THE ROLE OF A DIVA AS PLAYED BY A DIVA... "CALLAS FOREVER"

It’s funny, I always thought Maria Callas was Spanish. I know how this came about too, I was brought up on a rather eclectic diet of nursery rhymes and operas and Carmen, as sung by Maria Callas was one of my favourite things ever. I still love it and the recording has been listened and re-listened to within an inch of its life. I guess at some point Carmen and Callas merged in my head, so she became Spanish. I was a little surprised to find out she was Greek. Surprised, yet proud in a funny way, you know, the Greeks are neighbours after all. But you know, in a way, it doesn’t really matter that much. Callas was, above and beyond anything else, a diva. A gigantic talent. And above such things as nationality. This is why it is so fitting that a grand actress like Fanny Ardent is the one who portrays her. A diva to play a diva. And of course we have Franco Zefirelli at the helm, one of the old masters of cinema and a close friend of Callas herself. The result? Yes. It indeed is the showstopper you expect it to be.

Callas forever joins Maria Callas in the last year of her life, 1977. She is only 53, but her voice is nowhere near what it used to be. Callas, a consummate diva, has shut herself up in her home in Paris, rarely going out and slipping further and further into depression. Her friends are worried about her but are unsure how to go about helping this proud woman until Larry (Jeremy Irons,) her old manager, has a brainwave. Technology means there is a way for Maria to return to the screen, if not the stage, despite her failing voice. The question is, will Maria accept this partial return to the limelight? Or is Larry’s idea too little, too late?

That was another mythic bit about Callas wasn’t it? I am pretty sure I remember the whole “thing” of the reclusive artist, going over and over the recordings of their former glory, finding its place in a lot of films, sometimes as a tragic element, sometimes as a comic one. Personally, I don’t think there is anything really funny about it. Anyone who lives long enough to reach retirement age is going to be plagued by feelings of doubt and depression. The feeling that they are no longer “useful” that they are “ready for the scrap heap”. The way the creative industries function today, the “retirement age” is a lot younger and the “fall” a lot steeper as one goes from absolute adoration to complete anonymity and this can go to the head of even moderately famous and talented artists, much less a musical talent like Callas who has been one of the top performers in her field for decades. It is the realisation that while you were once capable of so much, you are now maybe capable of only half that – or even less. It must be quite frightening to feel that you have decade upon decade of “absolutely nothing” ahead of you. No wonder Callas was trying to hang on to her days of glory.

Of course with subject matter like that, the film cannot go far wrong – a good story is definitely the backbone of any film but I honestly think Fanny Ardent does make all the difference. Much to my delight (spoiler alert, people) a good chunk of the film is taken up by the filming of Carmen and the cast watching back some of the most popular scenes. This gives the film the slightly musical, actually no, operatic quality a biography of Callas simply must have. But it also puts Ardent herself in the rather awkward position of having to pretend to be Callas who is pretending to be Carmen who is pretending to sing – and is actually singing with Callas’ own voice.  Because, of course, Ardent’s own interpretation of Carmen is one thing but Callas’ interpretation of the part is something completely different… Boy it must have been a challenge to work that one out! Another mention simply has to go to Jeremy Irons who is absolutely marvellous as Larry, who is almost as much a diva as Callas herself, a typical industry professional a little too tied up with his career to take care of his private life. Another strong character in the film is that of Joan Plowright as Sarah Keller, the journalist and their common friend who is also trying to get Callas back on her feet. The portrait is a wonderful, unflinching yet very humane portrayal of a very extraordinary woman. Ardent’s performance makes me hanker for the old days, the old fashioned stars. I strongly recommend this film, even if you aren’t a particular fan of Callas or the opera. Because, let’s not forget, the original Callas Forever was meant to open up Callas’ works to a new generation… Who knows… It may work its magic on you too… 

"KAFKA" - AND YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON LIFE...

Now, in our family it is often me who calls up Mom and gives her a list of things to watch. I am the big “movie watcher” in the family and Mom, it has to be said (sorry Mom) is a creature of habit when it comes to the kinds of films she watches. I mean don’t get me wrong, once I manage to chide her out of her comfort zone she’s often glad I did it, but it does take work. Usually. This is why when she actually sat down and watched a film by Sodebergh completely on her own volition, I was surprised. I was even more surprised when she loved it and insisted I watched it too. I had put the film duly on my list, but when it transpired she had gone as far was watching it twice in the same week, I knew I had to pull it up to the top of the list.

Franz Kafka (Jeremy Irons) is a clerk in an insurance office in the city. The city is much like all others, except that it’s administrative hub is The Castle. The officials from The Castle make sure order is constant and everyone knows their place.  And Kafka’s place is a particularly non-descript one, deep in a world where it pays not to stick out too much. And Kafka fulfils his duty of keeping to himself a little too well. He writes in his spare time and has a problematic relationship with a lady friend /fiancée of yore but apart from that there are very few people in his life. This is why it spikes more of his attention than average when Eduard, a colleague and one of his few friends, goes missing. The official channels hand out the usual explanations and soon his fears are realised and Kafka is called to identify the body of his friend on the mortician’s slab. Kafka is deeply saddened by this. But he also has something most of his colleagues don’t seem to possess: an inquiring mind. And the more he uses it, the more he begins to realise something doesn’t quite scan. The deeper he digs the fancier the conspiracy theories seem to become and at first Kafka will have nothing to do with them but then… Kafka runs out of explanations until he is only left with the unthinkable. And the only way to confirm his suspicions is to somehow break in to The Castle and find out…

There are several ways you can take this film. On the surface, you can assume it’s a simple thriller. And in that sense, it does its job beyond admirably. You will be gripping the arms of your seats and there is at least one jump-scare in there that will have you bodily leaping out of said seats. Jeremy Irons is perfect, so are his rather admirable co-actors Joel Grey and Alec Guinness. But one can’t help but stop and wonder whether that is really all the film is about.

Now, as the film is actually set in Prague you might actually think that “the officials” who conspire against the people and make the subversives “disappear” is an allusion to the Soviet occupation of the city – and I must say I thought of that myself for a while but then I realised… Well hang on, Kafka died in 1924. That’s even before the Nazis, much less the Soviets. It’s a mighty strange choice of protagonist if that’s the true aim of the film, one would have thought they would have put a bit more of an emphasis on Kafka, a turn of the century man, trying to adapt to Soviet ways… At this point, I took a leaf out of Kafka’s book and dug a little deeper. Like Kafka, my digging was rewarded with an uncomfortable truth.

The anonymity of the city, of the officials, of Kafka’s place of work is not really simply artistic licence. He is not “interpreting” some period or another. It is, in fact, the life we live. The world we live in. Kafka is, in fact, a beautiful and painful testament of an individual trying to come to terms with the fact that we live in a world that pushes us away from our individuality and towards conformism. Oh come on, I’m not romanticising, you know it’s true. I know you know. In the film, Kafka is not young, he has been in his position for a number of years now. But you know the feeling you got when you started your first full time job? You know, that grey, numb, nameless feeling when you looked down at the rush hour crowd around you as you came down the escalator when you were commuting to or from work? That sinking feeling you got when you thought “what a beautiful day” but then realised you were going to be at work all day? That heart ache when you realised your paint brushes / musical instrument / books/ whatever the particular tools of your artistic dream used to be are now under several inches of dust because work doesn’t leave you the time or the energy? What about when you realised you had the same phone /hair cut /clothes (possibly more than one of the above) as your colleagues? You laughed, but didn't you feel a certain, soreness that is hard to name? That’s what this film is about. It is not a “happy” film by any stretch of the imagination. But it does such a good job of putting a feeling into motion and making a thriller out of it that well… You MUST see it. Joel Grey’s perfect characterisation of the petty official whose work has become his entire life is work watching on its own. He obsesses over every detail and is draconian about the observation of the most meaningless rules. I mean, EVERYONE knows at least someone like that… You don’t? Oh that’s dangerous… I advise a long hard look in the mirror. It might not be too late. 

WATCH YOUR BACK, IT'S A JUNGLE OUT THERE... "MARGIN CALL"

You guys know by now how dedicated I am to my films and my film watching. But even I need my sleep. Especially since, working in events, my hours are slightly “off kilter” at the best of times. It is generally not a good idea to put on a film in the middle of the night (and by that  I literally do mean around midnight) saying “oh I’ll just watch half an hour to wind down”.  This, generally never “actually” happens, even I know that. But I did not expect to throw caution to the wind and sit up until well after 3.00 a.m. (on a day that actually had an early start too), thereby knocking all my energy levels like dominos for days. So worth it. In short, first lesson, watch Margin Call at a reasonable hour. You will be compelled to finish it and trust me, the “knock-on effect” is best avoided, even though it is worth it for such a great film…

The storyline does not seem nearly as nail-biting as you might think at first glance. We open at an investment bank. It is the early stages of the economic crisis, hence cutbacks are the order of the day. The “axe-men” are brought in and an inordinately large number of people lose their jobs. In this crowd is the incredibly able risk management division head. Almost as an afterthought, as he is almost physically thrown out of the building, he passes a report he was working on to his protégé Peter Sullivan (Zachary Quinto of Heroes fame). While Peter is not quite sure what to make of it at first, he gets stuck in and soon comes to a rather terrifying conclusion. The company is literally moments away from financial disaster. With so much at stake frantic phone calls are made throughout the night as the big guns of the company (Kevin Spacey, Simon Baker, Jeremy Irons) gather in the dead of night to try and figure out how they can save themselves from this mess. And what the cost will be…

First of all, of course there are rumours going round that this is a “real” story of a big company but we shall pass on those as we cannot seem to find any legitimate and official evidence to that effect. I mean, I wouldn’t know, economics has never been my strong suite. Thankfully the film does an excellent job at “dumbing it down” so that I’m pretty sure you will get the exact nature of the problem if you have some sort of a grasp on economics. If, on the other hand, like me you have a mental block on the topic, it doesn’t matter. Even I got the general gist of it. And trust me, a general gist was more than enough to make the story wildly exciting.

Of course here the story is not so much about economy but morals. About disconnecting from your feelings to survive. And I mean, check out the cast, how can the film NOT be chock full of emotion with a cast like that? As a person rather used to casting Kevin Spacey as a “bad guy” (though I think having recently watched him in House of Cards does have something to do with that) I was slightly taken aback to see him cast as the one with the conscience this time. I mean of course he is brilliant in both roles but you know what I mean. He does make a particularly good villain.  

At the end of the day though, the story is as old as the hills and really about a choice we all face every day. Good or bad? Looking out only for yourself or looking out for your fellow man as well? What if looking out for your fellow man also ends up meaning looking out for yourself? Oh darling, I hear you cry, it’s a film about bankers and traders do stop philosophising. Ah but you see, that’s the beauty of it. If you take the point of view that life is a cut-throat, every man for himself type struggle (and I don’t necessarily myself, but I can see why it would be considered a valid argument), what better metaphor for it than the trading floor? Or to put it another way, what better way to discuss the value of ethics but in front of a backdrop of the epitome of ruthless capitalism? I think that’s the real reason I couldn’t quite take my eyes off it. Well you’ll just have to see it for yourself. We can discuss the whys and wherefores later on…  

TAKING THE NEXT STEP IN YOUR DEVELOPPMENT - IN THE CREEPIEST WAY POSSIBLE - "DEAD RINGERS"

I had a thing about this film for some reason. Not a good type of “thing” either. I’m not sure why I had this thing; it has everything I usually go for in a film. Plot twists, a brilliant director, a brilliant leading actor (I mean, Jeremy Irons, come on…).  I got the feeling that somehow it would be a little too creepy. I came across the film multiple times and avoided it. Until I saw it in the school library and thought, you know what, this is dumb. I need to get over this. And boy am I glad I did. Here’s for getting over one’s fears and moving on. It can be one heck of an experience. Just like meeting the Mantle twins – only slightly less creepy.

The thing that’s creepy about Elliot and Beverly Mantle is the fact that they are pretty much impossible to tell apart. And this, as you can imagine, is a fact that the twins take full advantage of. They are famous gynaecologists, in reality quiet and sensitive Beverly does the research and the outgoing Elliot implements it, managing the “PR” side of things. But be it in consultations, board meetings and even on dates, the twins live perfectly interchangeably. After all they are the only ones who can tell each other apart. Until, that is, Claire Niveaux, a sultry actress with a very interesting gynaecological problem waltzes into their lives.  The unthinkable happens. The shy and reticent Beverly falls madly in love with her. And for the first time in the twin’s lives, he wants to keep her all to himself. Now there are several problems with this plan. Firstly, what will Elliot – who is generally rather good at getting exactly what he wants in life – say about this and secondly, will either of them survive this first severing of their umbilical cord?

First of all, Ok, I do love the idea. And I am pretty sure that throughout history twins have abused their looks and replaced each other in various capacities. I wouldn’t know, I’m not a twin. However, my cousins are twins, one of my dearest friends is one of twins and I mean… Yes, they call them “identical” twins for a reason, but it is realistically quite easy to tell them apart. I guess it’s all about suspending disbelief and all that but I don’t know, possibly because I was hanging out with my cousins who are twins just before watching this, I found suspending that bit a bit hard. But let’s not split hairs. At the end of the day, some twins are almost impossible to tell apart. And although it is abundantly clear that Jeremy Irons plays both, he does both so well we can let it slip. By the way, this is an opportune moment to remark on how hard it actually must be to play not one but two very complicated parts in the same film. Congrats to Jeremy Irons,  it must be hard enough getting into one character but he very successfully manages to get into two at once.

Or is it two, really? Because, while playing around and using every gimmick in the book with the twins thing, Cronenberg is really asking, as far as I can tell, whether they actually are two people or two halves of the same person. The way Kusturica phrased it in “Arizona Dream” was “one person too big to go through life in one body” or something to that effect. We may well be able to say the same of the Mantle twins. It reaches the point when, every time Jeremy Irons appears on the screen, it is literally anyone’s guess which one he is. But don’t worry, clues are abundant. The insecurity lasts just long enough to shake you. And shake you this film will. It is definitely, definitely not for the faint of heart. But worth every spine chilling minute. 

A TOUCH OF HISTORY AND ROMANCE : "KINGDOM OF HEAVEN"

I heard a lot of bad stuff about this film. The criticism ranged from the political messaging to the lack of originality. I had next to no expectations from it when I had to watch it for course purposes. I have to admit some of the criticism is true for some things but I did still enjoy it, hence I thought it only fair to write it up. Let me try and explain what I mean. Balian (Orlando Bloom – yum!) is a poor blacksmith that has grown up a bastard in a small village. He isn’t very well liked (it is the 12th century after all) and his life has grown even darker after the suicide of his beloved wife following the death of their child. Into his dark world comes a piece of good fortune Balian never expected. A rich baron comes along and reveals that he is Balian’s father. He lives in Jerusalem after the crusades and he is in a position to offer Balian a brand new life in Jerusalem, the chance to start again from scratch, with wealth and power. The problem is, however that this new world Balian is brought into is governed largely by intrigue, greed and the lust for war. Balian only aims to find forgiveness for himself and his wife (whose suicide, it is believed in those days, means she wonders around hell, headless). But will his will to do the right thing by those he is responsible for and for himself prevail over the forces around him? Ok, so you can see the whole pattern coming out already, right. It starts off kinda like Cinderella actually now I come to think of it. Our beautiful and unfortunate hero is delivered from his cruel fate by what is, for all intents and purposes a fairy godmother. Then, the moral side of the story begins. Will Balian be tempted by his position and new found wealth or will he stick to his morals and principals? You can well imagine what the answer is. The film does take an interesting tack though. It is, in my opinion, a bit of a commentary on the wars being fought in the name of religion, the wars that have in fact been fought all through history. Balian is not particularly religious, in fact it is never openly said but implied that he has lost his faith if he ever had faith in the first place. And yet, he is the truly good person in the film, the hero if you will, which I found a tad surprising. It is true that Ridley Scott puts a rather “perfect” ending on the film and Balian ends up being a little too good and moral to be believed, his one major flaw being his lack of faith (which is not even really portrayed or demonized as a flaw come to think of it). The film is good fun though, contains some good emotional moments and made for a good evening’s entertainment all in all. Just don’t expect it to rock your world…

TRUE LOVE CAN COME IN ANY FORM... "M. BUTTERFLY"

Now, this film is one I had to watch for a completely separate project I was working on. But the film BOWLED ME OVER. I had high expectations of the film (David Cronenberg is by far one of my favorite directors and Jeremy Irons is… Well, Jeremy Irons) and trusted the opinion of the person who said I should watch it but I really did NOT expect it to turn out to be one of the most striking love stories I have ever watched… Add to that, although I couldn’t verify it 100%, this seems to be inspired by real events – and Madame Butterfly.

Rene Gallimard (Jeremy Irons) is a perfectly average government official working in the French consulate in Beijing. The year is 1964; China is still “the mysterious orient” albeit with slight communist tendencies but nothing too serious. Rene has a very average life. He is in accounts; he is known as more of a pen pusher than anything else, is married and attends consulate events, pretty much like everyone in the French consulate. But then, one such event introduces him to the opera and a quite extraordinary diva. A Chinese artist, Mademoiselle Song, sings excerpts from Madame Butterfly. Rene later snatches a moment to talk to her – her beauty, her voice and her independent spirit charm him. He goes to the Beijing Opera to watch her perform, finds out where she lives… And she seems to respond to his feelings in the same way… Rene will be transformed; his love for Mademoiselle Song makes him confident and strong. She has strange and rather backward views on sex, (she will not let him see her naked among other things) but her feelings are without a doubt real… However, there are many things about Song that Rene doesn’t know… One of them is that in traditional Chinese theatre female parts are principally played by men… But it is not the secret concerning Song’s body that will be Rene’s downfall…

If you thought that this seemed similar in topic to “The Crying Game”, you would be right. Indeed that is the other film the same person advised me to watch. I did watch The Crying Game when I was younger and I was deeply affected by it but not as much as M. Butterfly. Irons brilliantly portrays the straight-laces Gallimard who is first transformed by love but then transformed again as he finds out the person he loved never truly existed on more levels than one… And John Lowe (who you surely will remember as the adult emperor in The Last Emperor) is stunning as the enigmatic Song Liling. It is this sense of lies and loss, of truth and illusions, that makes the film a true rollercoaster. I mean yes the sexual tensions, the acting, the whole atmosphere of the film were all absolutely stunning but the thoughts and feeling it left me with at the very end were the things that truly bowled me over... What is real? What is illusion? Does what makes us actually happy matter more than either sometimes? A film with great depth that I most strongly recommend…

Oh and by the way, if you reckon by hinting at one of Song’s many secrets I have ruined the film for you, do not be fooled. I knew this before I started watching as well… And it still succeeded in bowling me over…