's plots are loose and leave a lot of open-ended issues. Some of his characterizations are broad, like the lesbians who give a ride to Luke (Mike Dytri), the studly hitchhiking drfter who turns out to be one of the film's heroes. Our other hero is movie critic Jon (Craig Gillmore) who, as the film opens, is told he is HIV-positive. Now remember, this was in the early 1990s when there were fewer drugs available and a diagnosis more or less meant a death sentence. Jon doesn't quite know how to react and while driving around, he crosses paths with Luke -- who has just fended off some over-the-top gay bashers, possibly having killed one or all of them.
Jon is a bit of a naif, so he takes Luke in, and the sexual tension gives way to real sex. The more they hang out together, the more Jon comes to realize that Luke is a loose cannon, releasing his anger at the world through violence. Jon breaks it off, but Luke worms his way back in one night when he confesses he may have killed a policemen. The pair go on the run up the California coast from Los Angeles to San Francisco. For the first time in his life, Jon is liberated while Luke begins to develop actual feelings.
And then ... well, the film sort of peters out. The denouement is meant to signify something grander than it conjures. The two leads are pleasant to look at and share a comfortable chemistry. Araki takes the cliche of the good girl falling for the bad boy and adds a same-sex spin to it. The film's ending leaves the viewer pondering about this couple's fate -- and whether they deserve each other or not.
While watching the movie, I had a vague recollection of scenes and characters, yet there were some surprises as well. I recall being mildly impressed with the film when it was released in 1992. I felt about the same way this time. It's not something I'd want to see again -- at least not for another decade, but it is a curiosity in Araki's career.
Rating: C+
Friday, December 4, 2009
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Dec. 3 "Approaching Union Square"
Recently, I upgraded my cable to include High Definition, so I now have a DVR -- which for me can be a dangerous thing. I've already loaded up on the occasional TV show (Hello! "Glee" and "FlashForward"), and have recorded several films that were scheduled during the hours I need to sleep. Over the last two years -- since I started with cable again -- I have been frustrated because occasionally a film I would like to watch appears on the channel's schedule ONCE -- one time -- and usually at the strange hour of 2am or so. (What that says about the films I want to watch is another story.)
So, recently I set the DVR for a small film that was playing on the Sundance Channel called Approaching Union Square. I selected this little indie for a couple of reasons. I used to live near and work in the Union Square area and I've been very nostalgic for Manhattan recently. And then there was the small matter that I was acquainted with one of the actors. So with a running time of 80 minutes, I figured what did I have to lose?
Without knowing much about the film, I settled in to watch and almost immediately I had the feeling that it was based on a play. There was something very theatrical in the set-up and the first scene is a woman (Katie Kreisler) talking to her therapist which culminates in the revelation that she thinks she's psychic. She soon boards a bus on which there are 9 other passengers and as the camera pans, it settles on one and there's a flashback to a recent event in their lives. Each rider has a moment but overall the only thing the characters have in common is that they are all on the same bus.
As it turns out, the film, which marked the feature directing and writing debut of Marc Meyers, was based on Meyers' stage play Love & Sex: Tales From the Trenches, which consisted of 11 monologues.
So once I "got" the film's set-up, I settled back and tried to appreciate the film. Overall, the acting was adequate with a couple of stand outs. The best known actor in the film would be Christine Elise (McCarthy), who played the recurring role of Jason Priestley's girlfriend on the old "Beverly Hills, 90210" series. Here she's cast as a woman seeking love and engaging in a long-distance flirtation. She does a nice job with an underwritten role. Others who stood out were Kreisler (perhaps because hers was the first and eventually the one that does ties the others together); Darren Pettie as a smug sex addict; Brent Crawford discussing an ex-girlfriend who is now ill; Victoria Haas as a cheating spouse breaking things off with her lover; and Patricia Randell as a woman afraid of many things.
Meyers is a better director than he is a writer -- personally I found several of the vignettes underdeveloped and undramatic. What may work on stage in a theater doesn't always translate well to the big screen -- and that is the case with several of the monologues. Meyers' staging and use of the camera, though, were assured and did not betray his status as a novice.
I got to see the actor with whom I was acquainted (and for several reasons I choose not to identify him/her) but there was hardly any shots of the streets of New York. The bus riders could have been approaching the Upper East Side or Central Park or anywhere in Manhattan (or even somewhere in one of the boroughs). For that, I was disappointed. Overall, the movie itself was intriguing and several of the scenes were enough to whet the appetite, unfortunately, as a whole, they weren't a filling meal.
Rating: C
So, recently I set the DVR for a small film that was playing on the Sundance Channel called Approaching Union Square. I selected this little indie for a couple of reasons. I used to live near and work in the Union Square area and I've been very nostalgic for Manhattan recently. And then there was the small matter that I was acquainted with one of the actors. So with a running time of 80 minutes, I figured what did I have to lose?
Without knowing much about the film, I settled in to watch and almost immediately I had the feeling that it was based on a play. There was something very theatrical in the set-up and the first scene is a woman (Katie Kreisler) talking to her therapist which culminates in the revelation that she thinks she's psychic. She soon boards a bus on which there are 9 other passengers and as the camera pans, it settles on one and there's a flashback to a recent event in their lives. Each rider has a moment but overall the only thing the characters have in common is that they are all on the same bus.
As it turns out, the film, which marked the feature directing and writing debut of Marc Meyers, was based on Meyers' stage play Love & Sex: Tales From the Trenches, which consisted of 11 monologues.
So once I "got" the film's set-up, I settled back and tried to appreciate the film. Overall, the acting was adequate with a couple of stand outs. The best known actor in the film would be Christine Elise (McCarthy), who played the recurring role of Jason Priestley's girlfriend on the old "Beverly Hills, 90210" series. Here she's cast as a woman seeking love and engaging in a long-distance flirtation. She does a nice job with an underwritten role. Others who stood out were Kreisler (perhaps because hers was the first and eventually the one that does ties the others together); Darren Pettie as a smug sex addict; Brent Crawford discussing an ex-girlfriend who is now ill; Victoria Haas as a cheating spouse breaking things off with her lover; and Patricia Randell as a woman afraid of many things.
Meyers is a better director than he is a writer -- personally I found several of the vignettes underdeveloped and undramatic. What may work on stage in a theater doesn't always translate well to the big screen -- and that is the case with several of the monologues. Meyers' staging and use of the camera, though, were assured and did not betray his status as a novice.
I got to see the actor with whom I was acquainted (and for several reasons I choose not to identify him/her) but there was hardly any shots of the streets of New York. The bus riders could have been approaching the Upper East Side or Central Park or anywhere in Manhattan (or even somewhere in one of the boroughs). For that, I was disappointed. Overall, the movie itself was intriguing and several of the scenes were enough to whet the appetite, unfortunately, as a whole, they weren't a filling meal.
Rating: C
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
December 2: "Les amours d'Astrée et de Céladon"
I was a weird kid, no question about it, but one thing for which I'm grateful is that I started learning French almost from the time I could speak. My mom had learned it in high school, my older sister had studied the language (as well as Spanish) and my aunt was a schoolteacher who sometimes taught French to her students. I went to Catholic schools and French was part of the curriculum, so I had eight years of French, followed by four more in high school. Since there was a language requirement in college, I first chose to take French (hey, it was an easy A), but then I got ambitious and decided to study German.
One of the benefits of studying the language was that we got to see several films in French. Indeed, I have indelible memories of my very first French-language film: Truffaut's Jules et Jim. Is it any wonder why I got hooked? I managed to see as many Truffaut films as I could (this was in the days before VHS and DVD) so I was dependent on revival houses. When I got to college in Boston -- the city was bursting with cineastes and one could head to the Orson Wells in Cambridge, or the Nickelodeon in Boston or the Coolidge Corner in Brookline. Plus BU had a pretty great cinema club going -- every weekend there were wonderful double features. Those were heady times which I know are just memories for some of us older folks.
So eventually I got introduced to Eric Rohmer's films. He's a fascinating filmmaker, mostly because he treats the audience with respect and intelligence. Rohmer's films deal more with human relationships. Some find his work very "talky" -- me, I find them irresistible.
His most recent effort (and what he has claimed will be his final movie) was 2007's Les amours d'Astrée et de Céladon (The Romance of Astrea and Celadon). This is a rare venture into period filmmaking for the director. He had previously suffered commercial failure with 1978's Perceval le Gallois, which was adapted from Arthurian legend. More than 20 years later, Rohmer tackled another "period" drama L'Aglaise et le duc (The Lady and the Duke) which played at the New York Film Festival. The director employed digital technology to create the backdrops and the result was quite fascinating. I rather enjoyed the movie although I know it was something of a minority view.
The Romance of Astrea and Celadon was adapted from a pastoral romance that itself was set in the fifth century. It's basically a tried and true tale of love -- in this case between a comely shepherdess (Astrea) and her lover, an aristocrat who works as a shepherd (Celadon). His family doesn't approve of her and so he must pretend to woo another. She spies him getting a bit too friendly with the "pretend" girlfriend and misconstrues the events. Her jealousy leads her to denounce her lover, who broken-heartedly threatens to kill himself. In fact, he jumps into a nearby river and his body is never found.
Well, at least not by his beloved or by his family. When he does wash up on shore, he's found by a nymph named Galatea and her minions, one of whom is the daughter of a druid priest. They nurse him back to health, but Galatea is certain he's to be her lover. One of her servants, Sylvia, frees Celadon and with the aid of her father, a druid priest, plot to reunite him with his beloved.
As in any Rohmer film, there's a lot of talk -- in this case about the nature of love and its many forms. There's also a wonderful sequence between the druid priest and Celadon in which the men discuss religion. The performances are somewhat formal as dictated by the plot, but otherwise enjoyable. It may not rank as the best of Rohmer's oeuvre but fans of the director's work should find The Romance of Astrea and Celadon satisfying.
Rating: B+
One of the benefits of studying the language was that we got to see several films in French. Indeed, I have indelible memories of my very first French-language film: Truffaut's Jules et Jim. Is it any wonder why I got hooked? I managed to see as many Truffaut films as I could (this was in the days before VHS and DVD) so I was dependent on revival houses. When I got to college in Boston -- the city was bursting with cineastes and one could head to the Orson Wells in Cambridge, or the Nickelodeon in Boston or the Coolidge Corner in Brookline. Plus BU had a pretty great cinema club going -- every weekend there were wonderful double features. Those were heady times which I know are just memories for some of us older folks.
So eventually I got introduced to Eric Rohmer's films. He's a fascinating filmmaker, mostly because he treats the audience with respect and intelligence. Rohmer's films deal more with human relationships. Some find his work very "talky" -- me, I find them irresistible.
His most recent effort (and what he has claimed will be his final movie) was 2007's Les amours d'Astrée et de Céladon (The Romance of Astrea and Celadon). This is a rare venture into period filmmaking for the director. He had previously suffered commercial failure with 1978's Perceval le Gallois, which was adapted from Arthurian legend. More than 20 years later, Rohmer tackled another "period" drama L'Aglaise et le duc (The Lady and the Duke) which played at the New York Film Festival. The director employed digital technology to create the backdrops and the result was quite fascinating. I rather enjoyed the movie although I know it was something of a minority view.
The Romance of Astrea and Celadon was adapted from a pastoral romance that itself was set in the fifth century. It's basically a tried and true tale of love -- in this case between a comely shepherdess (Astrea) and her lover, an aristocrat who works as a shepherd (Celadon). His family doesn't approve of her and so he must pretend to woo another. She spies him getting a bit too friendly with the "pretend" girlfriend and misconstrues the events. Her jealousy leads her to denounce her lover, who broken-heartedly threatens to kill himself. In fact, he jumps into a nearby river and his body is never found.
Well, at least not by his beloved or by his family. When he does wash up on shore, he's found by a nymph named Galatea and her minions, one of whom is the daughter of a druid priest. They nurse him back to health, but Galatea is certain he's to be her lover. One of her servants, Sylvia, frees Celadon and with the aid of her father, a druid priest, plot to reunite him with his beloved.
As in any Rohmer film, there's a lot of talk -- in this case about the nature of love and its many forms. There's also a wonderful sequence between the druid priest and Celadon in which the men discuss religion. The performances are somewhat formal as dictated by the plot, but otherwise enjoyable. It may not rank as the best of Rohmer's oeuvre but fans of the director's work should find The Romance of Astrea and Celadon satisfying.
Rating: B+
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
December 1: Brideshead Re-Revisted
Last month there was some sort of move afoot for people to blog on a daily basis. I never did find out why November was chosen, but true to form, I couldn't muster more than a few tweets on Twitter. And churning out those 140 characters took a lot of effort. I can't promise I'll fulfill a daily blog in December, but I will try to put up some posts. The project I undertook just over 2 years ago is in the end stage. Things are winding down so I now find myself with some time to play catch up and can watch DVDs, movies and shows on the DVR, etc.
Today at work I overheard a couple of people discussing a film from the early 1970's and one person made the observation that the story line reminded him of Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited. I'll have to check out said movie and see if that's true. What caught my attention was that I recently re-watched the 2008 film version.
First off, let me say that I was a young lad when the television miniseries aired over several weeks in early 1982, but on the heels of Chariots of Fire, it appealed to the nascent Anglophile in me. I dutifully read the Waugh novel and watched each episode, savoring the production design, the costumes and, with a couple of exceptions, the superlative acting. To be honest, I could not warm up to Jeremy Irons' performance as Charles Ryder, nor did Diana Quick do much for me as Julia. But there was so much more to embrace: Anthony Andrews as the tragic Sebastian; Phoebe Nicholls as the stalwart Cordelia; Simon Jones as the snobbish Bridey; Charles Keating as the slightly roguish Rex Mottram; John Grillo as the unctuous Mr. Samgrass; Laurence Olivier as the dying patriarch; John Gielgud as the eccentric Mr. Ryder; and the superb Claire Bloom as the domineering Lady Marchmain.
When the show was finally released on DVD, I asked for it as a Christmas present and my sibling complied. And I was disappointed that those who released the discs did nothing to spruce it up. The visuals are muddy in places; the pictures faded. The quality of the transfer to disc was disappointing -- but I still could (and can) savor those wonderful performances. The direction, shared by Charles Sturridge and Michael Lindsay-Hogg was seamless and while there is some debate over the credit for the teleplay -- with John Mortimer receiving due -- it remains a fairly faithful adaptation.
When I first heard of a planned movie version, I was taken aback. I realize that it had been more than a generation since the TV series, but why tamper with something that was pretty close to perfection. The project germinated over a few years with various names thrown into the mix: at one time Jude Law was to play Sebastian with Paul Bettany and his wife Jennifer Connelly as Charles and Julia. That casting fell apart due to scheduling conflicts (and truthfully I heaved a sigh of relief -- to me, Jude Law is the kiss of death for any movie. He's a good enough actor, don't misunderstand, but almost none of the movies in which he appears have made a lot of money -- and the exceptions are when he was playing a supporting role.)
Eventually, the film was made with Matthew Goode, Ben Whishaw and Hayley Atwell in the key roles. Adding a touch of class and star power, Emma Thompson was cast as Lady Marchmain.
Dear God! I suddenly felt old. Emma Thompson as the mother? But then I remembered she was in her late 40's. Where did the time go?
Anyway, I saw the movie in the theaters and was decidedly unimpressed. One of my friends challenged me saying that perhaps I went in to the showing with my impressions already formed, but I countered that I am open to new takes on material. I'll see various productions of stage shows -- why wouldn't I be open to different filmic interpretations? Andrew Davies who did the adaptation has made a career of crafting terrific adaptations of literary fare -- everything from To Serve Them All My Days, Pride and Prejudice and The Line of Beauty for the small screen to Circle of Friends, Bridget Jones' Diary and The Tailor of Panama for the cinema.
One of the biggest problems I had watching the film on both occasions was that it felt rushed. Knowing the book, there were certain scenes and characters who came alive on the page and whose presence I missed in the film. And I do feel that director Julian Jarrold made one fatal error: using the same home to stand in for Brideshead that appeared in the television version. I mean, in all of the United Kingdom, he couldn't find another stately house that could pass for the home of the Marchmains? Every time I saw a shot of Castle Howard, I was immediately reminded of the miniseries, which called up memories of that leisurely adaptation.
This version is adequate and provides a sort of Cliff Notes version of the tale for a new generation. Whishaw put a slightly different spin on Sebastian, downplaying some of the character's tragic impulses. Goode was slightly better than Irons in the difficult role of Charles Ryder, who is the narrator and through whose eyes the audience views the other characters. Hayley Atwell is also an improvement over Diana Quick; her sensuality doesn't seem as forced as Quick's. But as in the original story, when the colorful Sebastian leaves the scene, the plot begins to falter somewhat.
I did enjoy the peerless Emma Thompson as Lady Marchmain. She was at least the equal of Claire Bloom's interpretation and Thompson leant the film a much-needed boost of star quality. To my mind, Thompson's take was akin to what Maggie Smith might have done with the part if she were somewhat younger -- and that's meant as a compliment. Michael Gambon, however, was somewhat disappointing as the estranged patriarch.
Overall, the movie is lovely to look at, with stylish costumes, handsome interiors and an attractive cast. Purists may prefer the flawed miniseries while those unfamiliar with the TV version will undoubtedly find the movie acceptable.
BRIDESHEAD REVISITED (1981 miniseries) B+
BRIDESHEAD REVISITED (2008 film) B-
On a totally unrelated note -- December 1 marks the 21st anniversary of World AIDS Day. Take a minute to contemplate what that means, please.
Today at work I overheard a couple of people discussing a film from the early 1970's and one person made the observation that the story line reminded him of Evelyn Waugh's Brideshead Revisited. I'll have to check out said movie and see if that's true. What caught my attention was that I recently re-watched the 2008 film version.
First off, let me say that I was a young lad when the television miniseries aired over several weeks in early 1982, but on the heels of Chariots of Fire, it appealed to the nascent Anglophile in me. I dutifully read the Waugh novel and watched each episode, savoring the production design, the costumes and, with a couple of exceptions, the superlative acting. To be honest, I could not warm up to Jeremy Irons' performance as Charles Ryder, nor did Diana Quick do much for me as Julia. But there was so much more to embrace: Anthony Andrews as the tragic Sebastian; Phoebe Nicholls as the stalwart Cordelia; Simon Jones as the snobbish Bridey; Charles Keating as the slightly roguish Rex Mottram; John Grillo as the unctuous Mr. Samgrass; Laurence Olivier as the dying patriarch; John Gielgud as the eccentric Mr. Ryder; and the superb Claire Bloom as the domineering Lady Marchmain.
When the show was finally released on DVD, I asked for it as a Christmas present and my sibling complied. And I was disappointed that those who released the discs did nothing to spruce it up. The visuals are muddy in places; the pictures faded. The quality of the transfer to disc was disappointing -- but I still could (and can) savor those wonderful performances. The direction, shared by Charles Sturridge and Michael Lindsay-Hogg was seamless and while there is some debate over the credit for the teleplay -- with John Mortimer receiving due -- it remains a fairly faithful adaptation.
When I first heard of a planned movie version, I was taken aback. I realize that it had been more than a generation since the TV series, but why tamper with something that was pretty close to perfection. The project germinated over a few years with various names thrown into the mix: at one time Jude Law was to play Sebastian with Paul Bettany and his wife Jennifer Connelly as Charles and Julia. That casting fell apart due to scheduling conflicts (and truthfully I heaved a sigh of relief -- to me, Jude Law is the kiss of death for any movie. He's a good enough actor, don't misunderstand, but almost none of the movies in which he appears have made a lot of money -- and the exceptions are when he was playing a supporting role.)
Eventually, the film was made with Matthew Goode, Ben Whishaw and Hayley Atwell in the key roles. Adding a touch of class and star power, Emma Thompson was cast as Lady Marchmain.
Dear God! I suddenly felt old. Emma Thompson as the mother? But then I remembered she was in her late 40's. Where did the time go?
Anyway, I saw the movie in the theaters and was decidedly unimpressed. One of my friends challenged me saying that perhaps I went in to the showing with my impressions already formed, but I countered that I am open to new takes on material. I'll see various productions of stage shows -- why wouldn't I be open to different filmic interpretations? Andrew Davies who did the adaptation has made a career of crafting terrific adaptations of literary fare -- everything from To Serve Them All My Days, Pride and Prejudice and The Line of Beauty for the small screen to Circle of Friends, Bridget Jones' Diary and The Tailor of Panama for the cinema.
One of the biggest problems I had watching the film on both occasions was that it felt rushed. Knowing the book, there were certain scenes and characters who came alive on the page and whose presence I missed in the film. And I do feel that director Julian Jarrold made one fatal error: using the same home to stand in for Brideshead that appeared in the television version. I mean, in all of the United Kingdom, he couldn't find another stately house that could pass for the home of the Marchmains? Every time I saw a shot of Castle Howard, I was immediately reminded of the miniseries, which called up memories of that leisurely adaptation.
This version is adequate and provides a sort of Cliff Notes version of the tale for a new generation. Whishaw put a slightly different spin on Sebastian, downplaying some of the character's tragic impulses. Goode was slightly better than Irons in the difficult role of Charles Ryder, who is the narrator and through whose eyes the audience views the other characters. Hayley Atwell is also an improvement over Diana Quick; her sensuality doesn't seem as forced as Quick's. But as in the original story, when the colorful Sebastian leaves the scene, the plot begins to falter somewhat.
I did enjoy the peerless Emma Thompson as Lady Marchmain. She was at least the equal of Claire Bloom's interpretation and Thompson leant the film a much-needed boost of star quality. To my mind, Thompson's take was akin to what Maggie Smith might have done with the part if she were somewhat younger -- and that's meant as a compliment. Michael Gambon, however, was somewhat disappointing as the estranged patriarch.
Overall, the movie is lovely to look at, with stylish costumes, handsome interiors and an attractive cast. Purists may prefer the flawed miniseries while those unfamiliar with the TV version will undoubtedly find the movie acceptable.
BRIDESHEAD REVISITED (1981 miniseries) B+
BRIDESHEAD REVISITED (2008 film) B-
On a totally unrelated note -- December 1 marks the 21st anniversary of World AIDS Day. Take a minute to contemplate what that means, please.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Roman Polanski
In a very odd confluence of things, I only just recently got around to watching Marina Zenovich's award winning documentary "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" (which recently picked up 2 Emmy Awards for writing and directing for nonfiction programming). Now I'll admit the whole Polanski situation is a difficult one. As an artist, the man has talent; as a human being, he's lacking in something -- especially since he drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl.
He is not the first filmmaker to engage in this sort of activity. Charlie Chaplin immediately springs to mind -- but, then again, at least he married two of the girls with whom he consorted -- and both females were slightly older than the victim of Polanski's crime. More recently was the Woody Allen situation but that appears to have been consensual. And even more recently was the revelation that the late John Phillips sexually assaulted his own daughter after plying her with heroin. I have trouble understanding the motives of men who would do such heinous things.
Yet, after watching Zenovich's documentary, I had a bit of a better understanding of why Polanski had fled. The film alleges that the judge presiding over the case, Laurence J. Rittenband, misused his judicial powers. Allegedly he was more concerned over his legacy and how he was perceived in the press than in serving justice. Polanski's lawyer and the district attorney had negotiated a plea deal that was originally accepted by the judge. The day before Polanski was to appear in court for sentencing, Rittenband apparently had a change of heart and was not going to allow the plea deal but was going to impose the maximum sentence. When Polanski learned of this -- he fled the country and became a fugitive. He romanced younger actresses -- eventually marrying Emmanuelle Seigner (who is roughly 33 years his junior) and fathering two children. The director worked in Europe and received an Academy Award for his direction of "The Pianist" -- a film I happen to think was one of the best of 2002.
After years of being a fugitive, he was taken into custody in Switzerland and is fate has not been decided yet. It's more than likely he will be extradited to the U.S. to face the charges -- since it was revealed the L.A. district attorney's office had a hand in his being arrested.
As with so many events in Polanski's life, the timing of his arrest is strange, coming just weeks after the 40th anniversary of the murder of his second wife, Sharon Tate, and the couple's unborn child. As everyone knows, that crime was perpetrated by Charles Manson and his followers and Susan Atkins, the woman who claimed to have stabbed Tate (although others in the cult dispute her version), succumbed to brain cancer the day before. Throughout Polanski's life, there has been a somewhat tragic arc. After surviving the Holocaust, his firstborn and his wife are murdered -- victims of a crime. Then, nearly a decade later, the victim turns victimizer and he attacks an underage child.
It's clear from "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" that the young girl and Polanski were both caught up in a miscarriage of justice. Hopefully, when he now faces the charges, there will be some closure for the now-grown woman -- a mother of three -- and for her attacker. Justice needs to be meted out -- let's hope this time it is fair to each.
He is not the first filmmaker to engage in this sort of activity. Charlie Chaplin immediately springs to mind -- but, then again, at least he married two of the girls with whom he consorted -- and both females were slightly older than the victim of Polanski's crime. More recently was the Woody Allen situation but that appears to have been consensual. And even more recently was the revelation that the late John Phillips sexually assaulted his own daughter after plying her with heroin. I have trouble understanding the motives of men who would do such heinous things.
Yet, after watching Zenovich's documentary, I had a bit of a better understanding of why Polanski had fled. The film alleges that the judge presiding over the case, Laurence J. Rittenband, misused his judicial powers. Allegedly he was more concerned over his legacy and how he was perceived in the press than in serving justice. Polanski's lawyer and the district attorney had negotiated a plea deal that was originally accepted by the judge. The day before Polanski was to appear in court for sentencing, Rittenband apparently had a change of heart and was not going to allow the plea deal but was going to impose the maximum sentence. When Polanski learned of this -- he fled the country and became a fugitive. He romanced younger actresses -- eventually marrying Emmanuelle Seigner (who is roughly 33 years his junior) and fathering two children. The director worked in Europe and received an Academy Award for his direction of "The Pianist" -- a film I happen to think was one of the best of 2002.
After years of being a fugitive, he was taken into custody in Switzerland and is fate has not been decided yet. It's more than likely he will be extradited to the U.S. to face the charges -- since it was revealed the L.A. district attorney's office had a hand in his being arrested.
As with so many events in Polanski's life, the timing of his arrest is strange, coming just weeks after the 40th anniversary of the murder of his second wife, Sharon Tate, and the couple's unborn child. As everyone knows, that crime was perpetrated by Charles Manson and his followers and Susan Atkins, the woman who claimed to have stabbed Tate (although others in the cult dispute her version), succumbed to brain cancer the day before. Throughout Polanski's life, there has been a somewhat tragic arc. After surviving the Holocaust, his firstborn and his wife are murdered -- victims of a crime. Then, nearly a decade later, the victim turns victimizer and he attacks an underage child.
It's clear from "Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired" that the young girl and Polanski were both caught up in a miscarriage of justice. Hopefully, when he now faces the charges, there will be some closure for the now-grown woman -- a mother of three -- and for her attacker. Justice needs to be meted out -- let's hope this time it is fair to each.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Elizabethan age on screen
As a kid, I was something of an oddball. I started reading Shakespeare at an early age and I developed a keen interest in British history. When I was still in grade school I recall watching "The Six Wives of Henry VIII", a BBC production that aired in the USA over CBS as a summer series. I had already been exposed to the story of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn thanks to the Academy Award nominated movie "Anne of a Thousand Days" but this drama provided a whole lot more. Each week was devoted to one of Henry's wives and I reveled in the acting -- Keith Michell who won a richly deserved Emmy Award, the late Dorothy Tutin as Anne Boleyn, Annette Crosbie as Catherine of Aragon, Angela Pleasance as Catherine Howard and Rosalie Crutchley as Catherine Parr.
Then the next year, PBS broadcast "Elizabeth R" with Glenda Jackson in the lead role. Jackson also portrayed Elizabeth opposite Vanessa Redgrave in "Mary, Queen of Scots" on the big screen. In many ways, it seemed to be the role she was born to play and until Cate Blanchett came along some 25 years later with the feature fillm, Jackson seemed to embody the Virgin Queen for that generation. (I acknowledge the peerless Judi Dench did win an Oscar for playing Elizabeth but that was more a consolation prize for not winning for her regal work as Queen Victoria in "Mrs. Brown".)
In recent years, there's been renewed interest in this period and these characters, perhaps stirred on by the aforementioned 1998 Cate Blanchett vehicle. British television (and PBS in America) have broadcast several dramatizations including a superb production of "Henry VIII" led by Ray Winstone in the title role, and a very good dramatization of the life of "The Virgin Queen" headlined by Anne-Marie Duff. Both lead actors delivered strong and memorable work and both were ably supported by an array of British actors: Winstone had Joss Ackland, Mark Strong, Charles Dance, David Suchet, Helena Bonham Carter (who years ago played Lady Jane Grey), Emily Blunt (who will soon be seen in "The Young Victoria") and Sean Bean while Duff's entourage included Kevin McKidd, Ian Hart, Tara Fitzgerald, Ben Daniels and Tom Hardy.
Not to be outdone, American television -- speifically HBO and Showtime -- have also tackled the period. HBO presented "Elizabeth I" with the divine Helen Mirren (who earned a richly deserved Emmy Award) supported by Jeremy Irons (also an Emmy winner), Hugh Dancy and Toby Jones. Showtime took a more soap opera approach with "The Tudors" which was created by Michael Hirst (who wrote the Blanchett film Elizabeth and its sequel Elizabeth: The Golden Age). Jonathan Rhys Meyers cuts an intriguing figure as Henry and Natalie Dormer put an intriguing spin on Anne Boleyn. But the show plays fast and loose with actual history so I have a hard time taking it all seriously, despite the presence of such actors as Jeremy Northam (as Thomas More), Sam Neill (as Cardinal Wolsey), Peter O'Toole (as Pope Paul III), Maria Doyle Kennedy (as Catherine of Aragon) and Henry Cavill (as Charles Brandon).
A further spin on the tale of Henry VIII and his second wife can be found in the two very different adaptations of Philippa Gregory's novel The Other Boleyn Girl. The BBC version from 2003, written and directed by Philippa Lowthorpe casts Natascha McElhone in the role of Mary Boleyn and Jodhi May as her sister Anne. Jared Harris plays Henry VIII. I'll confess Harris isn't one of my favorite actors -- which stems from a very difficult interview I had with him years ago. It's colored my approach to him and his work (including his recurring role on the third season of "Mad Men"). But the two women as the Boleyn sisters do a fine job, ably abetted by Stephen Mackintosh as their brother George. This is a more feminist take on Gregory's fiction which also has several historical inaccuracies. It's an intriguing if not wholly satisfying adaptation.
The TV version is only slightly better than the feature version released in 2008 which starred Natalie Portman as Anne, Scarlett Johansson as Mary and Eric Bana as Henry, with Jim Sturgess as brother George. Truthfully, I rather enjoyed this version to the BBC adaptation, partly because there's a sense that the filmmakers (writer Peter Morgan and director Justin Chadwick) recognize that they aren't making anything more than a standard-issue period romance. The focus is on the love matches between the king and the Boleyn girls. And as in Gregory's novel, the titular character switches between Mary and Anne. It's a feat not unlike walking a high wire, but the whole production has that feel of a good, bad movie. The supporting cast, including the peerless Kristin Scott Thomas, David Morrissey and Mark Rylance add greatly to the proceedings.
As you can see, over the summer I have been enjoying some "history".
Then the next year, PBS broadcast "Elizabeth R" with Glenda Jackson in the lead role. Jackson also portrayed Elizabeth opposite Vanessa Redgrave in "Mary, Queen of Scots" on the big screen. In many ways, it seemed to be the role she was born to play and until Cate Blanchett came along some 25 years later with the feature fillm, Jackson seemed to embody the Virgin Queen for that generation. (I acknowledge the peerless Judi Dench did win an Oscar for playing Elizabeth but that was more a consolation prize for not winning for her regal work as Queen Victoria in "Mrs. Brown".)
In recent years, there's been renewed interest in this period and these characters, perhaps stirred on by the aforementioned 1998 Cate Blanchett vehicle. British television (and PBS in America) have broadcast several dramatizations including a superb production of "Henry VIII" led by Ray Winstone in the title role, and a very good dramatization of the life of "The Virgin Queen" headlined by Anne-Marie Duff. Both lead actors delivered strong and memorable work and both were ably supported by an array of British actors: Winstone had Joss Ackland, Mark Strong, Charles Dance, David Suchet, Helena Bonham Carter (who years ago played Lady Jane Grey), Emily Blunt (who will soon be seen in "The Young Victoria") and Sean Bean while Duff's entourage included Kevin McKidd, Ian Hart, Tara Fitzgerald, Ben Daniels and Tom Hardy.
Not to be outdone, American television -- speifically HBO and Showtime -- have also tackled the period. HBO presented "Elizabeth I" with the divine Helen Mirren (who earned a richly deserved Emmy Award) supported by Jeremy Irons (also an Emmy winner), Hugh Dancy and Toby Jones. Showtime took a more soap opera approach with "The Tudors" which was created by Michael Hirst (who wrote the Blanchett film Elizabeth and its sequel Elizabeth: The Golden Age). Jonathan Rhys Meyers cuts an intriguing figure as Henry and Natalie Dormer put an intriguing spin on Anne Boleyn. But the show plays fast and loose with actual history so I have a hard time taking it all seriously, despite the presence of such actors as Jeremy Northam (as Thomas More), Sam Neill (as Cardinal Wolsey), Peter O'Toole (as Pope Paul III), Maria Doyle Kennedy (as Catherine of Aragon) and Henry Cavill (as Charles Brandon).
A further spin on the tale of Henry VIII and his second wife can be found in the two very different adaptations of Philippa Gregory's novel The Other Boleyn Girl. The BBC version from 2003, written and directed by Philippa Lowthorpe casts Natascha McElhone in the role of Mary Boleyn and Jodhi May as her sister Anne. Jared Harris plays Henry VIII. I'll confess Harris isn't one of my favorite actors -- which stems from a very difficult interview I had with him years ago. It's colored my approach to him and his work (including his recurring role on the third season of "Mad Men"). But the two women as the Boleyn sisters do a fine job, ably abetted by Stephen Mackintosh as their brother George. This is a more feminist take on Gregory's fiction which also has several historical inaccuracies. It's an intriguing if not wholly satisfying adaptation.
The TV version is only slightly better than the feature version released in 2008 which starred Natalie Portman as Anne, Scarlett Johansson as Mary and Eric Bana as Henry, with Jim Sturgess as brother George. Truthfully, I rather enjoyed this version to the BBC adaptation, partly because there's a sense that the filmmakers (writer Peter Morgan and director Justin Chadwick) recognize that they aren't making anything more than a standard-issue period romance. The focus is on the love matches between the king and the Boleyn girls. And as in Gregory's novel, the titular character switches between Mary and Anne. It's a feat not unlike walking a high wire, but the whole production has that feel of a good, bad movie. The supporting cast, including the peerless Kristin Scott Thomas, David Morrissey and Mark Rylance add greatly to the proceedings.
As you can see, over the summer I have been enjoying some "history".
Is Autumn already?
So where did the summer go? Oh, yeah! I was working on a project that required a lot of travel and a lot of my time. We're in the home stretch now and I may still not have a lot of time but I did want to post a few things.
First things, I haven't gotten out to see too many movies this summer. In fact, I think I saw a total of ONE in the movie theaters -- and that was in Austin, Texas, of all places. I got really spoiled all the years I was a working critic because screenings generally started at 6pm. So now when I get out of work at 5-ish ... there's nothing. Most movies in theaters don't start until 7 or later. Which means I either have to hang out and be bored -- our office usually shuts down at 5-ish so there's no staying late -- or go home and then go back out. And truthfully, once I'm home -- I do NOT want to leave again. I'm lazy. I admit it.
I also haven't watched as many DVDs over the summer as I might have. In fact, I bought a couple for my birthday more than 6 months ago -- and they are still in the celophane wrappers! There were a few things I did watch -- mostly Showtime series like THE TUDORS and BROTHERHOOD (although I still have the last disc to finish on that one)
Over the summer, my choice of viewing has turned to Soapnet -- and catching up on some of the daytime dramas that I used to watch. Of course, the channel doesn't carry AS THE WORLD TURNS and it didn't carry GUIDING LIGHT which just went off the air after 72 years of broadcasting on radio and then TV. When I was a kid (and I'm dating myself here) -- like many of my generation -- I got hooked on DARK SHADOWS, which was perfect as it came on at 4pm when we were already home from school. But I do recall my bedridden grandmother watching her "stories" -- now defunct shows like SEARCH FOR TOMORROW and EDGE OF NIGHT.
Over the many years that have passed, I've basically watched every "soap opera" for a time, depending on a storyline or a particular actor or actress. When I was out of work in the 1980s, the CBS shows took precedence -- especially GUIDING LIGHT and AS THE WORLD TURNS. When I first moved to NYC, I actually harbored the hopes that I might one day write for these shows. (For a college class, I wrote a pilot and a bible for a series set in and around a college campus.) But I was never able to crack the seemingly tight-knit industry. I would hear about writer development programs, submit the proper applications and writing samples and then . . . find out the program had been suspended or ended or whatever. Eventually, I just realized it wasn't meant to be.
This did not stop me from watching the show, however. But now the daytime industry is going through a major upheaval. Only 7 shows are left and a couple of them are close to being on life support. Part of the problem seems to be that this industry is one of the few where if you fail at one job, you are rewarded by being hired at another show. The same group of writers and producers play musical chairs. They may "fix" a show for a time but often viewers/fans are alienated and then these people are fired and hired by another show either on the same network or at the same production company. This insularity can result in a form of inbreeding that makes it very difficult for shows to prosper.
Of course, the whole industry has undergone a sea change since its heyday in the 1980s. Cable channels and counterprogramming have eaten away at the audiences. Once upon a time, daytime dramas cost little to produce and earned large sums in advertising revenue -- money that was used by networks to fund primetime and news divisions. All that began to fall apart in the '80s. Some blame the O.J. Simpson trial for a decline -- but that was only a small part of it. The companies that were the stalwart funders -- like Proctor & Gamble -- more or less decided to get out of the business. And, of course, there were other cyclical things -- the rise of the talk show, followed by the rise of the judges shows. CBS now seems to think that people are going to want to watch game shows. I certainly don't.
What are the solutions? I don't know if there are any. I'm not sure if the genre can survive. When Soapnet, which was formed as an alternative for people working to watch their "stories", has lost its way and broadcasts crappy "reality" series like HOLIDATE and THE BANK OF MOM & DAD instead of legitimate dramas, then things are in a pretty sad state.
It seems to me that most of the shows have lost their way. There are a couple that still do the job, but they are few. The majority are like, as an example, GENERAL HOSPITAL. In the 1980s, they introduced a mob story line and ever since then that has been the thrust of the series. There was a long time when few storylines involved the titular hospital. Long-term characters -- that is veteran actors and actresses over a certain age -- disappear from the canvas. Fans become disillusioned. Sets get turned off and ratings take a nosedive.
I guess one of the "fix" I might suggest is to try to do what THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS does -- and what AS THE WORLD TURNS and GUIDING LIGHT did in the 1980s and 90s: utilize the entire cast. Jeanne Cooper who is 80 years old drove a major storyline over the summer on Y&R. While some of their plots may be disappointing to some viewers, you have to give props to the writers because they involve veterans and relative newcomers in storylines. Young actors get to work with the veterans. Unlike some of the other shows. Audiences aren't just interested in seeing teenagers and twentysomethings -- they want to see all ages and all sizes and all races. There is something very wrong when so many of the shows have so few African American and Hispanic actors and actresses.
I know there's no real solution. Although I had stopped watching GUIDING LIGHT years ago -- in part because the show was aired at odd times around the country (and I maintain that was one of the factors in its poor ratings -- it was not on at 3pm eastern when it was meant to be), I did mourn its demise. I'm saddened for the many actors and crew members put out of work. And somehow the world of daytime got a bit smaller. I know it probably will continue to happen -- at least 3 shows are on the chopping block now -- and sooner or later we'll be down to four or less. It's the passing of an era.
First things, I haven't gotten out to see too many movies this summer. In fact, I think I saw a total of ONE in the movie theaters -- and that was in Austin, Texas, of all places. I got really spoiled all the years I was a working critic because screenings generally started at 6pm. So now when I get out of work at 5-ish ... there's nothing. Most movies in theaters don't start until 7 or later. Which means I either have to hang out and be bored -- our office usually shuts down at 5-ish so there's no staying late -- or go home and then go back out. And truthfully, once I'm home -- I do NOT want to leave again. I'm lazy. I admit it.
I also haven't watched as many DVDs over the summer as I might have. In fact, I bought a couple for my birthday more than 6 months ago -- and they are still in the celophane wrappers! There were a few things I did watch -- mostly Showtime series like THE TUDORS and BROTHERHOOD (although I still have the last disc to finish on that one)
Over the summer, my choice of viewing has turned to Soapnet -- and catching up on some of the daytime dramas that I used to watch. Of course, the channel doesn't carry AS THE WORLD TURNS and it didn't carry GUIDING LIGHT which just went off the air after 72 years of broadcasting on radio and then TV. When I was a kid (and I'm dating myself here) -- like many of my generation -- I got hooked on DARK SHADOWS, which was perfect as it came on at 4pm when we were already home from school. But I do recall my bedridden grandmother watching her "stories" -- now defunct shows like SEARCH FOR TOMORROW and EDGE OF NIGHT.
Over the many years that have passed, I've basically watched every "soap opera" for a time, depending on a storyline or a particular actor or actress. When I was out of work in the 1980s, the CBS shows took precedence -- especially GUIDING LIGHT and AS THE WORLD TURNS. When I first moved to NYC, I actually harbored the hopes that I might one day write for these shows. (For a college class, I wrote a pilot and a bible for a series set in and around a college campus.) But I was never able to crack the seemingly tight-knit industry. I would hear about writer development programs, submit the proper applications and writing samples and then . . . find out the program had been suspended or ended or whatever. Eventually, I just realized it wasn't meant to be.
This did not stop me from watching the show, however. But now the daytime industry is going through a major upheaval. Only 7 shows are left and a couple of them are close to being on life support. Part of the problem seems to be that this industry is one of the few where if you fail at one job, you are rewarded by being hired at another show. The same group of writers and producers play musical chairs. They may "fix" a show for a time but often viewers/fans are alienated and then these people are fired and hired by another show either on the same network or at the same production company. This insularity can result in a form of inbreeding that makes it very difficult for shows to prosper.
Of course, the whole industry has undergone a sea change since its heyday in the 1980s. Cable channels and counterprogramming have eaten away at the audiences. Once upon a time, daytime dramas cost little to produce and earned large sums in advertising revenue -- money that was used by networks to fund primetime and news divisions. All that began to fall apart in the '80s. Some blame the O.J. Simpson trial for a decline -- but that was only a small part of it. The companies that were the stalwart funders -- like Proctor & Gamble -- more or less decided to get out of the business. And, of course, there were other cyclical things -- the rise of the talk show, followed by the rise of the judges shows. CBS now seems to think that people are going to want to watch game shows. I certainly don't.
What are the solutions? I don't know if there are any. I'm not sure if the genre can survive. When Soapnet, which was formed as an alternative for people working to watch their "stories", has lost its way and broadcasts crappy "reality" series like HOLIDATE and THE BANK OF MOM & DAD instead of legitimate dramas, then things are in a pretty sad state.
It seems to me that most of the shows have lost their way. There are a couple that still do the job, but they are few. The majority are like, as an example, GENERAL HOSPITAL. In the 1980s, they introduced a mob story line and ever since then that has been the thrust of the series. There was a long time when few storylines involved the titular hospital. Long-term characters -- that is veteran actors and actresses over a certain age -- disappear from the canvas. Fans become disillusioned. Sets get turned off and ratings take a nosedive.
I guess one of the "fix" I might suggest is to try to do what THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS does -- and what AS THE WORLD TURNS and GUIDING LIGHT did in the 1980s and 90s: utilize the entire cast. Jeanne Cooper who is 80 years old drove a major storyline over the summer on Y&R. While some of their plots may be disappointing to some viewers, you have to give props to the writers because they involve veterans and relative newcomers in storylines. Young actors get to work with the veterans. Unlike some of the other shows. Audiences aren't just interested in seeing teenagers and twentysomethings -- they want to see all ages and all sizes and all races. There is something very wrong when so many of the shows have so few African American and Hispanic actors and actresses.
I know there's no real solution. Although I had stopped watching GUIDING LIGHT years ago -- in part because the show was aired at odd times around the country (and I maintain that was one of the factors in its poor ratings -- it was not on at 3pm eastern when it was meant to be), I did mourn its demise. I'm saddened for the many actors and crew members put out of work. And somehow the world of daytime got a bit smaller. I know it probably will continue to happen -- at least 3 shows are on the chopping block now -- and sooner or later we'll be down to four or less. It's the passing of an era.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)