Branagh
Ellen.Edgerton
> Liked Henry V but not nearly as much as Olivier's. Didn't care
> for Dead Again for its lack of originality. I felt he was showing
> off. Liked Much Ado because of Emma. Thought he was overacting and
> am still questioning him about his choice of Keanu. Am looking
> forward to Frankenstein because it would be fascinating to see how
> his theatrical sensibilities would play against De Niro's hard realism.
> Rolando
Well, you all know my thoughts on HENRY V but I won't rehash that. Suffice
it to say that as I speak, I'm gazing at the original release poster for
Branagh's film which someone kindly had framed for me for my 25th birthday
last weekend with a warm gold metal frame and a tasteful matte glass
finish. NOT FOR SALE. <g>
I'm looking forward to FRANKENSTEIN mainly because the subject matter
(from everything I've heard about the script adaptation) seems, if you
can indulge this, sort of Branagh-esque. It touches on stuff that Branagh
seems to be interested in: ambition and guilt (the Doctor's), a sense
of not-belonging (the Monster's). It's interesting that Branagh's
conception of HENRY V touched on these things too, what with the ambitious
young king who also suffered from a sense of guilt and a certain sense of
alienation (the loneliness of command). And suspicion, too, I would imagine
with DEAD AGAIN and the suspicions everyone has about both the Monster in
Shelley's book, and also Frankenstein himself (with all that business with
Clerval's death, and his "terrible secret").
On the other hand Branagh also seems to like these very frivolous,
frothy, chummy-wummy projects like PETER'S FRIENDS (which I thought had a
horrible script not worthy of any director's time -- they probably should
have called it BRANAGH'S FRIENDS) and the uneven but thoroughly delightful
MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING. I liked Branagh in MUCH ADO; I didn't think he had
any more bad moments than Emma Thompson did. She was splendid but
sometimes she overacted just a TAD. I know that is tantamount to heresy
especially now that Thompson is being esteemed The Greatest Actress of
the Half-Century on the strength of HOWARDS END and THE TALL GUY, but I
couldn't help thinking that her Beatrice's profession of love for Benedick
after being gulled in the garden was a little bit close to silent-movie
acting with the hand-clasping and all. Personally, I thought she was
much more compelling in HENRY V in a role without many lines, and most of
them in French. Lovely performance.
But back to Branagh. He occasionally strikes me as not a great actor, not
a great director, not a great writer, but rather an unbelievably
resourceful "busy person" (his own words) who hasn't been able to channel
his talents as well as he might. If the British film industry had only
had a couple of Branaghs when things started going bad, they wouldn't be
in the kind of fix they are now, I'd wager. That said, I think his HENRY
V was nothing short of a classic in its own right and Branagh's performance
in the movie is flawless AS IT WAS CONCEIVED. It certainly is a richer
conception than Olivier had, which is not to say that Olivier wasn't
good at what he did. (Chalk this up to a generation gap, folks.)
I suspect Branagh the actor is really only comfortable with two kinds of
roles, judging from his past work: slightly annoying romantic hero,
and ambitious fellow with something to hide. (See A MONTH IN THE COUNTRY
and HENRY V for examples of this last; he gives a very nice little
performance in A MONTH IN THE COUNTRY which fits this description exactly.)
Basically I just like Branagh in general because I know that I can plunk
down $6 and not feel cheated.
Rolando I liked your comment about Branagh's theatricality and De Niro.
I agree.
O'Ellen
James Koonce
I'm looking forward to FRANKENSTEIN mainly because the subject matter
(from everything I've heard about the script adaptation) seems, if
you can indulge this, sort of Branagh-esque. It touches on stuff
that Branagh seems to be interested in: ambition and guilt (the
Doctor's), a sense of not-belonging (the Monster's).
Very true; this script is GREAT. The images it evokes are very dark
and sinister and gothic. I look forward to this film also because of
Helena Bonham Carter, who in my estimation is terrific. She will be
playing Elizabeth.
And am I the only one who finds Robert DeNiro occasionally annoying
as a actor? He undisputably has his strengths, but sometimes the man
will wallow too much in something that might only be called
"actorishness", that is, too many tics and twitches and "character"
things that stand out and ruin the continuity of the action of the
film. An example of this is his role in *This Boy's life*, in which
I thought Leonard Di Caprio was terrific, and through his natural
ease as an actor, blew right past De Niro and all his methods and
techniques. Anyone agree/disagree?
---
James Koonce | "Wenn ich 'kultur' hore
William Morris Agency | entsichere ich
axh...@WMA.COM (NeXT mail) | mein Browning."
REALITY STOPS HERE |
Bob Wells
> Very true; this script is GREAT. The images it evokes are very dark
> and sinister and gothic. I look forward to this film also because of
> Helena Bonham Carter, who in my estimation is terrific. She will be
> playing Elizabeth.
At last, someone over ther who realizes that there is more to outstanding
women actors than just Sharon Stone crossing her bloody legs and demonstrating
that she really is blonde!!
Helena Bonham Carter was also great in "A Room with a View" IMHO.
Bob W. (-:
Mona Lee Ammon
I too sometimes have a problem with DeNiro. He seems to go way over the top
at occassionally. I especially felt this in Cape Fear. He just seemed like
your typical psycho (as we generally see them portrayed) as bad and wild
and mean as he could be. Subtlety doesn't seem to be his strong suit. In
Awakenings I thought he was a bit too much as well.
--- mona
On Thu, 9 Sep 1993, James Koonce wrote:
> (O')Ellen writes:
>
> I'm looking forward to FRANKENSTEIN mainly because the subject matter
> (from everything I've heard about the script adaptation) seems, if
> you can indulge this, sort of Branagh-esque. It touches on stuff
> that Branagh seems to be interested in: ambition and guilt (the
> Doctor's), a sense of not-belonging (the Monster's).
>
>
>
>
> Very true; this script is GREAT. The images it evokes are very dark
> and sinister and gothic. I look forward to this film also because of
> Helena Bonham Carter, who in my estimation is terrific. She will be
> playing Elizabeth.
>
Rolando Recometa
I disagree. Subtlety is his strong suit. His more flamboyant turns
seem to get the most attention from the academy and from critics in
general. But my favorite performances are his quiet performances in
True Confessions, The Last Tycoon, Godfather Part 2, Deer Hunter,
Guilty By Suspicion, Once Upon A Time In America, Mad Dog And Glory,
and even Stanley & Iris. He's great when he's playing wild, crazy
characters but he's just as transfixing when he's subdued.
As for the comparison between him and Gene Hackman which someone
else brought up (Was it you, Bob?) - Hackman is great but he's like
Duvall: they give workmanlike performances which can sometimes translate
to boredom. They play ordinary perfectly - in a perfectly ordinary way.
Rolando
Kenneth S. Rothwell
Shakespeare movies. What do people want? Sure, his Ado does
soften the tartness in Shakespeare's play, though perhaps with
the goal of revealing the subtextual affection between the acid-
tongued Beatrice and Benedick. Yes, Keanu Reeves is wooden, but
so is Shakespeare's Don John. He is another Vice figure, like
Aaron the Moor, Richard Duke of Gloucester, or Iago, except that
he doesn't quite make it. The whole Hero/Claudio plot is largely
a flop, which is why the Beatrice-Benedick affair always upstages
it. Michael Keaton's Dogberry is a kind of "switched code" in
that the expected Elizabethan clown is re-invented in a contempo-
rary mode.
When so many really terrible movies are being made, we
should be thankful for a producer/director who aims for the best
rather than the worst. If the visualization of the verbal is the
test of theShakespeare movie, then Branagh has few equals. I
now think that I may sound like his personal p.r. man. Not
my intention. Just a fan. Ken Rothwell
Ellen.Edgerton
a successful filmed Shakespeare comedy, I'd bloody well like to know who's
done it better.
He's already proven he can make both Shakespearean drama and comedy (as a
director) into coherent, credible and popular movies. He's already filmed
one of the best dramatic adaptations (with some help from Adrian Noble)
and THE best comic adaptation so far, IMO. The fact that MUCH ADO is now
the highest-grossing Bard flick ever is just icing on the cake.
O' "I Am Not A PR Agent Either" Ellen
David McFadden
I've seen. He was a lot but he wasn't too much, though I can understand
Koonce thinking so. When DeNiro's on the screen you can practically taste
him, and although some may find that too much I find it terrific.
I don't even remembr Leonard Di Caprio, who was he the boy? Geez, I can't
even visualize the boy now, and it;s only been a few months. I can still
see th boy's effeminate friend, with whom he played the piano, but not
the boy. Tsk.
-mcf
]
Rolando Recometa
Di Caprio was great and his scenes with his effeminate friend (I
forgot his name) were poignant. To say that Di Caprio stole the movie
away from De Niro is unfair. Di Caprio has the advantage of not having
been in many movies so we're still not familiar with his style or
mannerisms. It's impossible to get rid of all mannerisms but at least
De Niro tries to invest each character he plays with some originality.
When you look at a performance, you look at the totality of it and
not individual scenes. I always feel that De Niro creates full charac-
ters. Whether you like them or not is beside the point.
Why don't we pick on Branagh's mannerisms for a change? Like most
British actors, he acts rather than behaves, recites dialogue rather
than feels it. I prefer the Gary Oldmans and the Daniel-Day Lewises over
the Branaghs and Oliviers who are better suited for the stage where you
only need to hear their performance.
Rolando
David McFadden
infinitely better than Branagh's. You'll be transmorgified (?), and
you'll be thinking about it for weeks later.
-mcfad
Stephen Jackson
>....
> As for the comparison between him and Gene Hackman which someone
>else brought up (Was it you, Bob?) - Hackman is great but he's like
>Duvall: they give workmanlike performances which can sometimes translate
>to boredom. They play ordinary perfectly - in a perfectly ordinary way.
> Rolando
I just caught "Tender Mercies" on the tube a few nights ago. Given his long
track record of strong work ("Apocalypse Now," "Godfather I & II," "The
Great Santini," among others, I think Rolando has underestimated Duvall's
accomplishments. I don't mind the term "workmanlike" because it applies
to those professionals quietly going about their business without
calling undue attention to themselves. But to sum up both Hackman and
Duvall's careers by saying they "play ordinary perfectly - in a perfectly
ordinary way" is to damn them with faint praise. When these two actors
have passed from the scene, I hope the judgment by film historians is
kinder than Rolando's.
j-man
^^^^^
Rolando Recometa
You may have misunderstood me just a tad. When Duvall and Hackman
are at their best, there's no one better. I just feel that they haven't
been as consistent as De Niro, for example. De Niro's only bad perfor-
mance, IMHO, is in The Mission, which is a pretty good film otherwise.
You won't see him doing Days of Thunder or Pursuit of D.B Cooper or
Domino Principle or Narrow Margin. For every Conversation, Hackman has
three or more Company Business-es. For every Tender Mercies, Duvall has
a Betsy lurking around. They've tarnished their reputation by appearing
in so many clunkers.
I also feel that they're not as inventive and resourceful as a
De Niro or Oldman or Streep or Redgrave. For the most part they seem
content to do what the script requires. I like some garnishing once in
a while, a little color even if the role doesn't need it. Duvall did it
it in Tender Mercies and The Great Santini; Hackman in Conversation and
French Connection.
Rolando
Kenneth S. Rothwell
All the more reason to resist comparisons of the 1984 Burge BBC
Ado with Branagh's production. The Burge is television; the
Branagh, film. All kinds of technical and artistic goals separate
them. Robert Lindsey and Cherie Lunghi as Benedick and Beatrice
were, according to John O'Connor, "spirited enough" but somehow
not enough for me to recollect them very clearly. Hardly anyone
reviewed the BBC production favorably, the comments in my files
being mostly lukewarm.
Anyway I'll add to my lengthy list of undone things the need
to re-screen the BBC Ado to see if time moderates my judgment.
For that prodding, much thanks. Ken Rothwell
James Koonce
For every Conversation, Hackman has
three or more Company Business-es. For every Tender Mercies, Duvall
has
a Betsy lurking around. They've tarnished their reputation by
appearing
in so many clunkers.
Agreed, but like Michael Caine, they have all had long and (mostly)
successful careers. (And the question remains, was Company Business
a bad film because of a bad acting job by Gene Hackman, or was it a
bad script? If you ask me, it wasn't Hackman's fault.) For that
matter, as Michael Caine has said, he always takes the most
interesting project offered to him at any given time. I'm not
necessarily putting him in the same class as Gene Hackman or Robert
Duvall, but I do admire that the man works consistently. Ditto
Hackman and Duvall. (Days of Thunder was an awful movie, but Duvall
talking to the cars was one of the finer moments.)
Stephen Jackson
> You may have misunderstood me just a tad. When Duvall and Hackman
>are at their best, there's no one better. I just feel that they haven't
> Rolando
I applaud your high standards. But if you measure everyone against De Niro,
you're sowing the seeds of your own discontent.
j-man
^^^^^
Rolando Recometa
It's ok to be discontented. I think that we've become smug and
complacent about films. (O'Ellen, earlier, was ranting and raving about
how we should just relax and enjoy what's up on screen.) I always try
to resist liking the film I'm watching. If the film is really good, it
would win me over no matter what. Of course, you can still enjoy parts
of the film and not like it overall. I've certainly enjoyed Duvall and
Hackman even in their worst films. But it's like having sex with someone
you don't love. (I don't need to tell you what it feels like right af-
ter.)
Contentment breeds mediocrity,
Rolando
j-man
> It's ok to be discontented. I think that we've become smug and
>complacent about films. (O'Ellen, earlier, was ranting and raving about
>how we should just relax and enjoy what's up on screen.) I always try
>to resist liking the film I'm watching. If the film is really good, it
> Contentment breeds mediocrity,
> Rolando
I understand your position. But for me it seems too adversarial a posture
to adopt, although many film critics have made it their own. I approach
film with perhaps the naive optimism of a child waiting to be enchanted by a
good story, and believing that if I'm lucky, I might come away from the
experience with something to cherish in the quiet afterglow of my own
thoughts. When I buy my ticket and sit down in a darkened theatre to see
the latest offering by Woody Allen or Martin Scorcese or Ridley Scott, I
find myself wanting the film to succeed, hoping that Francis Coppola or
Wim Wenders will amaze me with some new cinematic flourish that will justify
the trial of sitting through 5 or 6 annoying previews and bad commercials
just to get to the "main feature presentation." It's hard for me to trash
the work of people I look up to, who have brought me many hours of sheer
delight, and the occasional glimpse of some sacred mystery unfolding.
I hate it when Woody bombs or Meryl Streep gets sidetracked into some
godawful mess that doesn't deserve to have her name in the credits. I don't
feel that I've lapsed into a state of smug contentment. It's like rooting
for the Cubs, the Red Sox or the Phillies. No matter how many runs they've
scored, or how many games in front they are, you can never relax. They've
run headlong into disaster too many times for their fans to ever feel
comfortable. After witnessing such unmitigated humiliation as LAST ACTION
HERO, HUDSON HAWK, or DEATH BECOMES HER, the word complacency scarce comes
to mind. If anything, you feel a sense of profound embarassment for the
people responsible for such work. Performance art is by necessity a
highwire act. And the actors and actresses who have devoted themselves
to that craft are constantly working without a net. I guess I'm always
hoping against hope that they don't fall. Which is why I could never
presume to be a John Simon or Pauline Kael. They too often approach movies
with the hardened stare of an IRS agent, rolling up his sleeves to audit
the next tax return. But to me, if there's passion and honesty in the work,
I'm willing to overlook a few questionable deductions.
j-man
^^^^^
>> ^^^^^
Chris Stolz
My atitude must be similar toyours regarding a film. For
me, the film has to work instinctively, it has to create a very
deep gut feeling, something basically inexpressible, and convince
me on an aesthetic level that I havn't learned to communicate
yet. Films that did this:
Blue Velvet, Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, Solaris, Andrey Rubleyev,
400 Blows, Eraserhead, A Short Film About Killing, The Cabinet of
Dr. Caligari, Citizen Kane, A Touch of Evil, Vertigo, L'Atlante,
Man of Marble, City Lights (Chaplin).
Then comes Rolando's critical viewing, where I turn on my
book knowledge, film knowledge and start remembering details.
This second viewing, grafted onto the first instinctive viewing,
produces my ideas about the film. But I think one has to
surrender oneself as completely as possible the first time or two
and let the stuff you can't write-- the camera, the scenic
rhythm, etc, wash over one. Know wh'um sayin'?
chris
Bob Wells #402
I hope your "Cabinet of Dr Caligari" is the excellent original silent version
(by F.W. Murnau?) and not the '50's version starring Glynnis Johns!
Bob W (-:
Chris Stolz
political film ever-- the question of Francis' sanity is
epistemological and moral and the film refuses to come down on
either side. Love to talk about this if anybody is interested.
chris