AudemarsPiguet Reviews

Queen of the Gypsies (1976)

Gypsy music and 70's camp- melodrama with cult status

[7/10 · 17 December 2006]

These were the seventies: while some European film-makers invaded the big screen with exploitation flicks, controversial satires and hammer horror soaked in a nightmarish conglomerate of blood and sexual fluids, while others- on both sides of the Iron Curtain- intelligently turned historical, literary or mythical subjects into sophisticated creations, Loteanu followed his style; Communism-supervised and censored 70's camp, so dated that it becomes anachronistically adorable.

Needles to say, this film, and it's follower " A hunting drama" (1978) are perfect examples. The rest of Loteanu's creations faded in the background, for he will be remembered by most moviegoers for these two pseudo costume/ period dramas combining subjects placed around 1900 with glamorous, showy and melodramatic seventies style.

In my native Romania, this film( also due to limited exposure to other directors, creations, because strict censorship allowed few films to be shown) this film had such a cult status, especially before 1989, that the soundtrack of this film was virtually in everyone's memory to such an extent that even people who didn't see the film knew it by heart, the songs were( quite liberally and inaccurately) translated into Romainian and were heard at least once at any party that was supposed to be truly entertaining. And even after 1989, when censorship was a over and tons of new channels and blockbusters invaded the big and the TV screen, it is still aired at least once a year on at least one TV channel.

The reason is simple- the film enjoys such a cult status because everything about it is unreal and the film doesn't even conceal it. Like the classic Hollywood musicals, infested with optimism and family friendly, lighthearted, almost Bubblegum Pop-style tunes, it must have been a colorful, campy, playful escape from an increasingly bleak everyday existence, not strictly in a restrained but even the "free" world. Like famous Romanian columnist Cristian Tudor Popescu said while analyzing this film( by the way, his rendition famous cinematic artworks followed by a cult classic are an interesting alternative to Mr. Tocilescu's more famous broadcast called "Schoking films") that this film is from the beginning striking a pact with the viewer. The Gypsy life is not sold as authentic but simply as pleasant and both he and his viewers know this-as long as it's entertaining. But, in the film's defense, Mr.CTP adds that the viewer who is not impressed by the breathtaking closeups emphasizing Svetlana Toma's eyes, the contrast between her overlong dark hair and pale face and her grand gestures might be a true film critic but not a true film lover( and this is something very rare to hear from one of today's most untouchable, strict and moralist journalists). In this sense, he is right. A single shot of Svetlana Toma singing in the streets is more fascinating than the entire film, even if the rest of the film were worthless, these very seconds are the work of genius that will make movie history. The scene is shot just brilliantly: the camera lingers on her face for a while before she starts to sing, these few moments are breathtaking and build up a huge tension, which continuously rises while she starts to sing a tune with one of the most haunting rhythmic structures in music history. It resembles the seconds before Liza Minelli starts to sing that famous "Money" -song from Cabaret, the technique is similar, a few seconds delay on the character's faces -highly expressive, even tense, then the breathtaking moment the music sets in, making it all even more captivating. And this so famous tune almost reminds me of Bryan Ferry's song "The price of love", because tough the music is Gyspsy, it has a certain Glam rock flavor- the elaborate use of beat and rhythm,creating one of the most compelling soundtracks ever , combined with a theatrical, Glam inspired gesture( everything almost toying with time and pacing in a continuous crescendo).

Svetalana Toma's actual performance is a combination between Claudia Cardinale's part from " The Leopard", strikingly resembling her physically, up to the clothes and the way she sensually wets her lips and hair and the dated image of the good-hearted gamine by Paulette Goddard in " Modern Times", homeless but anarchistic and ( anti-) socially active, even anticipating a bit Kate Bush's video for "Wuthering Heights" where the singer adopts a pseudo Gypsy look complete with red dress, breathtaking dancing, flowing dark hair and a red flower to adorn it. However the part of Rada is quite faked and idealized- i don't think that she had so much liberty to stay single so long in a society where marriages are arranged from early ages.

Also, I think that Gatlif or Kusturica( even if they also included a bit of idealization) render Gypsy tradition far more accurate than Loteanu. This is why i never saw this film completely up to very recently, thinking that it was nothing more than a mixture of simple people mocking the upper classes and some unilateral plain landscapes just tiring and boring my eyesight. But Loteanu seems to hesitate between some moments of genius( against all camp and censorship) and a very formal, artificial, overly sanctified, dogmatic depiction of nature, tradition and human migration-making all look tastelessly sanctified and mystical( very odd in an atheist film-making). Besides, all the characters, especially the male ones, are more hippies than gypsies, the men being easily interchangeable between gypsy whereabouts in one second and rather sleazy, "groovy", dated 70's macho( in fact, these macho, their influence in popular culture advocated outlandish clothing, casual fornication, nomadic lifestyle, anti-consumerist and anti-establishment stances). Even the ending is far-fetched and melodramatic- here the "tragedy" is posed, failing to impress or to cause sadness, making it equally campy as a cheesy happy end.

Worth watching as a flagship of seventies nostalgia, seasoned with few moments, scenes ( but worth as much as hours of cinematic masterpieces) of genius.

Silentium (2004)

Austrian film-making at its best!

[9/10 · 14 December 2006]

Watching this film during this summer on the Austrian channel ORF I had great expectations due to a very catchy, intriguing promo. My already high expectations were not disappointed. It is always great pleasure to see that European cinema constantly produces such almost unknown masterpieces, especially today, when it has become increasingly harder( in 2004, when this film was made or afterward) to stick to the European style.

The plot is, tough not copying Almodovar, an Austrian version of " La Mala Educacion"- both Spain and Austria being traditionally Catholic countries, the various scandals, rumors and ( sometimes unjust) allegations surrounding this powerful institution provide a rich, almost endless material for movies with various approaches of the matter.

Unlike Almodovar's film, this one goes much further in analyzing the multi layered connection between church and secular society and the part these connections play in order to defend its respectable image at all cost.

But just like in Almodovar's film a young man is dubiously silenced( and others even more endangered) as he tries to unveil the abuse he was constantly subjected to while studying in a Catholic school, in this one none else than the son-in-law of the ( fictional, but most likely not too far from real characters) director of the Salzburg theater is mysteriously killed just when he intended to make some uncomfortable confessions from his past which could incriminate some important church officials.

The film starts off with two memorable landmarks of Salzburg- first a cliff with a breathtaking view overlooking the town, from whom the victim is actually thrown and which will play also an important part towards the film's climax( reference to Hitchcock's " Vertigo") and secondly the famous Salzburg theater festival, as the film begins just at the point where that year's edition is marred, almost overshadowed by the murder in the director's family.

This is the moment when the strange, antisocial but honest detective with a shady background Brenner sets in to unveil the truth. He is a former cop, thrown out from active service for undisclosed matters and presently acting on his own, constantly experiencing extreme poverty and social exclusion. It is almost unbelievable to see that Salzburg, a city depicted as quiet and law-abiding can have so many homeless people and poor sections, when it actually seems to small and wealthy, to idyllic to have anyhting else but middle-class, if not richer inhabitants( just like Austria).

He soon discovers that the influential theater director is not interested to solve the case, however his daughter, eager to find the truth about her husband's death urges Brenner to lead an investigation. As Brenner examines the Catholic school where the victim once studies, he soon discovers a complicated network of both heterosexual and homosexual child molesters constantly provided by this institution with fresh"meat" of both genders. Some clients are influential especially one prominent opera singer which looks like a hetero version of Rudolph Mooshammer and even has a taste for rented sex and bizarre fetishes just like the famous fashion designer.

But as the investigation goes on, the Church officials and other mighty figures become worried about the outlandish detective and try to kill him on numerous occasions. Nevertheless, after he is unjustly accused of having killed the roommate with whom he shared a sordid lodging( and, just like in Almodovar's film, the church works extremely efficiently in faking clues, everything pointing at Brenner) he manages to escape narrowly from the same death like the one that started the plot( and from the top of the same cliff). After he kills some employees of that infamous school in self-defense, further investigations are ceased and he has to leave the town temporally. Furthermore, the victim's widow is not eager for justice anymore, accepting the same guilty silence around her, either forced by her strict father or realizing that she's can not fight the system. She is actually one of the most complex characters in the film, torn between her spoiled need for a sheltered life and her desire to look for justice at the expense of respectability.

Subnsequently, the film's title reveals its doublethink or doublespeak meaning: it hints both at the silence required in strict schools during classes, but also the mendacity dominating society's most respectable institutions and most privileged circles.

It's captivating too see that, besides it's typically Austrian, dark humor( e.g. a real, non-fictional village called petting, used here as a pun just like the film's title) how actual the issue can be. That is, in many cases, not just the dishonest corrupt official, but also honest people in traditionally Catholic countries try to cover up such scandals, the latter category so well manipulated that they truly believe in the church's innocence.

Haunting and worth seeing, but also meditating about.

The Tin Drum (1979)

20 century boy

[10/10 · 8 March 2006]

Schlöndorff's "The Tin Drum" is an admirably crafted masterpiece, because it has all the qualities of true art-house film and at the same time is controversial enough to be listed alongside the masters of anti-Establishment, twisted European cinema( Bunuel, Ferreri, Abuladze, Pasolini, Ken Russell to name only a few). Even more, Grass's novel is turned into a film which could symbolize the quintessence of the equally twisted and violent 20th century itself. Oskar Mazerath, the main character of this film, is the typical product of this century. Raised , like Grass himself, in Danzig, he shows from the very beginning of his life, even before he was born( watch the surreal scene of his birth closely) an abnormally acute sensibility and understanding for the surrounding world. His family environment is fairly respectable, but presented in a shocking anti- Bourgeois, almost Bunuelian way: a hulking and rather simple-minded father with business ambitions and slight right-wing tendencies, a frivolous mother, a superstitious grandmother, a legendary, supposed grandfather believed either dead or having made a fortune from rags to riches like Gatsby as an immigrant in the US, a good-looking but weak and sickly uncle who is presumed to be his actual father. Oskar's precocious sensibility and his awareness of the flawed adult world prompt him to take a surreal decision on his third birthday- he causes himself a crippling fall from the top of a staircase in order to stop his physical growth and therefore stay a child( strictly bodily, because his mind is far more developed than that of adults). Everybody believes it was an accident, but even the name Oskar seems to be a hint to Oscar Wilde and to his story about Dorian Gray- like the character in Wilde's work who's portrait ages instead of him, Oskar is trapped in a body which won't grow nor age. This self-inflicted interruption in the natural growth process is also a symbol for Europe's imminent plunge into the involution represented by Fascism and Communism which would eventually end in World War two. But Oskar is born in 1924, when both political extremes are no serious threat: the Nazis are just some hoodlums who are incapable even of organizing a public gathering, Communism is represented by an anecdotal character which does nothing more but performing the Internationale. But all of these characters are morally ambiguous like the petty Bourgeois universe in which they live: like in an expressionist painting, nobody is spared of gruesome and bizarrely humorous caricatures, the church, the school, the neighboring kids; all of them indulging in humiliating Oskar for his small height. But this is almost nothing compared to the risks Oskar would have faced if he grew up normally- 9 chances in 10 he would have ended up fighting for Nazi Germany like millions of other youngsters Hitler sent to war. And Oskar plays drum. Often accompanied by his voice, so shrill that it shatters glass( which was later taken up as a gag in "Victor/Victoria"). He is moody and rather amoral, unlike the kids faced with World War II from Pasolini's "Salo", he is not exclusively a victim, he actually resembles often Alex De Large's sociopath tendencies, the children from "Lord of the flies" or the teens from "American History X". He doesn't hesitate to entertain the Nazis, at the same time being eager to seduce the servant girl and future wife of his father( by, e.g.spitting in some fizzy powder sprinkled over her hand or body and forcing her to swallow that mixture- in a way he is incapable of ridding himself of childhood perception about "pleasant" activities) and trying to force an abortion with some gigantic scissors when he discovers her pregnancy. At the same time he seems innocent and immature to the outside world, due to his appearance and his drum. I think that the more recent "Jeuxs d'Enfants" owes a lot to "The Tin Drum" because the couple from this film is prompted by a tin box from their childhood to act childishly even when both are 35 and married and to see even a foolish suicide pact as a mere game. Oskar was also compared to Amelie and Forrest Gump, but while the first is a fully developed and mature woman with childlike innocence and Forrest a grown-up with subnormal immaturity, Oskar is not so innocent and optimistic as these two, and the message of the film is far deeper as the rather campy, unrealistic "chicken-soup" happiness of these two similar characters. Towards the ending of the film, when, in a sublime symbol of vanity, Oskar's giant father is buried in a coffin improvised out of crates with his hand lurking out( due to wartime poverty), he finally starts to grow, as en ending to his self-induced childhood, parallel to the war that draws to a close and with it, Germany's and Europe's involution. Haunting film, right down to Mario Adorf's portrayal of Oskar's huge but ultimately mortal father, the both playful and compelling soundtrack by Maurice Jarre and the character of the madman wandering about in graveyards screaming:"Habemus Dominum!". A must-see to be seen at least once.

Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom (1975)

Italian history X : an almost-masterpiece

[7/10 · 18 October 2005]

After watching Salo,I was not shocked by its sexuality or violence,rather by its lack of artistic honesty and historical accuracy.The same feeling I got watching Visconti's The Damned ,where historical facts are oversimplified,overblown beyond recognition. In both films the intention is to depict how cruel and immoral the Right-wing dictatorships in recent history were and both suggest that by e.g. amplifying the degree of sexual perversion of its protagonists.In fact,like it was often pointed out,there is little connection between a deviant sexuality and an oppressive political rule. Turning historical villains into perverts is cartoon-style and adds nothing to the intellectual level of the public;it manipulates into being forcefully outraged,stirring up not the violent but the fundamentalist,prude,judgmental instincts in all of us.If cinema tricks you into it,you should indulge in your "five minutes of hate",only because you do something supposedly moral by hating someone who is completely flawed and therefore you do your moral duty by hating him. So,the public's homophobia,puritanism,sexual purity,bi-phobia, was cleverly(intentionally or not)used by Pasolini in this film to stir up everyone's hate against the Fascits.First you are appalled by what you see ,but as soon as the mind replaces the instincts,one is tending to question the authenticity of this film. Actually,Fascism,Nazism and the Bourgeosie were sexually more restrained than Pasolini portrays them,but as these three form a symbolical triangle of his hatred and phobia,he must vilify them beyond any limits of supportability.Partly it is not his fault,because,as I have correctly seen in other user comments,the extreme and unrealistic criticism of Salo was not singular in that period.Even if The Damned,The Conformist or 1900 were less violent films,they all fit into the same ideology:in yesterday's European art cinema it was OK and even encouraged to depict the Right-winged evil at the verge of porn,horror and Gothic. So this is the main reason why I find Pasolini's death as a political commission illogical,as contemporaries bearing equally violent,slightly more restrained messages not only against the Nazis,but also against Bourgeios establishment weren't slashed.Also I find it unlikely that Pasolini was clipped by one of the underage actors from this film,it is hard to fancy that these submissive pubescent teens would have overrun him with his Alfa Romeo.Still,a movie with a potential and meaning,if it weren't for the fact that the villains were almost liturgically repeating:we are arrogant,we are supremacist snobs,we are the bad guys,beware etc.Yet the actuality of this film is not faded,events like these are actually possible nowadays even in democratic countries-parts of the practices seen in the orgy happened in occupied Irak almost yesterday. The famous experiment of Dr.Philip Zimbardo proved that the nightmare situations from 1984 can easily come true:anyone of us can potentially become a torturer.Also the Alied troops didn't necessarily bring joy and eternal peace into Fascist Italy:seeing the equally violent La Pelle where G.I.'s indulge in the same violence with the subjects of the occupied country,it's not always Fascits:bad-Allies:good.And the Communist Pasolini should have known that in the Communist gulags the treatment was roughly the same. Many have seen the parallel between Salo and the Biblical Tale of Sodom,but there's also another story from the Old Testament hinted at:as the young people are tortured,killed,it is similar to one of the plagues brought by God's wrath over Egypt-the death of the younger generations. As for the excrement scene,was intended to be against mass proceed food,but it is actually more of an offense brought to the simple,honest citizen who regularly buys his food from a mall or a drive-in;even if it's unhealthy,it is hard to actually say upfront:you're eating...because even if he knew he'd be glad to buy it affordable.Was Pasolini vegan or high cuisine fan to have the authority to judge? The underage sex ,anything else but pornographic,failing to arouse,might shock on screen,but the same society(without being the republic of Salo)is shamelessly pushing teens trough media,music,fashion to "do it" increasingly younger.It happens in the U.S. and everywhere and thus the teeny stars have up to a point no better destiny than the prisoners of Salo. The torture scenes are rather restrained and somewhat Bunuelian,reminding of the famous eye from "Un Chien Andalou". In its complexity of cultural and symbolical aspects this film is more than hard to stomach,one should have the courage to read between its graphic and psychological violence. It certainly pushed the boundaries of art film,of what is allowed in one,yet it is still an art film even if (highly arguable) the most gruesome and daring ever. Still,this film is accomplished due to its debate about guilt(and maybe even a hint at the omnipresent and controversial issue of the Holocaust),placing it on a similar level with the much less violent and more symbolical,yet equally chilling and bleak Georgian masterpiece Repentance,due to the fact that in both of the films the young and innocent have to pay for the corruption of the political and moral terror brought about by their elders. At a closer look the two films have resembling symbols-while in Salo we see a bearded man dressed up effeminately enjoying a voyeuristic masturbation-session while watching the teens being tortured,in Repentance a dirty bearded man is greedily eating a hulking cake resembling to a house or church,stating proudly that dictatorship is not bad-in both cases the symbol stands for decaying patriarchal values,the self-devouring Bourgeoisie and the forces of omnipresent Vanity and destruction. Maybe it signifies also the decay of comfortable Western society due to its moral ambiguity(and Salo should be the historical precedent),but in virtually all Anti-Nazi films(including this) the feeling of the Apocalypse is so strong towards the ending,that the viewer might think that all life was wiped out. Yet it wasn't totally eliminated,even if some historians and moralists question whether life after Auschwitz is legitimate. Cynically speaking not only life went on after wards but also the atrocities,performed even by Pasolini's fellow Communists and partly even in democratic countries. So that history repeats like a vicious cycle is fact,that Pasolini tried to warn us to break the cycle is questionable,if not mere fiction.

The Big Feast (1973)

Somewhat unrealistic-nothing exceeds like excess?

[5/10 · 21 September 2005]

This film is supposed to be a criticism against consumerist society. Well,it could have been done much better.In fact,few people even in the Western world afford&allow themselves to indulge with such delicacies, the most expensive champagne. It is therefore a criticism of capitalism not as it really is,but as it is wrongfully depicted in some Communist propaganda about Western "decadence".

Note that the events in the film must take place , in the year 1972 or 1973,because its characters know "The Godfather:Part one".This means the affluent society just before the Oil Crisis put an abrupt ending to the almost thirty years of relentless economical growth after 1945.So,realesed in 1973,the subject would have already been dated.It would have been much better if Ferreri would have made this film in the 80's,because it fits the materialistic credo of the following decade.

The idea of the middle-aged man contemplating suicide was well used in films ranging from "The Waltz of the Toreadors" to "Scent of a Woman".Here the suicide pact between four quite wealthy middle-aged men is just unrealistic,especially if there is no logical reason,no plan,no actual pact.Only one character has diabetes and he dies in the most quick and painless manner by eating an entire cake and then passing away as if he fell asleep,as if he wanted desperately to convince the audience that he's dead,when not only the actor but even the character seem to "fake it"(death of course).But we know nothing more of his ailment and if this is the actual reason. Nor do we know why the other three are doing this.

Mastroianni should have stuck to "La Dolce Vita",there his character experiences another kind of death and suicide,not physically,slowly defeated by a pleasure-seeking society.This part was the criticism of consumerism without graphic violence,vulgarity,physical signs of pain.But in this film,also being called Marcello,like in Fellini's masterpiece,his part is becoming a tasteless copy of his former part,another,more fleshy Marcello.

The death scenes are more of an insult to intelligence rather than disturbing.The viewer is supposed to believe that the four deaths are plausible,if a doctor or even a person without medical knowledge can tell that neither of the characters could die in real life like they did here.They seem to know far too good when exactly they are going to die to be for real!Besides,in every thorough scientific analysis of the symptoms before and in the moment they died it is clear that the cause of their death is just a big deceit.

Praised for its divinely decadent mood,this very mood is rather shabby. The villa which is supposed to be a gateway into the decadent verse,of luxury,of vintage class&style looks awfully tasteless and unimaginative,a sterile visual experience completed by a bunch of underfed,dirty poultry running around.And the Bugatti that just drives back and forth without advancing,in a surreal way of defying the laws of mechanics and the very mission of even the worst car,when it should be a fast vehicle.A hint at Isadora Duncan's death?Or just a symbol for the fact the pact once made,trough some incredulous,inexplicable and unrealistic laws of destiny no one will leave the house alive?

The food which also serves as suicide weapon is understated and rather unappetizing,though expensive compared to the real French-Italian gourmet cuisine.The literary symbols are also out of place:this film should be a modern Satyricon,but it lacks the picturesque style of the Roman masterpiece,the "Godfather"-imitation is too anecdotal and superficial and Boileau's oak and its story are completely redundant in the plot line,because the hint that Boileau's world of classical harmony is dead in our postmodern times is a too obvious truism.The spectacular factor of Satyricon-style banquets is also lacking.

The film should be a warning against the "mortal sin" of gluttony. Actually it is both pathetic and deprived of any realistic expression or emotion,because a real-life French or Italian gourmet would relish all these foods and many more without dying,without even getting sick.Ironically,only hours after I saw the film I also embarked on a weekend of lavish eating and drinking in a secluded mountain villa with my friends and,almost needless to say,after having consumed similar quantities none of us dies or even got sick,lol!-of course there was no suicide pact in our case.

No exceeding excess(though made in the materialistic eighties,years of overspending,the same film would have had another message and such quantities of food would not have been used for dying,rather as a status symbol or even a psychotherapy in favor of living).It fails to condemn materialism because neither its temptations are shown as appealing or sinful(and even less as deadly)nor is death due to them the slightest bit possible in real life,and also failing to bear any lessons against excessive greed.One ends up pitying not the basic needs and vices of the characters,nor their low morality,rather their immense tastelessness(even in death)and their unimaginative behavior exhaling mediocrity,essentially non-intellectual though their are supposed to be educated.

The parallel between food and the forces of life and death,of eroticism and passion is key element in films ranging from the tragic "Como l'Agua para chocolate"(where food and recipes are present in the most disturbing and intense moments of the character's doom)up to that forgettable pseudo-entertainment called "Woman on top".In this film it was just misplaced and misused.

Much more convincing films about how consumerism and the promise of material happiness in a shallow,ruthless society have a crippling impact on the individual,but not necessarily trough food and suicide pacts,like "Blow-up","La Dolce vita","Clockwork Orange","Scarface",Citizen Kane","Wall Street" or "American Beauty"-in all this masterpieces the characters are undergoing their own suicide without knowing,being dragged in the downward spiral of greed much more complex than for food,they may or may not be wiped out physically,but always(and in the long run much more painful)innerly.

This film,on the other hand,where even the four deaths fail to be credible,is a shame,but fortunately an exception in the usually so artistically accomplished,so flawless European cinema.

In the Realm of the Senses (1976)

Bloodsport&mind games

[8/10 · 23 July 2005]

It was quite unusual,though not shocking,to view this film aired on a stately owned channel.Appearantly it would have been more appropriate to see it on a channel exclusively dedicated to hardcore adult productions.I repeat apparently,because,in spite of its strong sexual content,it is too both too deep and often even too nonsexual,even too repulsive if compared to porn.

Repulsive?Well certainly not always comfortable to watch,but while you are not shocked anymore,once you have overcome certain restrains,this film turns out worth your time and (yes,precisely)intellectual effort.

The first impression that this film left,from the very first scenes,were the immense amounts not only of full nudity but also explicit sexual intercourse.Considering that this film was made in 1976,even the most unconventional European art cinema is relatively mild if compared to this.Even earlier European directors like Ken Russell or Pasolini included some nudity in their best works and even some quite daring hints to the sexual act,but only to be surpassed by far trough films like this. In fact,some scenes were so realistic and so arousing,that it was difficult not to get turned on.

But besides the obvious sexual aspects,this film will spark many controversies for years ahead.The controversy whether it is an art film or porn is not idiotic and useless in this case.Actually it combines beyond any doubts strong elements of both and is open to many interpretations. Without being prude,I don't think that less explicit sexual acts would have deprived this film of its art film qualities and wouldn't also have made the storyline less logical and organized.As if one would say that deep inside you know or guess that it would be an art film and therefore would be able to overlook some slightly hardcore subtext.

About the meaning of the title-I was surprised to find out that the the word "Corrida" does not exist in Japanese and is used in the very familiar sense similar to bullfight.An artistic way to say that love and even more,sex,are a cruel,often violent and ruthless sport or game. This is not supposed to demonetize love,however the romantic,pleasurable face of sexuality are merely side-effects of a natural process which isn't necessarily painful or humiliating,however essentially amoral,wild,basic.Like a game of high stakes and high risk,it can very easily destroy the ones involved and this fascination with danger doesn't make it less appealing.

Basically like corrida,it is a strange combination between a bloodsport(and involving also other body fluids)and a mind game,where brute force are mingled with unleashed fantasy and calculating shrewdness.In fact,apart from the sexual interest,the characters keep you haunted and curious like watching an intricate game of chess or poker:tension is gradually rising and you eagerly await to be puzzled and overwhelmed by the next move,much more than you were by the previous.

Speaking of tension,one is gradually directed,forced to anticipate a violent and chilling outcome.The characters behave increasingly unbalanced so that one guesses long before anything happens that they will unleash disaster,like in Ettore Scola's "Pizza Triangle" or Russell's "Women in Love" one grasps the gradual turn of eccentricities and unbalanced minds into sheer horror.

And like in "Happy Tree Friends",after an apparently nonviolent opening begins a barbaric spree of bloodshed.Unlike the cartoons mentioned above,the mood is neurotically timeless and ghastly,like in Russells "The Devils" "Fellini-Satyricon" sets,colors etc. preparing the viewer with the entrance in a doomed and savage universe where every step might be the last.

About the ending:it was so realistically done,with violently colored bloodstreams in horror film style that I wondered if the actor was permanently harmed.Let's not for get that also in 1976 the film "La denier femme" saw an also unbalanced Depardieu undergoing the same "treatment",while the lethal intercourse of this haunting,violent couple is almost certainly a source of inspiration for the intense,both destructive and triumphant sexual act in Arau's"Como l'Agua para chocolate"from 1991,where even the sexual position used by the characters,their expression,as much as their physical appearance mirrors this film with a strange "deja-vu" effect.Additionally this film might have also influenced,besides Arau,the not less controversial "Jeux d'Enfants",both in the violent ending and sexuality as a game(as corrida).

The actions of Sada left me,eventually,more disappointed than fascinated/puzzled.In her extreme jealousy,unbalanced behavior she acts more like a contemporary post-modern teeny girl than a Japanese,like the contemporary every-day female as seen in women's and teenager's magazines,popular culture,fashion,in mainstream porn,soap-operas or music videos.She acts so violently not out of lacking self-control,but more due to animal selfishness and a shallow,unintelligent pursuit of pleasures.Inspite of her untypical desires and feelings she is mainly an unimaginative,selfish bitch,incapable of originality in spite of unusual sexuality.

What I liked about this film was how it destroyed several popular myths like the crimes of passions as something exclusively non-existent in heterosexual couples and also the way it resembles Oriental storytelling in its disrupted plot-line,including,much like in the erotic stories of the Arabian Nights,subplots,alternative plots,frame-stories and a surprising twist in conclusion,ending it with a saying,a quote or other forms of Oriental wisdom.

Irrespective of its "shocking" side,this film is still a somewhat flawed,uneven yet also meaningful,intellectual "almost-masterpiece",an obvious example of daring experimental forms of (alternative)cinematic art;however,a more cynical view might reveal the extreme use of sexuality and violence as a marketing strategy to attract the most common mainstream Western Audience,which snobbishly and superficially creates the appearance of a non-violent and non-sexual,prude one but is seduced almost instantly by well marketed sex and violence,even if they keep up an artificially respectable appearance.

Of course one couldn't see such a film come out of Hollywood,nor the contemporary Hollywood-stars engaging in such violence and real,unrestrained and bizarre sex(though they would if the studios would ask them to&it would sell),but as long as such productions are non-American,they are viewed as exotic curiosities,which mainstream audience would be occasionally allowed to watch but mainstream cinema never allowed to make.

Scarface (1983)

Push it to the limit!Welcome to the limit!

[10/10 · 25 June 2005]

The first impression ever made about this film and its main character,even before I fully watched or understood it,was the immense lust for life,dignity and harsh masculine beauty(not necessarily in the outer sense of the word)Pacino invests in this character.This impression lingered with me obsessively long after the film was over and was boosted by further viewings. While it is redundant to repeat the story of Tony Montana,the main character of this film,it is very important to stress upon the fact that,without wanting to elude his vulnerability,he still is the product of his age and society. His story actually stats like a history lesson,beginning when the Cold War slowly drew to a close and Cuban refugees could enter the U.S.,Tony being one. For the petty criminal the new country truly is the promised land,but this was the general mood at the turn from the 1970's to the 1980's. The story starts during Jimmy Carter's reign,but much of Montana's rise as successful gangland baron takes place during the administration of a Ronald Reagan. Apparently unimportant trivia but it explains much of the context in which Montana rose to power-the Reagan era marks the shift from a Baptist,Christian,unspectacular president like Carter to a more ambitious one:Reagan the actor,the showman,the marketer(of his own public image).At the same time,with Reagan's direct support it marks a historical change from two decades of relentless social turmoil,crisis,shaken credibility to an age when the U.S. is regaining is status as world power,when a new hedonistic and egocentric generation of "golden boys",tired of the elder generation's nihilism and hippie rebellion,will turn a seemingly endless and incurable economic recession in an age of unprecedented prosperity when consumerism and cashing in legendarily climaxed. History records this period as "reaganism" and its motto was:"Greed...is good",Montana illustrating this mentality as good as the broker acted by Michael Douglas in the film "Wall Street" which made these words famous. From rags to riches in record time at all cost-this is the way even crime became an economical wonder in the gilded 1980's. In a few years former penniless immigrant becomes head of a multimillion empire where money keeps on rolling in. The soundtrack,considered by many worse than that of a dated porn,is not only awesome,making the film worth watching almost only to hear it,its cult classic "Push it to the limit" says it all-this outstandingly,divinely decadent and lush track reminding of the not least famous theme from "Neverending story"(both soundtracks being composed by the timelessly compelling genius Giorgio Moroder)represent a state,a mood,which makes the two so different films resemble:they are both lavish 80's modern legends,both dealing with initiating journeys,only that "Scarface" is a more violent,yet equally fascinating never-ending story about the almost mythical quest incited by unlimited ambition. Even this film's flaws-though unimportant-are the typical product of the eighties.The visuals are extremely unprofessional,during the entire film the image looking rather shabby due to extremely bleak,poor use of light and color,the viewer easily mistaking this film with a typical B-movie of that age,these commercial,cheap films seen on the rudimentary videotapes of that age including martial arts and boring,unpretentious amounts of pointless violence and nudity. Ironically this flaw mentioned above would taint every other cinematic masterpiece,however considering the subject,the B-movie quality is an advantage as it may be intentional to add to this film more "hood" credibility. Tony Montana is far more than a simple newly rich criminal,he is a complex ,at a certain degree,even barbarically,savagely heroic character.His famous speech in titled "Make way for the bad guy" is an interesting and uncomfortably ironic view at 1980's consumerism. While acknowledging that he is a typical product of his age he still finds the power to sneer at the lucrative,but superficial social establishment of this period. Pacino almost anticipates the not less controversial speech of his later character Frank Slade from "Scent of a woman",in both of the cases two harsh,macho-like yet innerly uncompromising characters revealing profound and radical truths in a uncensored,sharp language. One ends up considering the bad guy less immoral than the more respectable members of society-at least in Montana's case you know that he is a killer,a drug-dealer while other far more influential politicians and tycoons only knew to hide their speculations better,had respectable images and no criminal record. Especially in the 1980's U.S.,it was unimportant how to get rich,in Reaganism only the outcome mattered and while people like Montana were the scapegoats and/or the guys who did the dirty work so that more "respectable" people don't get soiled(in both cases Montana was useful to society and its "pilars"),while more immoral people performed the same shady deals at a larger scale,comfortably hidden by their conventional WASP image and their superficial appearance of righteousness. Gifted with the ambition of a Shakespearean character,in Montana's case,in a twist differing from Shakespeare,it is not his ambition leading to his irremediable downfall.It may be partly explained that during the 1980's one couldn't be too ambitious and,unlike in the Shakespearean tragedy,even pathological,Machiavellian,unrestrained ambition hadn't a bad press. The only thing not allowed in this calculating,overly greedy age was to show your human side and while in the world of crime feelings were always an impediment,being so 1980's America(even if not as criminal)was the worst move possible.Like in the closing scene from Macbeth,Montana will be confronted with final consequence of his deeds with Shakespearean depth and intensity... Montana's rise and fall also remind of another typical gangster embodying the American Dream-Gatsby,even the pool where Montana is finally crashing into seem like a reference to the not less famous swimming pool scene. Both Montana and Gatsby are of humble origins,both craving for money and power,and after owning "the world" for a while,both have to discover the emptiness of the American Dream,both end up floating in a pool. Everything mentioned above and many more subtleties of this masterpiece almost turn it into a period drama about the recent past, a lavish portion of 1980's memorabilia combined with unexpected art film accomplishment and Pacino(along with Scent.. and Godfather)at his best.

The Inheritance (1976)

A family affair

[9/10 · 18 June 2005]

This superbly shot&acted creation is,like most of Bolognini,unjustly overlooked,while it reaffirms that Italian cinema is loaded with genius besides Fellini,Visconti and Pasolini. The plot is a criticism at the savage nineteenth century capitalism,its cruelty and shallowness,placed in turn of century Rome,dealing with the ruthlessness of the Italian high bourgeoisie in their pursuit of wealth. Old Ferramonti-Anthony Quinn in yet another stunning "tour De force" of his incomparable acting-is a thrifty millionaire,which,after forty years of service,closes down the bakery which brought him wealth at the expense of overworked and underpaid workers and cheated customers. This bitter and ruthless old man is a conservative patriarch and tyrannical father and so totally Quinn:both in real life and in films like The Greek Tycoon,or the more conventional Revenge or A walk in the clouds,nothing suits Anthony Quinn best than being an unbearably rough,strong-willed and dictatorial,yet strangely charismatic "pater familiae". But Ferramonti is at such a degree authoritarian and fond of his money(which he doesn't share not even with his family,not even spends on himself,preferring to live frugally while his millions are piling up)that he negatively influenced the life of his children,now all of them grown up,yet still treated like children by him:Pippo,his most submissive son,is simply cut off from his share,tough he was the only one to work alongside with his father in the bakery and even contributed to the old man's fortune;Mario,the more wild tempered son,became a gambler living out of risky speculation at the stock exchange,enjoying a questionable short term prosperity;while Teta,the family's only daughter ran away from home and married only to escape her father's fits,her marriage to a man disliked by her father making matters only worse.The strange thing is that the old man doesn't have any paternal feelings for his children whatsoever,he is seeing them only as a potential threat,as competitors,as enemies wanting his hard-earned money. Shortly after wards Pippo marries the beautiful Irene,which like him,grew up in a wealthy yet austere environment.Irene is more ambitious than her husband and her marriage starts in a promising way,the couple's financial situation prospering and above that,she manages to reconcile the family. However one soon gets to see this woman's real face-Dominique Sanda,an iconic figure of the seventies,brilliantly mingles a flawless ingénue looks with cool,distant Garbo-style cynicism and manipulative,haunting magnetism in this part-as Irene soon shamelessly starts an affair with her brother-in-law,tough it is first unclear if due to the sexual charisma of this elegant man or just the need to acquire his protection and connections in order to succeed in the Roman high society. She even manages to enthrall the Old Ferramonti,who ends up by loving her more than his children,meticulously planning every attack which step by step takes her closer to the old man's millions(this is actually the only why she married Pippo,knowing that he will be her gateway to a fabulous fortune).Strangely at first,everybody in the family is trusting her and her contacts with the old man,thinking that she can be used as a middle man between the disinherited children and their brutal father. As it happens in love-stories where two or more brothers love the same woman,for instance Brothers Karamazov or Legends of the fall,things will take very dramatic turn,comparable to the films above,Irene managing to destroy,partly unintentional,partly purposely both Pippo and Mario,just trying to control them.Eventually her plans to keep the fortune for herself only will finally be stopped for good by her sister-in-law and her husband who end up as only heirs,ironically they weren't better than her,just "respectable mediocrities". The achievements of this film are countless:besides the good acting of Fabio Testi and Luigi Proietti as Mario and Pippo(two of Italy's most famous and talented actors),only to be overshadowed by the performances of Dominique Sanda and Quinn,who both are depicting the same kind of characters-passionate at an almost pathological scale for money and power,yet cruelly cold and calculating while pursuing their interest,the beautiful interiors of the opulent Italian bourgeoisie and the stunning soundtrack by-who else than Morricone. The only minuses might be that some sets sometimes look somewhat shabby in their nostalgic period-piece style,that gestures are too theatrically overblown and that there is a typically European,uncensored amount of-not too appealing,more destroying the film's beauty than enthralling-nudity. Nevertheless worth watching,both as trip back in visually overwhelming era and as a lesson that capitalistic greed is not necessarily a modern invention.

Waltz of the Toreadors (1962)

Surpsingly good,a an early masterpiece starring a not yet so famous Sellers

[9/10 · 4 May 2005]

This film haunted me from the first viewing,or at least I was oddly fascinated at its beginning and a little puzzled,slightly bored and confused towards the end,due too the fact that it seemed to me well made however a little uneven,encapsulating,besides beauty and depth a little bit of pathetic,overblown,hilarious,less plausible,corny situations. Now a realize that judging this film as uneven is also,partly,my own fault.The reason may be that I first saw this film in my early teens,when I could relate a little less to the sentimental problems of an aging man.Seeing it for the second time a few weeks ago(and five-six years later than the first viewing)I gradually understood more of the character's inner structure and grasped this film's value and depth much better. Besides Seller's both deep yet humorous performance this film is beautiful for it's nostalgic "fin-de-siecle","Belle-Epoque" mood,the overtly sophisticated elegance of the characters,the costumes,the language,the sets. The storyline,the plot are,in a very balanced,discreet,stylish way divinely decadent.In late nineteenth century-beginning of twentieth century England an elderly officer(Sellers in an unusually mature and witty understated part)is,like Frank Slade from Scent of A Woman years later,oscillating between a suicidal,anguished saturation of life and a huge portion of self indulgent yet healthy and uncensored hedonism/vital-ism in spite of his age. Unlike Frank Slade it is not a physical disability that causes his depression and suicidal tendencies,rather(what partly applies to Frank Slade too)the fear of getting old or,more precisely,of not being capable to enjoy life fully due to aging,besides that an unhappy marriage,a major failure in love,the futility of the all the privileges and luxuries he can easily afford,yet fail to cure him of his doubts. Inspite of contemplating suicide I think that both General Fitzjohn from this film and Colonel Frank Slade are sad,but not irremediably ill-fated creatures.Suicide-though neither one of them is putting it into practice,is in their case,not a cowardly evasion,but a manly way to achieve a moral triumph over a morally flawed world.By the way,neither of them is a failure,o.k. they tend to be selfish,cynical,even too overindulgent,however they both bear an immense and unaltered lust for life,a vivid intellect and sensibility,an intense,even if outer restrained love for life,women and-almost incredible-family. Beneath the womanizing,socially hyperactive,hard-drinking Fitzjohn lies an almost childlike enthusiasm and thirst for life and both Seller's performance(few actors know to mingle childlike and mature behavior,features etc. credibly and brilliantly as he does)and the whole mood exhaling a peaceful,quiet joy of living(remember it's the pastoral Brithish countryside in the aristocratic sense of the word). Another resemblance with Scent of a Woman is the importance of a very particular dance,which,like the famous tango in the film mentioned above,sparks a whole universe of beauty and nostalgia,of memories,of an almost unreal sort of joy and beauty. I always thought that Anouillh is a fossilized,high-minded but old-fashioned playwright,a sort of a too off-beat,pretentious,declamatory,uselessly&unpractical sophisticated geek.This film,a screenplay after a less known creation of him,proved that he is not only talented,but also witty and entertaining in an unceremoniously juicy yet still intelligent and profound way. Probably this film needs more than one viewing to get over its too hilarious,old-fashioned,uneven,artificial bits and discover that it is truly(at least at certain extent)a masterpiece.

Once Upon a Time in America (1984)

Seldomly a film of such beauty...

[9/10 · 21 April 2005]

I was in my teens,about sixteen or seventeen,when I first saw this film and,incidentally,I was at an age when the twenties imagery fascinated me-well it still does... Highly artistic was the opening scene,when the annoying phone calls are associated with a lavish party scene-a symbol for life's vanity and the revenge of a guilty conscience for all the pleasures(similarly in Shakespearean theater the obsessive repetition of nagging noises is actually stands for the guilt complexes from the past reemerging). It's,like previously other viewers noticed,the story of a few poor immigrant boys trying to conquer the new promised land-even if they end up building an empire of crime(let's face it,they did't have any other chance to evolve from rags to riches considering their social background)they are somewhat American pioneers,these solitary,strong-minded and ambitious heroes who turned the U.S. into what it is today. By the way,American capitalism and political life,even if apparently honest and fair-play are not necessarily based on legal methods... Eventually their twisted friendship will(like in a passionate,irrationally intense love-story)destroy everything it touched-and in between an epic spanning between 1915 and 1968,a visual treat of elegant vintage cars,stylish clothing and sophisticated champagne bottles-all the luxury and fascination of the legendary prohibition age. The scene where Prohibition is "buried"-somewhat resembling the "Death of Glitter" concert from "Velvet Goldmine",actually a coffin-shaped chocolate-cake is surrounded by four candles stuck into Cordon Rouge bottles,is one of the most influential in film history,probably known and loved even by the ones who aren't much into this genre,did not watch/enjoy this film. In my opinion this scene is capturing all the beauty and vanity of life,youth,ambition and pleasure-it is almost possible to feel,to sense an utterly voluptuous universe fading away,becoming impossible to hold back... I don't think that the characters were homosexual,in spite of their very strong friendly love,I guess this film is rather a hymn in the honor of a myth as old as mankind:friendship;even admitting that this film involves a certain homo erotic subtext,it is that high-minded, poetic,strictly Platonic homo eroticism to be found in the strong bonds that existed among e.g. ancient warriors wanting to be buried together and have their ashes mixed for eternity-this ritual(though altered) actually happens this way in this film too. I also don,t buy the preconception that Max was a traitor-notice that even his more balanced friends are actually brutes occasionally violently bursting out like wild animals-he's just a better survivor and fighter that the rest.Of course he might be more megalomaniac,self-indulgent and egocentric than the others,but he's acting according to the rules of gangland and of his Jewish background-the Jewish origin of most of the characters partly explain their talent for money-making,their compellingly manipulative personalities,their practical intelligence. While Noodles turns out,in my opinion,as a winner in the end.Even if poor and forgotten,even if he gets high in order to forget life's misery,he seems balanced and appeased in the end.After going trough pretty much of what his century had to offer,after undergoing so many experiences and changes,he takes refuge in a world(even if artificially created by drugs)where,in an almost godlike way,only the beauty,the legendary side of the violent age of gangsters exists.He therefore rescued,almost like Proust,trough the power of memory,his glamorous and adventurous youth from extinction. Another fascinating (among many others) scene is the one when a posh partying crowd is throwing with Cordon Rouge bottles out of an old timer swiftly and almost invisibly driving by-this scene somewhat exhales the ghastly,nostalgic roaring twenties beauty,like in a novel by Fitzgerald or a visually disturbingly compelling&lush period piece by Ken Russel. Irespective of the dark,violent and bleak message of this film,I'll always remember it as one of the most accomplished visual poems dedicated to youth and the unlimited ambitions it is often linked with. Therefore a lush and highly fulfilling treat due to its immense and very credible evocative power,depicting credible and actual scenes without ever being common or boring.

The Bullocks (1953)

Fellini becoming Fellini...

[10/10 · 29 March 2005]

Fellini's Vitelloni is considered(sadly)to often as one of the films not belonging to the better half of his creations. O.k. it may lack the flawless level of technical and artistic accomplishment of later works,however in my opinion it is a small and unrighteously overlooked,forgotten,under-appreciated masterpiece. A short and essential form of exercise and training for his largely acclaimed successes,in spite of the minor subject and some minor flaws capturing most of the "fellinesque" essence,probably willingly restraining and understating it. There is less baroque,deeply symbolical(in a :philosophical,pantheistic,hermetic sense of the word),lush and disturbing imagery,however in La Strada,Notte Di Cabiria or Il Bidone Fellini proved that he can turn even day-to-day subjects into great films,without idealizing nor vulgarizing reality,without using expensive costumes,sets or special effects,natural yet never boring. The same goes about this film:it's the story of five young men living in a small town(most likely Fellini's birthplace Rimini) in post-second-world-war Italy. There is even a storyteller and what struck me from the first scene was the resemblance with Scorsese using the same story-telling technique in Goodfellas or Casino,in order to make the story more actual,credible and more accessible to the viewer,to better get in the mood(no wonder that Scorsese adored this film and probably even used it as a source of inspiration).In a warm,typically Italian,partly poetic,partly ironic tone the five are introduced in such a way that the viewer gradually gets the feeling of having known these characters since childhood. Both for their own fault but(probably even more)for the lack of real social,cultural and economical perspectives the grim and old-fashioned town is providing,all of them have,in spite of their distinctive personalities,a lot in common:they are all well out of their teens,biologically adults yet socially quite immature,they all lack a permanent,full-time jobs,yet don't see themselves as unemployed,rather bohemians or careless playboys,they all are somewhat noisy,conceited yet harmless whereabouts,all trying to escape the town's utter boredom engaging in "a bit of everything"(amateur art,petty crime,small business,casual love-affairs,gambling,partying or the so Mediterranean&aristocratic preoccupation of "Dolce far Niente"). They aren't bad boys,nor hoodlums(both as some would know from Scorsese's films)however they major mistake,the one that influences all of them in a negative way(however without leading to their downfall or some serious moral crisis)is their incapacity to rid themselves of their idleness and to act-but that's what makes them enjoyable too... Fellini is obviously self-centered,individualistic,coming to terms with his own strong and uneven ego,so this film is,as some might expect,autobiographical,all the five men being more or less an alter-ego or at least inspired by persons closely connected to him,his childhood&youth,Rimini-every time Fellini fictionalizes his own self,he creates a masterpiece,a Dorian Grey-sort of self-indulgent myth that gets it's value from being this way.While other filmmakers,even accomplished ones would just be hilarious repeating the same sort of characters under different names and plots,Fellini keeps us wanting more and more of his personality,every piece of this intricate puzzle-whether it's this film,La Dolce Vita,81/2,Amacord or several others-providing the intellectual excitement of having discovered more,of having taken a fabulous mental journey,without having revealed(or not even wanting to completely reveal)all of Fellini.. There are humorous moments too and,from a comical viewpoint,Sordi's performance is the best-especially in the extravagant,delirious carnival scene when he dances dressed as a woman to the timeless melody "Titine"(which made film history due to Chaplin's unique performance in Modern Times,Sordi's gestures to the same tune also revealing his immense comical talent,maybe it's Fellini's tribute to another master of cinema,note that while Chaplin sings gibberish,but he suggests a possible storyline with his mimic,the same tune is here strictly instrumental,accompanied by Sordi's mainly visual,almost silent comic style of humor),and,after wards experiences a burlesque hangover including a trumpet,an over-sized head and a seemingly endless monologue.Or,again Sordi in the scene when he's mocking men working at a road for no particular/infantile reasons.Another interesting,yet somewhat tragicomic scenes shows a strict,patriarchal father beating up his son,though his son is an adult,married and with children-showing how traditional family life was regarded in the past,not only in Catholic Italy,at an extent that might seem surrealistic today. Besides its very humorous moments and some highly beautiful(yet without the tangled symbolism usually associated with Fellini,just clean,simple,yet high quality visuals)the message of the film is a rather serious,even depressing one-in spite of their hedonism and immaturity,the Vitelloni exhale a bottled up,almost James Dean-like rebellion against the hypocritical,superficial,narrow-minded society of the fifties,however they lack the courage/will to express it or aren't even aware of it. In his later films Fellini will analyze his complex relationship both with society and himself over and over again-however this film is definitely not a failure in his effort to understand this relationship,just an anticipation of probably even more rewarding cinematic art-works.

The Forsyte Saga (1967)

Probably the best adaptation in film history

[19 March 2005]

Being a huge Galsworthy fan and knowing what an immense popularity this TV-series had claimed worldwide,I was eager to watch it. Widely regarded as one of film history's most faithful(if not the most faithful)adaptation after a literary work,I think that it's perfectly true.This where Galsworthy's genius(one of my favorite writers)is intertwined with B.B.C.'s high professionalism to create a cinematographic masterpiece. Characters,sets,costumes,the care for the historical period,make this film a precise depiction of one world literature's most brilliant literary work as well as of the Victorian age and its aftermath. It's the story of an upper-middle-class family(Galsworthy's newly rich family being actually the source of inspiration)having recently acquired wealth in nineteenth century Britain,their rise running almost parallel with the rise of modern Capitalism and the Industrial Revolution. Until 1886,when the story begins(though trough several flashbacks the viewer is let know what happened beginning with 1879),this family's main and virtually only concern is how to make money and to belong to London's better half-subsequently by 1886 almost every member of this family is either a successful lawyer or businessman,major shareholder,landlord or other typically capitalistic entrepreneur.Of course the Forsytes are the typical products of Capitalism,their behavior being characterized by a mixture by thrift and lavish spending(both as a form of wise investing and increasing social influence),snobbery,collecting art and building impressive houses not due to aesthetic reasons but merely as an investment. But there are always several exceptions from this not so bright and profound,however socially very successful mentality:the "young" Jolyon-of the third generation of wealth in this family-who turns a not so respectable love-affair into a not suitable marriage and his cousin Soames who marries the strangely beautiful Irene,a woman from a poor social background,who doesn't love him. Therefore 1886 is not only the year when this family reached its pinnacle of fame and fortune,not only a symbolical year in British history(the year before queen Victoria's golden jubilee),but also the year when the traditional family values of the Forsytes start to crumble. Soames has certainly patriarchal and somewhat rigid views on family life,on a wife's duty,however he's not a tyrant or a pervert in a behavior towards Irene,he certainly worships her,however doesn't know how to express his affection.Irene,on the other hand,seems to me selfish,cold and ungrateful under her extremely beautiful and oversensitive crust-but maybe she isn't superficial,it's just the feminine mystery what makes her so unpredictable and difficult to please. However Soames is a true gentleman,capable of true love and generosity and willing to sacrifice everything to be loved.His tragedy is that he never gets the love he deserves and that not even his vast fortune can't buy love.First Irene,then his second wife and finally Fleur,his daughter,decades later,fail to give him the feeling of truly caring about him and appreciating him.While Fleur is the typical roaring twenties's flapper-spoiled,careless,choosing suitable marriage rather than true love,only for the upkeep of her fortune and status(even her name,along with her behavior remind of another famous twenties's flapper,Fitzgerald's Daisy Buchanan). The characters are faithfully depicted by brilliant,though not necessarily world-famous,actors,besides Soames,Jolyon,Irene and Fleur,also the performances of the old Forsytes being just like someone would imagine after reading the book. Watching this film I understood why it is considered as the best adaptation after a literary work in film history(and,in spite of being a T.v. production and the subject of a rich family widely used in soaps ,it is definitely not a soap-opera,but definitely an art-film).

Le roi danse (2000)

Visually a masterpiece yet historically somewhat inaccurate

[9/10 · 12 March 2005]

Having just seen this film I was impressed and intrigued enough to want to comment on it.The subject is quite unusual-the life,rise and court of the famous French king Louis the fourteenth,the famous "sun king" as seen by his court musician,the not least famous Lully. The style,imagery,artistic means of this film reminded me of another much talked about film which also deals with a composer,Forman's Amadeus-in both films we see certain taste for the dramatic, even overtly theatrical,for haunting and often violent scenes,for the grotesque and almost disturbing. However I prefer a more disturbing,uncomfortable view of history than the typical Hollywood style of idealizing historical characters whether if actually good,bad or just complex(a mixture of good and bad,like most historical characters and most people really are). The film is historically somewhat biased,mainly for two reasons: 1.though an important part of Louis's reign,Lully's music wasn't the most important affair of state,yet in this film it is depicted as if it were the only reason of existence for France,the king,s family,his court 2.Lully and Moliere weren't the only artists to contribute to the glamor,luxury,power,glory,cultural achievements and distinctive style always linked with the sun-king's reign-there were also architects like Le Brun,Le Vau,Le Notre,tragedy-play writes like Corneille and Racine,literary critics like Boileau,carpenters like Boulle and many other,among whom even the tens of thousands of laborers,who died or became ill while turning,with immense efforts and during decades of relentless work,the inhospitable marshes of Versailles into Europe's most famous and glamorous royal residence... The sun-king is depicted in an awkward,somewhat strange way:the immense opulence of his lifestyle is known,however I always pictured him much more formal and reserved,almost arrogant,distant in his majestic dignity,exhaling a spartan sobriety and god-like greatness out of every pore. Without being a parody or caricature of the real Louis,I often got quite the opposite of what I expected-he seems to me vulnerable,lonely,often unloved and misunderstood,unbalanced,craving for appreciation and success(historically,these attitudes can be partly explained by the fact that Louis was at the beginning of his reign,before he gradually became an absolute ruler). And Louis dances...Russel's The Devils seems to anticipate this film,as we see that also Louis the thirteenth,none else than the sun king's father is also depicted as a music-lover,an innate artist rather than a monarch(remember Russel's creation and how the French king from that film was depicted wearing almost the same elaborate costumes and performing almost the same histrionic,yet fascinating dance movements),however Russel's intention was to detract French monarchy as decadent,capitalizing on the homophobic reactions the king's slightly effeminate clothing and gesture might cause,especially to the more conservative viewer. A certain homo-erotic message is undoubtedly present,however not in order to deconstruct the myth of the sun-king,it is often hinted how hard it is for Lully,who anxiously tried to closet his bisexual desires and fit into the heterosexual mainstream,to keep his secret love for the king hidden well,even if strictly heterosexual in his private life it is a historical fact that Louis the fourteenth is known to have been an extremely good-looking man and therefore likely to attract admirers of both genders-I think the actor playing Louis is a good choice as he both resembles the historical character and is handsome enough to justify Lully's crush,however a profssional dancer would have also depicted truthfully Louis the showman rather than the politician(or a politician trough his on-stage extravaganza,as an expression of power and a manipulatuive technique),this very side of the king's personality would have been the ideal part,even more than for Magimel or Tarding for brilliant real-life performers Nurejew or Baryshnikow.Another historical character with whom the sun king might be compared is the Emperor Nero-he too build an impressive,megalomaniac palace as symbol of his absolute,almost divine power(Versailles being a baroque version of the legendary Domus Aurea-The House of Gold),both being fascinated of overindulgent self-marketing by comparing themselves to particularly grand and lavish imagery like the sun,the sun-god,gold and the golden age,both of them being known not only as protectors of art but also as performance-Nero scandalized the virtuous Romans with his acting and his often effeminate costumes and parts,just like young Louis shocked the Catholic circle gathered around his aging and strict mother and some exaggeratedly pious and narrow-minded aristocrats,which rather than understanding the beauty of art played the strict moralists(though often immoral themselves). In the end,as we also know from history,the sun-king succeeds to fulfill his dreams of magnificence,however at a high cost,among the ones who payed the price being eventually the court composer himself:Lully got injured while stubbornly insisting to conduct a Te Deum which his monarch didn't even honor with his presence,this injury getting infected and causing Lully's death(this is historical fact,Lully really died this way),the whole film being,like in Amadeus,a deathbed confession recalling the most important moments in the composer's life. Even if Lully's death appears as accidental,useless and stupid,it gave his life the ultimate meaning and apotheosis-by refusing to accept the amputation of the wounded body-part he ultimately sacrificed his life to his sovereign,being the perfect subject,faithful to his master till the end,giving both his work and his love for the king a noble and uplifting conclusion,defying&defeating all the rumors and irony spread by his many rivals.

Malena (2000)

Of sexuality and other demons....

[9/10 · 10 March 2005]

Malena is a stunning film,shocking to "pious" purists&moralists;highly recommendable for the fan of true-blue Italian art film. The story begins at the dawn of the second world war,in a small Italian town somewhere in the utmost isolated,provincial Sicily,the mood of this dusty,archaic,strictly catholic settlement being like in Fellini's Vitelloni or the Don Camillo series-that typical Italian small town,event less,narrow yet not lacking a certain beauty. In this environment,a bunch of horny schoolboys just having reached puberty(they are depicted realistically,as somewhat vulgar,noisy,talkative,yet harmless whereabouts,as sort of Vitelloni in their early teens)spend their time,as expected,mostly thinking,speaking,boasting and fantasizing about girls,talking dirty,getting off...everything is shown credibly,unprejudiced,yet never explicitly sexual. Among them is the twelve year old Renato-not good-looking,not special,just craving for sex(note than in Mediterranen countries teenagers are early bloomers,probably due to the climate,though nowadays entering puberty at this age is nothing unusual,irrespective of country/region)who gradually discovers himself(literally)as sexual being.Of course,it won't take long that his obsessions are directed towards a more substantial object of desire,the a several years elder(yet not much elder,looking only far more mature&ripe)Malena,who just married a young and attractive officer.Her name is symbolical:Malena is abbreviation/nickname derived from Magdalena,like the Bible's most famous carnal sinner of female gender,who turns out to be extremely virtuous in the end. For a while,being attracted to Malena is for Renato a way to ease himself of growing sexual needs,even if she doesn't know for one single moment how much she's being longed for-in a scene familiar to most male viewers we see Renato masturbating while picturing her nude and fantasizing about "doing"her,proving that the ultimate sexual organ&incentive is the brain and that even in a time when pornography was not so widespread and developed people found ways to stir themselves while having sexual intercourse and/or jerking off. Well,Monica Belluci,a stunning,fiery Italian beauty(a contemporary version of Cardinale,Loren or Lollobrigida),is just made for the part as Malena,she is physically voluptuous and besides that incredibly charismatic and fascinating,so it's not too hard seeing her as the perfect pin-up girl,in my opinion she could arouse even a homosexual or an impotent man(Renato is,of course,neither of these two categories,so...),besides physical beauty Belluci's delivering one of her finest performances(her real talent is proved in this rather unusual part,not in her forgettable,largely conventional,unintelligent,unimaginatively banal parts in Matrix or Mission Cleopatra). Renato's petty-bourgeois,fundamentalist Catholic parents(especially his tyrannical father,who considers beating up his children as ultimate pedagogic method)find out about his solitary practice,yet not about Malena,so after punishing him and lying that masturbation causes blindness(what a dated trick!),they eventually decide that he is not getting "it" and he needs a woman.Subequently he's taken by his father -it's surprising to see that even in yesterday's traditional,conservative Italy people were much more libertine than we might presume-to a brothel,where he chooses a prostitute strikingly resembling Malena and even enjoys it. In the meantime,Malena's husband is killed in battle,she then loses her father too,so,left without any means of subsistence,knowing that several male members of the town's better half have always longed for her,she becomes a prostitute herself. While seeing how she is humiliated by her clients and due to her lifestyle,Renato discovers that he is more than sexually interested in her,starting to feel a strong affection and devotion towards her and,finally,real love(though I'm not sure if it was love or only a confusion in an oversensitive,naive,horny teenager,who is easy to impress and to seduce,before being able to comprehend what's happening to him).He even suffers silently because he would like to gentlemanly free her from her misery,yet is too young,too small,too unimportant to act. The climax of this film is the scene were Malena is barbarically "punished" by the hypocritical moralists in her town,being,just like the biblical Magdalena,almost beaten to death-the brutal reaction of narrow-minded crowds acting more as an outcome of their frustration,envy and jealousy may be compared to similar scenes seen in Alexis Zorba or Ryan's Daughter,where we can see "sinful"(in fact,Malena is,just like the young widow or Rosy Ryan,not a whore but a woman who is just living her sexuality more openly than the dated,false,strict morality of her narrow-minded community is permitting-but who's this community to judge anyway-the cause being much more the bottled-up in-satisfaction of the men who couldn't have her and the women who couldn't enjoy their sexuality as she did,rather than a strict,yet rightfully justified punishment). Finally Malena survives,but her pride is tainted for good,her husband,believed dead,returns as a cripple,but in spite of this they both try to resume their marriage-after all,they still love each other. Psycholgically brilliant is the reaction of the community after she quits her trade and returns to her husband-being a married woman,the same people who nearly killed her,treat her with(faked,merely theatrical)respect as she's now a married woman-it just proves how much the status a of a woman depended then not of her personality,but on strictly social,superficial,bourgeois criteria. Renato also underwent a painful change;in the touching closing scene he finally get's to speak to her,without letting her know what he felt for her-tragically he realizes that Malena is the only woman he will ever love,even later on (as an adult)he discovers that he can love no other one like her-ironically,the love for the persons we truly care about is often unfulfilled. This film is among the best creations about puberty&coming of age a,comparable to Burning Secret,The Cement Garden,Dillo con Parole Mie,Du Poil sous Des roses,Zappa,Torless or Jeux d'Enfants.It made me nostalgically look back at my experiences(as incidentally,I also entered puberty at the age of twelve,yet,sadly,without someone like Malena). I don't think that it portrays females,especially Malena,in a chauvinistic way:that females will always be in male's fantasies,even in dirty one's,is a biological fact;even more this film is an intelligent warning of not letting false morality,prejudice,chauvinism-even if Ricardo's folks had no bad intentions,they were far too strict- destroy the beauty of love,sexuality,sexual and sentimental freedom,imagination and romance. An art film and a lesson of life recommendable for teens and adults alike!

Indecent Proposal (1993)

Is Redford copying his part as Gatsby?

[6/10 · 6 March 2005]

This Hollywood-love story seemed to me as a somewhat tasteless copy of Gatsby set in our days.Did someone notice the striking similarity between John Gage,the sinfully seductive billionaire from this film,and Redford's earlier character Gatsby? Up to the encounter with this character the film seemed fairly well-done,yet uninteresting.It is how about a woman(Demi Moore) met the man of her life(Woody Harrelson)and how they plan to live together in an idyllic marriage,have kids and you can guess the rest. But as such respectable outcome would have made this film utterly event less,disaster strikes shortly after they exchanged wows,being hard up for money they head to Vegas in order to save the family's budget and,as expected,end up broke. This is the moment when destiny is giving them a chance in a strange way-they meet mysterious John Gage,billionaire and single,who just witnessed how they lost their last money. And as money can buy everything,he is about to strike a deal with them-would the husband lend his wife to him for night only in exchange of one million crisp,freshly printed,authentic,hard-earned bucks? Well..the proposal sounds a bit too over the top even for a cynical environment like Vegas or the U.S.,where people in need for money do much more humiliating things for much less(it's capitalism,baby!): on one hand her virtue as good wife will be compromised for good and she'll have to live with her guilt,on the other hand she will become in an instance one million richer for a job most women would do for free anyway-for the sheer pleasure of the "act" especially with someone like Redford,notice that the chemistry between them is mutual,Moore's character not even concealing it,in spite of her much loved husband.For Gage she is nothing but another pastime which comes quite affordable to him as he won and lost three,not one,millions while gambling,untroubled as if it was just spare change. What she doesn't know is that the business will have unwanted consequences for all the three of them,as it will soon turn out to be more than an issue of money. I think that John Gage resembles Gatsby-his elegant garments,his house seems just taken out of the 1974 version of Gatsby,his car,in spite of being a more contemporary model,is also yellow and a Rolls-Royce,just like Gatsby's,even his initials match J.G. being possible to stand for both John Gage and Jay Gatsby.He is even having an affair with a married woman,though Moore's character is not the spoiled Daisy,so doesn't actually have to impress her with luxury(even if he does it,being a true gentleman).Yet another,even more important similarity with Gatsby:he is extremely vulnerable,very lonely under his good-looking,elegant exterior,craving for affection and probably closeting a haunting mystery from his past,trying to make up both for his past and his solitude. Redford is credible in this part,even more credible than as Gatsby-he's either the cocky lover boy(but with moderation,not vulgar,just for en extra touch of thrills),either smart-ass and patronizing like the CEO of some multinational enterprise,handsome and sexy in a very narrow,conventional,American sense of the word,extremely good-looking and athletic yet lacking depth,inner beauty,charisma.Nevertheless I think that back in 1993,in spite of his age,most American women would have accepted Redford's proposal,not the character's if not acted by someone at least as good-looking as him,for free. However as the story twists and he discover that,besides physical attraction she is about to fall in love with him(and he also knows that their love is uncertain and would probably just make her suffer)he finds a very gentleman-like way to separate without hurting her,stating that she did't mean anything to him,that she's just one of the many women which he seduced using the same method,although this is untrue and he really loved her,not only desired her.By letting her go and try to rebuild her life with her less privileged husband,Gage,like Gatsby turns out right in the end.Unlike Gatsby,he doesn't pay with his life for believing in his ideal so much that he overlooks the real face of the loved woman,however he also has to face another sort of death-the death of his dream about the ideal,always longed for,seldomly accessible(yes,in spite of intercourse and humble background she is still inaccessible to him).Due to this romantic,even if somewhat corny outcome,and the sometimes more than conventional character Gage this film might be more than a typical,forgettable Tinseltown blockbuster.

Modern Times (1936)

Still very actual&funny!!!!

[10/10 · 2 March 2005]

I loved this movie from the fist time I've seen it and would watch it for countless times without getting tired. This is what I call flawless&timeless comedy.

Yet a comedy of the more serious sort,a somewhat humorous version of a movie symbolically anticipating modernity,in the style of Metropolis or 1984. Instead of depicting this topic in an apocalyptic style,he analyzes the issue in a humorous style,at the same time critical. The story is set in hard(by the way might the title be inspired by Dickens's famous novel "Hard Times"?,Dickens also being a ruthless social critic,both Dickens and Chaplin having grown up in London's most desolate neighborhoods,both having experienced hunger,utter poverty,society's worst parts before they both became rich and famous)rather than modern times,in the time of the Great Depression.

Whatever Chaplin stated,the film has a clear social message,the opening scene beginning with a black sheep among white ones,the very next second instead of the sheep you see a very sheepish crowd of busy workers flocking,hurrying to work(needless to say that the black sheep is,of course,the Tramp)-a brilliant symbol standing for the way consumer-society is altering mankind into animal-like,unidentified,mechanized masses. This time the Tramp,again nameless,appears in the cast simply as "a factory worker",but still he is nameless and also unfit for living in an industrialized(or any kind of)society. The way industrialism and modern living is altering our natural self is depicted in various scenes:long after work Chaplin's character compulsively and convulsively repeats the repetitive moments he is daily performing at the assembly-line(criticizing Ford?),the feeding machine: it feeds the worker automatically so he doesn't go on lunch break and therefore he saves time-it just shows how extremely thrifty and greedy capitalist bosses can be to introduce such appliances,and,the most iconic,best remembered scene from this movie when the little fellow is literally turned,twisted among the wheels of a huge and surrealistic industrial machine.

Following various mishaps the Tramp is first believed to be a Communist,as a red flag accidentally fell of a truck and as he is following the truck in order to give the flag back he unintentionally waves the flag,attracting the masses of hungry,unemployed,angry people into the streets and into a demonstration(after all this is the Great Depression). In a series of adventures,in which the Tramp is involved,including being jailed,being taken for mad,being employed and then fired,he doesn't much alter his characteristic lifestyle-extremely miserably poor,yet somewhat careless. And he's got a female companion to stand by him,the(also nameless)Gamine,superbly acted by gorgeously attractive then-wife Paulette Goddard,as poor,wild,bohemian,good-humored as he is: they even fancy Paradise together,in a respectable home combining both modern comfort and luxury but also a return to a more natural,country-style living(almost like Biblical Paradise).

Then comes my favorite scene from this movie,one of the most funny in movie history,the scene where Chaplin sings gibberish his all time hit the Nonsense song-pity that i don't have the text,I would so gladly sing along!Ironically Chaplin first wanted to sing the original version of it,the than famous hit "Titine" complete with all its lyrics but by not doing so he made film history-as the Tramp has the text written on his cuff which he accidentally lost he has to improvise in front of his audience,singing imaginary words sounding,without actually being so,somewhat French or Italian,accompanied by Chaplin's characteristic gestures,depicting a possible storyline for the imaginary lyrics-later on this scene was copied,without the same wit and fun in many films-for instance,look carefully at the act performed by the wandering entertainers at the hotel from Death in Venice or the carnival scene from Fellini's Vitelloni,where an overlong instrumental version of Titine is played by the band,the effect being,as expected,terribly entertaining and hilarious,matching the mood of the partying crowds,being still the perfect party music in 1953 like it was in 1936(and probably even today).

Seldomly a film has captured the essence of consumerism more accurate than this-applying to our today's world more than ever,seldomly a comic has inspired so many other great comics. Should never be forgotten-that is if you need a huge portion of healthy and yet intelligent laughter over and over again.

Love Me If You Dare (2003)

Cap ou pas cap?

[8/10 · 2 March 2005]

This film is an interesting combination between child-like innocence and violent cruelty, somewhat like Blur's video for Good Song, screamer-type computer pranks or Happy Tree Friends.This might make the film seem disturbing and chilling at first(I admit this is the way I felt when I first watched it and usually I'm quite difficult to shock), but I guess two or more viewings are necessary to fully understand it,once the surprising factor has worn off because the ending is known and a more critical, careful viewpoint is possible. The story starts like a childhood game-Julien and Sophie were first non-sexual buddies since they both were eight and they were already then linked by strange symbols of their friendship,like an old box which is actually more than a simple object to both of them(it will play an important part in the film,somewhat like Kane's Rosebud)and a game they both invented,starting with the question "cap/pas cap"(approximate translations: are you in or not,want to play or not,game on or not)before every unimportant and crucial decision,turning their entire lives into a game,a bet,a challenge in between doing or not doing several (mostly outrageous)things. Years go by and,like in Wuthering Heights(to which this film is considered to be a contemporary version)their relationship becomes gradually love/hate-sort of one,less because there was a real sexual or sentimental chemistry between them and more because,just like in Wuthering Heights they were close to each other(closer even more than their own parents)and kindred spirits since their childhood. But they gradually have to discover that what was permitted to them as children(though even then their were occasionally bullied by parents and teachers due to their game and other curiosities)becomes increasingly impossible for them as teens or young adults,that real life is not a game but a tough struggle for survival.They try to get together but something has changed,they don't manage to stay together foe long(a series of both objective and subjective factors are causing their separation)and while he seriously considers to flee to Afganistan and become fundamentalist Moslem(he is even,for a very short moment depicted as a sort of Bin Laden-this is one of the reasons why the film is brilliant,arty,so European,because it involves frame-stories,disrupted,alternative plots),she starts an affair with a struggling,unknown and poor football-player,whom she doesn't love. A few years pass and,in spite of their wild,strange personalities they are both involved in a bourgeois,"decent",respectable sorts of lifestyles(yes,sometimes not even the most bohemian can't escape it)-Julien,who dreamed in his childhood of becoming a tyrant,is now married,a father and has a lot of debts to pay years ahead for the house and cars bought for his growing family,Sophie on the other hand has married the football-player who is now an international star like Beckham,rich and famous,yet Sophie doesn't find the slightest satisfaction neither in her marriage nor her new wealth. Both have ended up exactly the opposite of what they once wanted to be and both of them dream(or rather desperately crave)for re-teaming. Julien's monologue as he is driving towards a(probably self-inflicted)accident is summing up his relationship with Sophie-in a crescendo that lasts several minutes,his final sentence before the crash being:better than life(relevant because it's also one of the titles of this film and it perfectly sums up their relationship-which was to both more important than the instinct of self-preservation). Since the accident had only mild consequences they decide that every great gift needs a box,a wrapping and,just as they played with famous old box in their childhood they resolve to be wrapped up together for eternity...in a box of concrete. With a last "cap/pas cap" they both accept("cap!")for a last time to conclude their game while descending into a pit soon to be filled up with concrete-it seems that French cinema usually ends a love story with both characters willingly dying together,see Jules et Jim or Mayerling. This final scene was for me the most disturbing,and probably it is so even to a viewer with macabre/dark tastes and/or least instinct of self-preservation,later on I realized that it was surrealistic,fairly impossible off screen: there are several construction-workers shown while deliberately pouring concrete on them,in real life a worker who would do that would lose his job and be charged with murder. Though at first I was unconsciously appalled(heck,damned instinct named above!),I then realized that the scene was rather symbolical than a true outcome-being also named love me if you dare,this film is a metaphor about the price and rewards of love: in love one must dare to accept every challenge,even death,to eventually find fulfillment. Daring also involves not losing the child-like fantasy beyond any reason at whatever the cost-for instance the characters in The Cement Garden,Twist-and Shout or Zappa(other beautifully deep European films about coming of age)similarly unleash disaster,but without bad intentions,rather an overreacted,yet natural unconsciousness. At a closer look,the ending(with the same old box symbolically crowning the concrete box)might even be considered a victory of unrestrained,innocently unaltered love over petty-bourgeois morality,of fantasy and imagination of the tyranny of real life-after all our definitions of what's right,of the values we're serving,of reason and morality might be wrong. This is why the film has been called poor man's Amelie due to its understated,unusual sort of optimism-especially Julien's life would have been worse than death,had he survived-both without the woman he loved and with his childhood dream shattered for good-this is the way many people are slowly dying as human tools of the consumerist world,without daring to break free. In fact this film might be paralleled also to The Royal Game(a screenplay of Stefan Zweig's brilliant short story where a chess-match becomes an issue far more important some might expect)or to Alexis Zorba or The Old Man and the Sea for its message-like:"what a splendid catastrophe" or "you can kill a man but not defeat him".

The Great Gatsby (1974)

Fairly the best version by now,yet not perfect

[7/10 · 1 March 2005]

Well,it is by now the best version of Gatsby,and I've seen three of the total four(all except the 1926 version,anyway unobtainable today). I think this one came closest to the original novel,yet much different from the original Fitzgerald novel-which,by the way is one of the best,if not the absolute best American novel ever to be written. The settings,music,original quotes,the acting are accurate only up to a certain point,a careful viewer discovering many inaccurate details if the film is compared to the book-Bruce Dern doesn't resemble Tom Buchanan at all,the actual Tom Buchanan being either a hulking brute(Oliver Reed or James Garner fitting much more accurately into that description,with their animal,macho-like physical structure,Reed's character from Women in Love even being a rich heir and playboy,a careless,spoiled,selfish,snobbish,hollowly narrow-minded and depraved bully)or an inexpressively beautiful all-American WASP,the cute,unimaginative,well-educated,dull,and again snobbish boy next door(even Redford could have been more convincing as Tom Buchanan:both more convincing as Dern and more convincing than his performance of Gatsby),Gatsby's Rolls-Royce couldn't have been a 1922 car because in the film we see a Rolls-Royce Corniche from 1925,actually the events even take place in 1925,not in 1922 like in the book,since eight,not five years have elapsed since Gatsby's first date with Daisy back in 1917,Gatsby's house isn't the like the one depicted in the book,certainly not the copy of an old castle from the Normandie(for example Hearst Ranch,which stood as a model both for Fitzgerald as he described Gatsby's home and for Citizen Kane's Xanadu)would have been a good choice,Daisy's hair is not blonde but dark,while Jordan Baker actually is blond,while she isn't blond in this film.... and the list of mistaken details might continue. Nevertheless,in spite of all the flaws mentioned above,the film still captures the enthralling beauty of the roaring twenties,being visually lush-the rich colors,textures,images used are so lavish,so lush,so intense that they almost seem disturbing.The costumes are stylish and extravagantly elegant,the music is authentic jazz and makes you want to get up and dance the Charleston. But some of the actors are clearly miscast,including Redford in the title role(which he even copies two decades later in Indecent Proposal,where he appears as an unhappy,mysterious billionaire craving to re-live the love lost in his shady past and willing to pay every price for it,thinking that his money and power could buy anything and anyone).Robert Redford does a fairly good job as Gatsby,but is clearly not the best choice.Gatsby is actually more mysterious than the athletic sunny-boy Redford,maybe not even handsome,however far more charismatic,expressive,even more eccentric. Probably the only actor I could imagine as Gatsby would be Richard Chamberlain,which played the best version of The Count of Monte Cristo the same year and by far the most credible Fitzgerald biopic in the following year-Gatsby is actually a sort of Monte Cristo who reinvents himself,assumes a new name/identity,acquires and spends an immense fortune both to reconquer his lost love and to come to terms with his past.Gatsby could have been depicted in a darker way,as he made his Fortune by using shady means during Prohibition("he killed a man"...or more),an elegant character exhaling a somewhat impure,demonic,oddly compelling fascination,manipulating and vindictive,seducing,twisting everything he touches. While Mia Farrow's performance as Daisy lacks originality,style,beauty,chemistry,just about everything.It's incredible that among so many actresses contemporary to her who depicted the twenties's flapper in a convincing way-Laura Antonelli,Susan Hampshire,Julie Andrews,Brigitte Bardot,Karen Black,Glenda Jackson,Liza Minelli,Lois Chiles,Natalie Wood,Faye Dunaway(the last one unjust deprived of this part in this very movie)she was the best choice.However there is something that Mia Farrow does excellently in her portrayal of Daisy-she looks extremely superficial,careless,vapid,insensitively spoiled and incapable of being serious or reasonable for one single second. The supporting cast on the other hand somewhat balances the film's flaws:Sam Waterson is credible as a mature,reliable,discreet,modest,intelligent,trustworthy Nick Carraway,just like in the book,Karen Black and Lois Chiles are also fitting well into their roles,while Scott Wilson as the mentally troubled,yet pure husband of Tom's mistress,plays his haunting part so well,that he somewhat resembles Peter Seller's genius to depict haunting,neurotic characters(Sellers would have been right for this part too). All in all this film is pleasant to watch and entertaining,but not Jack Clayton's ultimate masterpiece-is first watched it I was seduced by its visual splendor,watching it several times again,it gradually lost the magic I remembered.

Velvet Goldmine (1998)

The Damned and the Beautiful

[10/10 · 28 February 2005]

Though a major box office hit,this film is not commercial-it rather reminds of Italian Neorealism,Ken Russell,Orson Welles... In Citizen Kane style a journalist is determined to find out more about the life of the(supposedly)dead pop star Brian Slade,several years after the actual events happened.This inquiry becomes(just like in Welles's creation)a puzzle,a labyrinth of facts,legends,myths,rumors,each bit and piece of evidence telling its own partial truth. Brian Slade's story was seen by most of the viewers alike as a thinly disguised biography of David Bowie-he looks like Bowie,has Bowie's preferences and lifestyle,is even born in on the same day and in the same year like Bowie,on the 8th of January 1947-this film doesn't have to be an allusion only to David Bowie,on the same day,however twelve years earlier another famous music icon was born,with whom Slade's career also resembles:Elvis(trough a strange coincidence the same actor which played Brian Slade in this film also recently acted in a biographic film about Elvis). Besides Bowie and Elvis,Brian Slade also reminds of other influential stars of the twentieth century music industry like Jim Morrison,Mick Jagger,Ozzie Osbourne,Bryan Ferry,Kurt Cobain,Marc Bolan and others. Another comparison which plays a very important part in this film is the similarity between Oscar Wilde and Slade,from the beginning of the film Slade being shown as a modern day Oscar Wilde(or even Scott Fitzgerald,who like Wilde was an Irishman, a dandy,a big spender,a witty aesthete both in work and life,a controversial,often theatrical and scandalous character,who even died at the same age as Wilde,at 44,also bankrupt and forgotten by the time of his death only to also be rediscovered after wards)and also the whole film being spiced up with famous quotes from Wilde's work. In my opinion,Slade is,besides a great performer,a real genius. Already in his childhood he was misunderstood and bullied in school(like it often happens with talented people)and in his early teens he increasingly broke off his respectable,bourgeois,middle-class roots,dressing up in a somewhat exaggerated,opulent way(almost tasteless,but this is probably what being a dandy is about,playing a risky game at the verge of tasteless vulgarity,at the boundary between ridicule and sublime),engaging in bisexual experiences,and,above all trying his luck in music with increasing success. Still very young he reaches the height of his fame and has almost overnight everything a man can dream about-fortune,fame,an unrestricted sex-life,also a wife who loves him-their first date resembling to the fateful encounter between Jim and Pam immortalized in the film "The Doors"(she's called Mandy in the film hinting both at Barry Manilow's famous tune and also another woman immortalized by another famous song:Angie,the same Angie that inspired the famous Rolling Stones hit,this very Angie happened to be Bowie's ex-wife). While Curt Wild(more than Iggy Pop/Oscar Wilde),Slade's homo-erotic flame is a more energetic,temperamental performer than the cool,sophisticated Slade-his violent,unique on-stage performances of Jim Morrison's or Ozzie Osbourne's much talked about (by that time scandalous,because today not even such gestures shocking anymore)whiskeys,drugs,masturbation,exhibitionism or biting pigeon's and bat's heads off-shows.Curt Wilde is a true rocker and the match between him and Slade is more that sexual-they also communicate on an intellectual level ,their relationship being a somewhat idealized form of homo-eroticism seen also in the strange male friendship from Women in Love,in Fellini's Satirycon,or in the films of Visconti or Pasolini(both of them homosexual). But eventually Slade will,like many other superstars,pay the price for his success-one day he is allegedly murdered,without anyone realizing what actually happened-many fans of his thinking he would still be alive(another parallel to Elvis,of whom many people even today claim to have actually discovered that he is still alive),some even supposing it was all just a marketing strategy due to the fact that record-sales began to decrease,after all he himself predicted in a far too obvious way that he knows he's going to get killed. This last supposition,as preposterous as it sounds,turned out to be true-after all today's stars also know how to capitalize on faked suicide/suicide attempts,nervous breakdowns,sex scandals and every sensational lie possible,they,their agents and managers,the businessmen,the tabloids,the TV channels come up with,as long as it sells&pays. However,like in a literary work by Wilde or Fitzgerald,something did happen to Brian Slade,after his publicity stunt he reappears years later visibly changed-even the actor playing Slade is another one-in spite of his opulent shows in Liberace or Siegfried&Roy style(and notice that his natural style was always a top of the line,glamorous one)he clearly lacks the originality and wit from his earlier period,having become hopelessly mainstream,his decay being apparently not as radical as we are used from Wilde or Fitzgerald,Brian Slade does not die,he doesn't lose his mind,not even his status and fortune,he doesn't end up as an alcoholic or drug addict,his decay is far deeper and somewhat far radical one,the lost beauty,ideal,fascination once achieved are impossible to bring back(like Wilde's Dorian Gray or Fitzgerald's Gatsby he is trying without succeeding to turn himself into a half-god,to reach impossibly inaccessible ideals,or,maybe Kane's "Rosebud"). I can't quite understand why Slade(who seems to be like Jim Morrison more a poet rather than a superstar from a strictly commercial viewpoint underwent the change for other reasons than merely lucrative ones,or maybe he didn't act on purpose,it was just the way the ruthless world of showbiz seriously altered him,before he could have even the slightest idea what happened to him.Anyway,many questions remain open,a clear conclusion of the plot,a clear solution/answer to the quizzical labyrinth called Brian Slade actually missing,yet such an outcome fits the main character totally-gifted artist are often unpredictable,contradictory,controversial,hard to live with,difficult to understand,moody,unbalanced. This film is a masterpiece for various reasons,like the awesome soundtrack(including,among other songs,some Roxy Music hits-in fact something of Bryan Ferry's distinctive style influenced this film)which,like in Oliver Stone's The Doors or Abba.The Movie(two other films about two other music legends I would gladly recommend to anyone liked this film)is an important part of the plot,perfectly matching the character's actions,feelings,the mood,the period... Psychologically accurate,ruthless yet subtle critic the of consumerist star-system,both highly realistic(unprejudiced,frank) and highly poetic. I wish more art films like that were made nowadays.

Victor/Victoria (1982)

Just spectacular-much better than Chicago

[9/10 · 27 February 2005]

The first thing that struck me when I was seeing this film where the beautiful Art Nouveau and Art Deco sets,somewhat like in Patroni Griffi's Divina Creatura or the famous Valentino-Nazimova version of Camille. But beyond that it was as treat to watch this film over and over again. The scenes are beautifully crafted,witty and everything seems luxurious and fairytale-like without being tasteless. Like in Chicago,it's the story about the rise of a music-hall star. Yet Victoria Grant(beautifully acted by Julie Andrews) isn't Velma Kelly or Roxie Hart:she isn't doing it just for fun or to escape the death sentence(though,at least in the beginning,she seems "sentenced to death" trough starvation,being at first extremely poor),she really is a talented,yet under-appreciated mezzo. Trough the help of a gallant homosexual artist(Robert Preston in his probably most memorable part),actually more devoted and caring towards her than a heterosexual man,she pretends to be a female impersonator and due to this slippery male-female game she soon attracts the well-deserved attention a more high-profile performance(e.g. opera,her actual preoccupation)failed to achieve. Victoria resembles Sally Bowles from Cabaret:not only an innate performer,born to shine on stage every evening,but also everyone's buddy,informal and friendly without being vulgar,bohemian,always ready to have fun with or to cry on her shoulder,sometimes patronizing and stubborn,but always good-hearted,at the same time (genuinely,not theatrically)sensitive and vulnerable,in spite of her hard,androgynous,partying,eccentric outer shell essentially and overtly feminine deep inside. The boundaries of sexual identity are constantly and intelligently pushed in this film,leaving you wondering whether the characters are men or women;straight,gay or bi(not in as a deep,confusing psychological analysis,just as a Tinseltown extravaganza or a wild party from the Jazz Age-note that the events of this film are set in 1934);watching other films about the same period like,of course,Cabaret,Women in Love,Lucky Lady we noticed that in the twenties and thirties people handled their sexuality very openly,always eager to experiment,just for the fun/the thrills. Julie Andrews does a good job ridding herself of the Maria/Mary Poppins image,yet without destroying her charm both as performer and stylish diva:even if her character is moving with ease trough Parisian nightclubs and dancing,it still cannot take away that innocent magic and joy her radiant personality always brings up. The supporting cast is brilliant too:Lesley Ann Warren as a somewhat trashy vamp(in sharp contrast to Andrews' part),burlesque,noisy and vulgar in every scene,James Garner as the heterosexual gangster eventually falling for Victoria(a whole range of complications and comical situations being derived from that,everyone believing that Victoria is a man and therefore Mr.though guy being queer,which is unacceptable according to the mob's moral rules),then a bunch of typical Blake Edwards comical faces familiar to us from the Pink Panther series in extremely funny episodic appearances,like screaming:"Cockroach!". The music is stunning-lush and extravagant treats of nostalgic,genuine Jazz,the texts of the songs are humorous and witty-in comparison to that even Chicago seems an immature improvisation,nothing more than a cheap copy of this film's soundtrack-note that the song "All that Jazz", which Velma Kelly sings just at the beginning of Chicago sounds like a poor,tasteless copy of the timeless "Le Jazz Hot',she is even trying to imitate Julie Andrews' gestures,voice,appearance(unsuccessfully,that is). Victor/Victoria remains an unforgettable classic-its music,costumes,sets, and,above all,gifted performers being timelessly fascinating and entertaining.The perfect choice for every music-and art-lover,or whenever an escape from our stressing present into a glamorous,enthralling age is being craved for.

Noiembrie, ultimul bal (1989)

Almost forgotten,highly accomplished

[7/10 · 26 February 2005]

Being one of the last films ever to be made during Romanian Communism,this film is far above the standards of a film made during dictatorship.In fact,you couldn't even tell the difference.. It is a beautiful love story set in the nineteenth century between a sophisticated,stylish aristocrat and a beautiful girl of humble origin-somewhat like in Visconti's Gattopardo. Although separated by social barriers and a the difference of age,their love will not become possible rather because the elderly aristocrat is,like Visconti's character,too gentleman-like,reserved,polite to show his real self. The pinnacle of this strange,strictly platonic,yet beautiful and romantic relationship will find the supreme expression of intensity towards the end of the film,during an almost overlong ball-scene,where the melancholic and stylish waltz they dance together reminds of the famous Lancaster-Cardinle scene. This scene is probably the best of the film(along the ones describing the lifestyle of the aristocrat,his voluptuous seclusion in his opulent palace)and the excessive duration does not deprive it of its beauty-in a highly artistic way the mood becomes increasingly surrealistic,symbolical,poetic without being deprived for a second of its old-fashioned,nostalgic,luxurious beauty. This film deserves to become more popular than it was by now and being discovered and watched over and over(especially for old-fashioned,romantic evenings).

The Legend of Valentino (1975 TV Movie)

Franco Nero,credible as Valentino

[7/10 · 26 February 2005]

Not necessarily worse than the Ken Russel version.In fact it is hard to tell which one of them is the better and/or the worse,both of them having flaws as well as qualities. It is often hard to tell which is the best out of two films,simply because every film has its distinctive style and therefore it is hard to say what is better or worse,it's just style. Franco Nero is a more credible Valentino than Nurejew,in compare to the Russian ballet-dancer,he even has a genuine Italian accent,besides he looks more...Italian,he is passionate and handsome(maybe less expressive,yet more conventionally good looking than Nurejew) enough to pass as the(once)world's greatest lover. On the other hand this version is not so much a quizzical art film like the Ken Russel version,though it doesn't lack symbolical,metaphorical scenes-not in the inimitable Russel style,just to add a slight touch of class and mystery. The overall impression of this film is,as expected,of an immense,lavish parade of twenties'lifestyle,depicted in a both accurate and entertaining way. The focus of the story is about the relationship between Valentino and his friend,companion and adviser June Mathis,who(as it often happens in Tinseltown)did get few rewards for the fact that she facilitated most of his career-and while he became rich and famous overnight,she ended up increasingly poor,lonely and forgotten;and still she doesn't hold the grudge,still being devoted(and probably hopelessly in love)towards him.A probably overreacted love story,but it fits good into the film. In fact,almost everything about Valentino both as an actor and a private person seems to be a legend,a marketing gag,a one man-show,a cult of personality.Franco Nero,rather than deconstructing the myth,does a good job fitting into the Valentino legend. All in all the film is pleasant,entertaining,even fascinating at first view. I was inclined to think that movies like this are only for the fans of the period film,but now I'm convinced that films like this or like Russel's Valentino,Day of the Locust,The Bad and the Beautiful,The Last Tycoon and others like this should be watched by anyone once in a while,just to see the other face of that loved,hated,worshiped,but never quite totally understood Hollywood(and its either forgettable or immortal mass-produced idols).

The Devils (1971)

Where's the point?

[7/10 · 26 February 2005]

We frequently learn from the media(e.g.TV,tabloids,internet)that even today the Catholic Church is even nowadays tainted,flawed by sexual scandals and that its opinions on sexuality seem overreacted and obsolete even for a religious and moral person. We also know that Ken Russel is one of the most influential directors ever.But why did he have to make this movie? To show what?That seventeenth century Catholic consisted entirely of sexual maniacs/perverts like in the hauting paintings by Bosch or Breugel? Undoutedly cardinal Richelieu used unorthodox methods to rid himself of his political opponents,undoubtedly he was a ruthless social climber,but his methods were commonplace in his century(and are used even today by several statesmen or military/economically powerful states,apparently more democratic,with less amounts of bloodshed but the same cunningness).Yet he was no serial killer-tyrant,his methods did not decimate innocent masses(like Hitler or Stalin did),he didn't even look physically look like depicted in this film(the historical character resembled more to Urbain Grandier from this film,he wasn't clean-shaved and also did not look like a half senile,half sadistic old schoolmaster,nor like an SS-henchman). But Russel presents the entire French court as a gay bar ,without being homophobic,king Louis the thirteenth of France was not homosexual,he had a heterosexual marriage with Anne of Austria(though some claim he was actually bisexual).And even if he was-homosexuality is not a way of proving that a person is morally flawed-probably only from a strictly Catholic viewpoint,in fact there are other,more serious sins.... Urbain Grandier is a political victim of Richelieu,but his downfall is more hilarious than tragic.Note that his lifestyle is not so clean like he might like to suggest-but probably Russel is more tolerant towards him,because he was less perverted than other Catholic clergymen and his strictly heterosexual affairs should make him more appealing,more of a good guy(like the famous off-screen ladies man Oliver Reed,he should be stirring viewers admiration with his numerous affairs,suggesting a sort of natural,Darwinist,primitive morality-he should be funny or captivating,it is actually just pathetic).In fact both Grandier and Richelieu are the products of an amoral age,both of them being hedonistic and conceited,cynical and unscrupulous opportunists using the Catholic Church for their own career and purposes.Neither one of them is more moral than the other,the only difference being that Richelieu is much more influential,shrewd,powerful.The sets are chilling and futuristic,but simply hideous.Why not stick to the old-fashioned period piece? Though dealing with Catholicism,the film seems entirely shot in a cold,tasteless,vulgar Baptist Church(or belonging to some other futuristic,newly fashionable cult),hyper-modern sanatorium or spaceship,the sets were more disturbing and unbearable to me than all the cruelty,sex,blood,and madness depicted throughout the film;an antiseptic,non-figurative,minimalistic hell on earth where humanity is condemned to a cold,unimpressive,high-tech downfall at an industrial scale,in an apocalyptic killing-plant,where not mankind has turned diabolic,rather the presence of God(or any form of divinity),of morality,of justice,of elevation/absolution seems unfit in this icy,(biologically,ethically,intellectually)sterile concrete megalopolis. It got on my nerves from the beginning and I felt relieved when they finally crumbled.They might be interesting as an example of sixties-seventies tastelessness and what was then considered modern-hopefully we learn from our past and do not tolerate such withe brick monstrosities. And who were the Devils after all?The Catholic Church(or rather the barbaric methods used by the Inquisition)?Urbain Grandier and the people of Loudun? Not as much devils,rather simply mostly illiterate and superstitious people,who,throughout the entire Middle Ages(and even later)brought up orgies and demonic fits like the ones recorded in Loudun(yet not necessarily so libertine,Russels Medieval crowds reminding more of Woodstck than of the seventeenth century),not always with a demonic/immoral intention:life expectancy was shorter,diseases more fatal,psychic problems often regarded either as not existing or as demonic possession. Russel tends to see only the outer dimension,the scandalous/anecdotal part of the Middle Ages,overreacting them into a very haunting,yet historically anachronistic image-he clearly overlooks the historic,politic,economic,social and psychological background of the issue. Everything is thrilling,bloody,theatrical,but,if the senses are not challenged beyond the capacity to think,there is too little behind those depressing sets and strong thrills(this is the main goal of the chilling thrills-annulling critical distance). The point is lacking-it's okay to criticize history's flaws like Inquisition;but wanting to reveal,to criticize too much might have the opposite effect:dragging everything trough the mud without achieving anything. French history,even if flawed,deserves better(even from a director like Russel).

Arabian Nights (1974)

Neverending story

[9/10 · 26 February 2005]

Seeing Pasolini's version of the Arabian Nights reminded of Petersens masterpiece Neverending Story(the 1984 original). Like in the Neverending Story the power of the mind,of fantasy,of hope is not an abstraction but an unlimited,almost almighty force. An adult never ending story,due to its eroticism,but the erotic scenes and situations only add more mystery and beauty to this film. Eroticism,but not only sexuality,affection,love,passion appear as the ultimate initiating journey,as quest for beauty and ideal. However the film is much more intellectual than erotic,while the protagonists(some of whom are the same from Il Decamerone),mainly amateurs,apparently lack sexual magnetism.But this is where Pasolini's genius is asserted:the endless beauty of this film and its characters is not an outer one-body language,the force of expressions,the deep symbolism are to be slowly,carefully and voluptuously discovered... This film enthralls,fascinates and,at the same time,boosts the intellect.With every scene,every moment passing you find yourself more and more captured by something like a barbaric religion,oriental wisdom,a drug,a poem by Omar Khayyam,an exotic work of art or...just a strange succession of adventures from the Arabian Nights. Filligrane,indefinable,bizarre-both sexual and platonic love are described in this way;as the crucial adventure in everyone's life,the ultimate gateway to perfection,immortality-but not in the sense of procreation(rather the aesthetic&ecstatic beauty transcends everything);a religion of the purest pantheistic sort(Divinity is in everything and trough the few moments of ecstasy man can surpass the boundaries between simple mortals and eternal values,in strike of inspiration brought up by love and passion,both not in the strictly fleshly,human,commonplace sense of the word). Pasolini's vision of the Orient is highly personal and anything else but stereotypical(Ancient Rome in Fellini's Satyricon,Middle Ages in the films of Tarkovski or Ken Russel don't always reflect historical truth like a schoolbook,yet they depict a highly artistic,metaphorical vision of these ages and places,historically inaccurate,but artistically more accomplished&valuable than the dull historical truth);it is a fantastic space beyond good and evil,yet not Utopian(it doesn't necessarily exclude violence and cruelty,yet not in a commercial b-movie thriller/horror style,just as a touch to complete the force and depth of several images and situations. Irrespective of his homosexuality Pasolini doesn't only understand heterosexuality,this film gives the impression that he also intensely relishes it with every breath.This man feels heterosexuality!!!! Less entertaining than Il Decamerone(which,is not a less deep and meaningful film than this),intricate,sometimes difficult to follow,unceremonious yet uplifting,mysterious like love and sexuality(or at least our ideal projection of it)itself. Pasolini should have named his trilogy of life the trilogy of unlimited desire,unlimited passion or unlimited fantasy. Because like in the Neverending Story,the power of fantasy,ideal and passions seams in this film the source of life itself(and even a higher,evolved&idealistic form of life on another,more intense level).

Valentino (1977)

No facts,just art

[9/10 · 26 February 2005]

In the typical Ken Russell style,this film is definitely not an accurate,impartial,factual, Valentino biography,rather a very subjective and very artistic interpretation of how the director sees,feels,asserts Valentino's personality. Acting left me with mixed emotions-Rudolph(another famous,infamous,worshiped,controversial,fascinating,extravagant and much to soon dead Rudolph)Nurejew acts in a very uneven way,his part of Valentino being a strange combination of embarrassing flaws and very brilliant,highly artistic bits. At worst,Nurejew does not resemble Valentino's physical appearance(that's why the Franco Nero version,in spite of being artistically less accomplished,delivers a more credible Valentino,Franco Nero being a real Italian with real Italian accent),his accent is obviously Russian,some scenes are badly acted. On the other hand,Nurejew is credible as Valentino the dancer(the tango scene is superb,he dances even better than Pacino in the timeless scene from Scent of a Woman)and,being a homosexual,Valentino's supposed homosexuality(or homo-erotic tendencies),a much talked about but very uncertain supposition,is hinted without a clear yes or no through his acting. The story is told in a disrupted,Citizen Kane style:after Kane's death everyone who knew him tells his own story about how they knew the late;in this film,people gathered at Valentino's funeral recall several episodes from his life,each story representing a stage,a period in the meteoric rise from the penniless immigrant to the world's most famous and highest paid actor.But,like in Dorian Gray,the myth will eventually destroy its creator(in Velvet Goldmine,the luxurious rise and fall of a rock-star,will also remind of Oscar Wilde's timeless story). Everything in this movie is so roaring twenties:the elegant Rolls-Royces and other vintage cars,the lavish mansions(n.b. Falcon Lair wasn't even so opulent as depicted in the film,while the Garden of Allah,Nazimova's residence,is clearly a replica,because the real building was torn down in 1959),Valentino seems alive(and almost ready to burst into laughter)in his open coffin-even the way his body is displayed before the funeral looks chilling,theatrical and tastelessly glamorous:his very formal suit,his makeup,the flowers,the jewels,the fancy decorations,the marble hall,his opulently dressed and far too histrionic mourners(in a sharp contrast to that,the film closes showing the same dead body in an austere,bleak,utterly simple morgue,covered only by a blanket. The opening scene is impressive:the hysteric crowds bursting into the room where Valentino's body lies reminds-without going that far-of the unleashed masses in Day of the Locust-everyone seems to bitterly struggle to grab a piece of a holy relic. It is also interesting how the director puts into the film Valentino's poems or his famous boxing match,always at the verge between reality and legend;I particularly like the(most likely fictional) scene where a crowd of female admirers is loudly reciting Valentino's poem You in the garden of his villa-You is my favorite both among Valentino's poems and one of my favorite poems in general-,another highly poetic scene is when Natacha,his second wife is parallel seducing him and initiating him in the poetry of Omar Khayyam(actually,in spite of the quite revealing nude scenes together that show quite a lot of flesh,not only Nurejew was homosexual,but also he couldn't stand on-screen partner Michelle Phillips,the feeling being mutual,on the other hand the chemistry between the two of them and the magic of the flawless scenes together indicate how well this film is done to create such perfect illusion). In fact,you are left guessing,if-to quote Fitzgerald(another '20 legend,with meteoric&controversial rise&fall)he for real or just a character from his novels-everything isn't just an endless charade around masculine and feminine(in the jazz age both sexuality and fashion were ambiguous,androgynous,excessive,libertine,eccentric),around art and dazzling imagery. Undoutebly highly artistic(more than an inventory of luxurious settings without deeper meanings),not completely flawless yet all in all above average,this film is highly recommendable to every roaring twenties' nostalgic.