Category: films

Notes on the Synthesis of Film, Art… Life?

Recently I’ve just finished reading Paul Schrader’s Transcendental Style in Film: Ozu, Bresson, Dreyer (1972).  Yes, that’s before Schrader rose to prominence as a screenwriter and filmmaker. Is such a book a bit dated?  Considering the techno-reigning world we’re living in now, where speed is measured by nanoseconds, and where 3D and CGI have become the necessary features for movies to generate sales, I think we need to read this all the more.

The three directors in the book had produced some of the best movies of all time. Since I have not seen all the films Schrader discusses, I might not have grasped as fully his arguments and illustrations as they deserve. And I admit I do not embrace unquestionably all those that I do get. Nevertheless, there are many, many parts that I want to record down. I’d consider them crucial elements to mull over during the creative process in just about anything. I’ve listed some of these fine quotes in the following.

They all point to the axiom of ‘less is more’, the value of stillness and simplicity, the speechless sketch that speaks volumes, the importance of being over doing, the quality of sparseness over abundance, the bare essence of life.

Notes to myself: when watching, writing, reading, doing, or just plain walking down the mundane path of everyday, keep these points in mind.

  • Ozu’s camera is always at the level of a person seated in traditional fashion on the tatami, about three feet above the ground. “This traditional view is the view in repose, commanding a very limited field of vision. It is the attitude for watching, for listening, it is the position from which one sees the Noh… It is the aesthetic attitude; it is the passive attitude.”[1]
  • Ozu chose his actors not for their “star” quality or acting skill, but for their “essential” quality. “In casting it is not a matter of skilfulness or lack of skill an actor has. It is what he is…”
  • “Pictures with obvious plots bore me now,” Ozu told Richie. “Naturally, a film must have some kind of structure or else it is not a film, but I feel that a picture isn’t good if it has too much drama or action… I want to portray a man’s character by eliminating all the dramatic devices. I want to make people feel what life is like without delineating all the dramatic up’s and downs.”
    .
  • His films are characterized by “an abstentious rigor, a concern for brevity and economy, an aspiring to the ultimate in limitation.”
  • Given a selection of inflections, the choice is monotone; a choice of sounds, the choice is silence; a selection of actions, the choice is stillness–there is no question of “reality”. It is obvious why a transcendental artist in cinema (the “realistic” medium) would choose such a representation of life: it prepares reality for the intrusion of the Transcendent…
  • “The opening five shots of An Autumn Afternoon: The everyday celebrates the bare threshold of existence; it meticulously sets up the straw man of day-to-day reality.”
  • In films of transcendental style, irony is the temporary solution to living in a schizoid world. The principal characters take an attitude of detached awareness, find humor in the bad as well as the good, passing judgment on nothing.

***

.

  • Like Ozu, Bresson has an antipathy toward plot: “I try more and more in my films to suppress what people call plot. Plot is a novelist’s trick.”
  • As far as I can I eliminate anything which may distract from the interior drama. For me, the cinema is an exploration within. Within the mind, the cinema can do anything.”
  • On the surface there would seem little to link Ozu and Bresson… But their common desire to express the Transcendent on film made that link crucial… Transcendental style can express the endemic metaphors of each culture: it is like the mountain which is a mountain, doesn’t seem to be a mountain, then is a mountain again.
    .
  • The abundant means sustain the viewer’s (or reader’s or listener’s) physical existence, that is, they maintain his interest; the sparse means, meanwhile, elevate his soul.  The abundant means are sensual, emotional, humanistic, individualistic. They are characterized by realistic portraiture, three-dimensionality…
    .
  • The “religious” film, either of the “spectacular” or “inspirational” variety, provides the most common example of the overuse of the abundant artistic means… the abundant means are indeed tempting to a filmmaker, especially if he is bent on proselytizing. (Now… why am I thinking of Avatar?)
  • The transcendental style in films is unified with the transcendental style in any art, mosaics, painting, flower-arranging, tea ceremony, liturgy.  At this point the function of religious art is complete; it may now fade back into experience. The wind blows where it will;  it doesn’t matter once all is grace.

***

Transcendental Style In Film: Ozu, Bresson, Dreyer, published by University of California Press, 1972. 194 pages.

[1] Schrader quoting Donald Richie, “The Later Films of Yasujiro Ozu,” Film Quarterly, 13 (Fall 1959), p. 21.
The following three quotes are from the same source.

.

Some informative links:

Paul Schrader http://www.paulschrader.org/, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001707/

Donald Richie http://www.movingimagesource.us/dialogues/view/274

Yasujiru Ozu http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2010/jan/09/yasujiro-ozu-ian-buruma, http://www.a2pcinema.com/ozu-san/home.htm

Robert Bresson http://www.mastersofcinema.org/bresson/, http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000975/

Carl Theodor Dreyer http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/directors/02/dreyer.html

David Bordwell http://www.davidbordwell.net/

***

Floating Weeds (1959)

‘Floating weeds, drifting down the leisurely river of our lives.’

.

.

April is national poetry month… and I’ve been thinking poetry these days.  So that’s why the very title of this DVD on the shelf of the indie video store attracted me right away.  I took it down soon as I saw it was directed by Ozu.  Ozu’s films are visual poetry, the title ‘Floating Weeds’ is an apt prelude.

Floating Weeds (浮草, Ukigusa, 1959) is a remake of Ozu’s 1934 silent film ‘A Story of Floating Weeds’.  The title comes from a favored Japanese metaphor as the above quote depicts.  In this newer version the director has added colors and sound, and given his story a blossoming rebirth. The colors are vibrant yet the cinematography is contemplative.  Unlike some art house films, and despite its title, ‘Floating Weeds’ is enlivened by humor, human interests, and augmented by actions.  Despite the pensive mood the title evokes, I found it to be more story-driven than many of his other works.  However, it is characters that ultimately carry the story, and Ozu’s brilliant direction that makes viewers care about them.

The story begins with a train dropping off a troupe of travelling players to perform in a small town.  The master of the company Komajuro takes the chance to visit his former lover and see his son Kiyoshi, now grown up to be a fine young man, aspiring to attend college in the big city.  But Komajuro has kept his real identity as Kiyoshi’s father from his son because he does not wish his low social status as a travelling actor, and the vulgar circle he associates with to tarnish Kiyoshi’s future.  The plot thickens as Komajuro’s current mistress Sumiko finds out about his secrets. Burnt with anger and jealousy, she plots a scheme to destroy Kiyoshi by bribing the young actress Kayo to seduce him.  The young man soon falls for the actress, but the scheme turns into a full-blown mutual love relation.  Sadly, a marriage with Kayo would mean the quashing of his aspiration for higher education, and possible social reverberations and disgrace.

At the mean time, the drama troupe hits a low with disappointing attendance. The company has to disband.  Komajuro facing failure on different fronts, has to make choices not only for himself, but the future of his son.  In the final shot, the train that once took the travelling players to town now carries them off as disbanded individuals facing uncertain future. Like floating weeds, they drift on in the stream of life. And for Komajuro, he leaves town with the slim hope that his son would fare better than he in the oblivious currents of time.

I’ve enjoyed the subtle style of Ozu.   Here is one of my favorite scenes in the film, and the dialogues are as contemporary as you can find in a 2010 movie.  Whether one sees it as insight or foresight (considering it was remade in 1959), both are gems one discovers while watching the story unfold as casually as a quiet flowing stream.

The scene is about Komajuro talking to his son Kiyoshi as he arrives to his former lover’s home. All the years, Kiyoshi has only known Komajuro as an uncle.  Although Komajuro is ecstatic to see his son all grown up with a bright future, he is also wary that his travelling drama troupe does not measure up to what he would wish for his son.  Here in this scene, father and son’s conversation seems to touch on another issue: art and popularity.  Through this most casual dialogue exchange, Ozu might have conveyed his own ambivalence on the subject more sharply than any wordy treatise.

Kiyoshi: I’ll go see your show.  What do you play?

Komajuro: Forget it.  It’s not meant for you.

Kiyoshi:  Who is it for?

Komajuro:  An audience.

Kiyoshi:  I’m an audience.

Komajuro:  I know.  It’s nothing high-class.  Forget about it.

Kiyoshi:  Why show such plays?  Show something better.

Komajuro:  But I can’t.

Kiyoshi:  Why?

Komajuro:  Audiences today won’t understand good plays.  So you can’t come to see it.

**

In his commentary on the 1934 silent movie, writer and film critic Donald Richie notes that Ozu’s films are full of ellipses. There are story sequences he left out for the audience to bridge.  As well, he handled the story with restraints.  Such a subtle way of presenting the material is a very modern style of storytelling.  That might explain why I would care for characters in a Japanese movie made half a century back, where I have to read subtitles, and watch in black and white, or even silent.  Herein lies the ingenuity and artistry of Ozu, that an audience so far removed in time, space, and culture, would find universality and common ground to be totally absorbed.

The Criterion Collection 2-DVD set includes both the 1934 silent movie and the 1959 color remake. The first features commentary by Donald Richie, the later version by Roger Ebert. According to IMDB, ‘Floating Weeds’ (1959) is on Ebert’s list of 10 best movies of all times.

~~~~ Ripples

CLICK HERE to my review of Ozu’s classic Tokyo Story.

***

Yasujiro Ozu and The Art of Aloneness

Growing up in Hong Kong during the 60’s, I had my share of Japanese literature and films, as well, the early version of anime.  Books were in Chinese translations, films with Chinese subtitles, and anime needed no language.  As a youngster I had my fix of Samurai action flicks by the legendary Akira Kurosawa, or the early sagas of The Blind Swordsman deftly performed by Shintarô Katsu.  The fast, magical sword-fighting movements displayed in elegantly choreographed sequences defined what ‘cool’ was in the eyes of a very young film lover, decades before Jason Bourne emerged.

But I admit, I had never heard of Yasujiro Ozu (小津 安二郎, 1903-1963) before reading the book The Elegance of The Hedgehog, and since, have become a mesmerized Ozu fan.

In Muriel Barbery’s marvellous work of fiction The Elegance of The Hedgehog, I was fascinated by the following excerpt that led me to explore the world of Ozu. Barbery mentioned some dialogues in the Ozu film ‘The Munekata Sisters’ (1950). Here, after quoting elder sister Setsuko, Barbery wraps up the chapter from the point of view of the concierge Renée, narrator of the book:

SETSUKO
True novelty is that which does not grow old, despite the passage of time.

The camellia against the moss of the temple, the violet hues of the Kyoto mountains, a blue porcelain cup — this sudden flowering of pure beauty at the heart of ephemeral passion: is this not something we all aspire to?  And something that, in our Western civilization, we do not know how to attain?

The contemplation of eternity within the very movement of life.

I could not find any copy of ‘The Munekata Sisters’, but I did manage to find a few other Ozu films on DVD in The Criterion Collection at an independent video store. One particularly stands out, both the film and the special features.  And that’s Tokyo Story (1953), the best known and most acclaimed Ozu work.

.

TOKYO STORY (with spoiler)

.

.

Instead of the macho samurai films of his time, Ozu chose to explore the quiet subject of family relationships, parents and children, brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, and from them come the topics of marriage, loyalty, aging, death, filial duties, parental expectations, and generational conflicts.  Through his perceptive camera work, Ozu sensitively revealed the undercurrents beneath the seemingly calm surface of daily family interactions.

‘Tokyo Story’ is about an aging couple Shukichi (the Ozu actor Chishu Ryu) and Tomi (Chieko Higashiyama) from small town Onomichi going on a trip to visit their adult children in bustling Tokyo.  At that time, postwar Japan was cranking up her economic engine, and urbanization was taking off.  Shukichi and Tomi’s children were all busily engaged in their work and family, with no time or patience to entertain their visiting parents, albeit struggling with a thin sense of obligation. They passed the two old folks from home to home, and finally sent them off to a spa resort on their own, a supposedly well-meant package substituting for their absentee hospitality.

With his subtle cinematic language, Ozu explored the issues facing the family in urban, postwar Japan. I’m surprised that in a time when the rebuilding of national pride was as much an essential as that of the economy,  Ozu was brave enough to depict the collapse of the family, revealing the conflicts and tensions behind the amicable social façade.  It’s interesting how contemporary and universal they are.  Have we not heard of those ubiquitous ‘mother-in-law jokes’ in our modern Western society?  Or, in real life, do we not struggle between taking care of our own family and career, and finding the time and energy to look after our aging parents?

.

But the contemplative cinematic offerings of Ozu draw us into deeper thoughts. ‘Tokyo Story’ quietly depicts the truth of these issues: No matter how many siblings there are in a family, each person is responsible for his or her own decision and action.  Even in a mass society like Japan, one can still make individual choices. Despite the currents, one can stand alone against the tides, and act according to one’s heart and conviction. While the brothers and sister are evading the task of hospitality, the young widowed daughter-in-law Noriko (the Ozu actress Setsuko Hara) chooses to care for her deceased husband’s parents out of genuine love.  She stands alone in her kindness and grace, a selfless heroine in a family hinged upon superficial ties.

Illness and death too have to be borne alone.  Despite their being together all the years of their marriage, Shukichi and Tomi each has to face the imminent all alone.  After Tomi falls ill upon arriving home from Tokyo, the strong bond of togetherness in marriage quickly dissolves into helpless resignation of parting and letting go.  Shukichi soon realizes he has to face life all alone.  The poignant scene though is that despite his loss, he looks out for his daughter-in-law Noriko, appreciating her loyalty, and relieving her of further obligations.  Despite having no blood ties, the two of them have touched each other in a way that’s beyond flesh and blood. Noriko selflessly gives while Shukichi accepts and appreciates in the midst of aloneness. The tables are turned, while they are left to face life alone, they are yet bound together in an unspoken bond, one that’s far stronger than filial ties.

The Criterion Collection carries several sets of Ozu titles.  ‘Tokyo Story’ is one in a trilogy of Noriko’s stories.  Disc Two features ‘I Lived, But…’,  a two-hour documentary on the life of Ozu, and ‘Talking with Ozu’: a 40-minute tribute to the great director featuring reflections from international auteurs Stanley Kwan, Aki Kaurismaki, Claire Denis, Lindsay Anderson, Paul Schrader, Wim Wenders, and Hou Hsiao-hsien.  It also features audio commentary by Ozu film scholar David Desser.

~~~~ Ripples

CLICK HERE to my review of another Ozu classic: Floating Weeds (1959)

History Made At The Oscars: Kathryn Bigelow Wins Best Director

The 82nd Annual Academy Awards has made history on several fronts.

Probably the most talked about is Kathryn Bigelow becoming the first woman to claim the Best Director Oscar. And lesser known is the fact that her film “The Hurt Locker” has also distinguished itself as the lowest grossing movie to win Best Picture. With $15 million spent on its production, “The Hurt Locker” has gained back $14.7 million in its domestic gross, and a total worldwide sale of $21 million, paltry compared to Avatar’s $2.6 billion. Bravo to the Academy voters.

Another major breakthrough at Oscars 2010 is Geoffrey Fletcher winning Best Adapted Screenplay for his work “Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire.”  He is the first African American ever to win a screenwriting Oscar.  Let me re-direct you to an inspiring post on Geoffrey Fletcher’s win from the blog Screenwriting From Iowa.

The Celluloid Ceiling

Does Bigelow’s win signify the turning of a new page for all female directors and woman workers in the film industry? Or is it just a one-time victory? Throughout Oscar history, there have only been three other women nominated for Best Director: Lina Wertmüller for “Seven Beauties” in 1976, Jane Campion for “The Piano” in 1993; and Sofia Coppola for “Lost in Translation” in 2003. None of them won.  It has taken 82 Academy Awards to arrive at this point today.

The annual ‘Celluloid Ceiling’ report compiled by Dr. Martha Lauzen at the Center For the Study of Women in Television and Film at San Diego State University tracks women employed in the film industry over the years. Her 2009 study records the following findings:

  • Women comprised of 16% of all directors, executive producers, producers, writers, cinematographers, and editors working on the top 250 domestic grossing films. This represents a decline of 3% from 2001.
    .
  • Women accounted for 7% of directors in 2009, a decrease of 2% from 2008, and no change since 1987.
    .
  • As for behind-the-scenes employment of 2,838 individuals working on the top 250 domestic grossing films of 2009, women represented 2% of the cinematographers and 8% of writers.

Has Bigelow shattered the Celluloid Ceiling once and for all? The answer is yet to be seen.  Considering the gender disparity in the film industry, it remains a long and arduous journey for aspiring woman filmmakers.

But I admire Kathryn Bigelow for one thing: she downplays the gender issue and pursues the universal role of ‘director’, shunning being called a ‘female director’.  When accepting her Award, she did not even mention the history-making significance of her win but rather acknowledged the troops at war.

Of course, she won on her own merits and not on account of her gender.  So just let me help Barbra Streisand utter what is unsaid in her statement, the all important subtext:

“Well, the time has come … for us to recognize the excellent work of a director despite the fact that she is a woman.”

Bigelow, a painter turned filmmaker, was first trained at the San Francisco Art Institute and later won a scholarship for the Independent Study Program at the Whitney Museum in New York, “which gave her the opportunity to study and produce conceptual art that was critiqued by the likes of Richard Serra and Susan Sontag.” Later she re-directed her passion to film theory and criticism at Columbia University.

When asked about her movies not being “female”, Bigelow, gives a thought-provoking answer from the point of view of an artist [1]:

But you don’t get exasperated with this notion that your movies are not “female”?

No, because I respect it, and I understand it. The thing that’s interesting is that I come from the art world, or that’s where I was creatively, aesthetically, and intellectually formed and informed.

Certainly at the time I was there, there was never a discussion of gender per se. Like, this is a woman’s sculpture or a man’s sculpture. There was never this kind of bifurcation of particular talent. It was just looked at as the piece of work. The work had to speak for itself. And that’s still how I look at any particular work.

I think of a person as a filmmaker, not a male or female filmmaker. Or I think of them as a painter, not a male or female painter. I don’t view the world like that. Yes, we’re informed by who we are, and perhaps we’re even defined by that, but yet, the work has to speak for itself.

Hopefully the film industry can learn from the art world, such that we would never have to give a movie a gender, or stigmatize its filmmaker for being a woman.  Then we can comfortably call them all artists.

****

[1]  CLICK HERE to read the full interview by Willa Paskin on Slate Magazine “What Kathryn Bigelow learned from Rembrandt.

Oscar Results 2010

For Oscar Results 2011 CLICK HERE.

We’ve just watched history in the making at the 82nd Academy Awards:  The first woman to win a Best Director Oscar, deservedly, Kathryn Bigelow for “The Hurt Locker.”  “The Hurt Locker” is also the major winner of the night, garnering 6 Academy Awards from its 9 nominations:

  • Best Picture
  • Directing
  • Original Screenplay
  • Film Editing
  • Sound Mixing
  • Sound Editing

[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=kathryn+bigelow+82nd+annual+academy+awards&iid=8196556″ src=”3/a/8/f/82nd_Annual_Academy_61d5.jpg?adImageId=11093993&imageId=8196556″ width=”234″ height=”355″ /]

.

“Well the time has come…” Barbra Streisand said as she announced the Oscar for Best Director.  It took 82 Academy Awards to arrive.  Only three other women had ever been nominated in this category, but none had won.  I’m excited to see Kathryn Bigelow turn a new page of Oscar history last night.

She was clearly moved by this honor, describing it as: “The moment of a lifetime.”  Bigelow gave credits to many, but especially to Mark Boal who was an embedded journalist in a bomb disposal team in Iraq for writing the story, and dedicated the award to “women and men in the military who risk their lives on a daily basis. May they come home safe.”

[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=kathryn+bigelow+82nd+annual+academy+awards&iid=8196456″ src=”d/d/a/2/82nd_Annual_Academy_2274.jpg?adImageId=11094012&imageId=8196456″ width=”234″ height=”350″ /]

.

To me, the last half hour was the most worthwhile, as with all Oscar award shows, but especially this one.  The comedic duo of Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin was a disappointment.  I expected better.  When jokes were made at the expense of color and race, personal relationships of exes, and Meryl Streep’s record Oscar losses, you know they could have put in more effort.  Was that a postmodern, deconstructing comic gig?  Or simply denigrating the very films the night was supposed to honor?  Of course, the audience could take a joke, or two… but I didn’t see all of them laughing.  After Neil Patrick Harris’s enthusiastic opening musical, Martin and Baldwin paled in comparison. We might have just discovered who could be the next Oscar host.

However, there were a few more memorable moments that saved the show:

.

[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=john+hughes&iid=8195141″ src=”4/1/c/6/82nd_Annual_Academy_81c8.jpg?adImageId=11093950&imageId=8195141″ width=”270″ height=”185″ /]

.

The tribute to John Hughes was especially touching. Passed away last year, Hughes was the legendary director whose movies were themselves expressions of teen angst.  They represented a generation of youth striving to belong and to connect, in whatever way they knew how.  It was quite a moment to see these actors come on stage to honor their director.  The now middle-age Molly Ringwald and Matthew Broderick, stars of the iconic “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off” gave a moving tribute.  They were later joined on stage by Jon Cryer, Judd Nelson, Ally Sheedy, the truant youths of “The Breakfast Club”.  And who would forget “Sixteen Candles”, “Pretty In Pink”, and a bit more recent, the “Home Alone” movies. Macauley Culkin also joined in.  The Hughes family was in attendance to acknowledge the tribute.

[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=sandra+bullock+82nd+annual+academy+awards&iid=8196632″ src=”d/7/2/a/82nd_Annual_Academy_9bff.jpg?adImageId=11094074&imageId=8196632″ width=”234″ height=”361″ /]

.

Sandra Bullock won Best Actress for her role in The Blind Side.  “Did I really earn this or did I just wear you all down?” she asked.  Just a day ago she won another acting award, the Razzie, the Worst Actress Award for “All About Steve”.  But she took it all in stride.  “I had the best time at the Razzie… it’s the great equalizer. No one lets me get too full of myself,” she said after the Oscars. Ahh… what a deserving Oscar winner.

[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=jeff+bridges+82nd+annual+academy+awards&iid=8196722″ src=”5/b/4/e/82nd_Annual_Academy_7b13.jpg?adImageId=11094103&imageId=8196722″ width=”225″ height=”300″ /]

.

Jeff Bridges won Best Actor finally after four nominations, his first one dating back to 1971 for “The Last Picture Show”.  On the red carpet, when asked what his late father Lloyd Bridges would have said to him if he were here tonight, he answered: “He’d say, atta boy, atta boy!”  I was most impressed by his performance in “Crazy Heart” as a washed-up country-western singer, not just acting, but singing as well.

[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=geoffrey+fletcher+oscar&iid=8196318″ src=”b/f/8/f/Oscars_2010_11ea.jpg?adImageId=11094421&imageId=8196318″ width=”234″ height=”259″ /]

.

While I had expected Jason Reitman to win Best Adapted Screenplay, I was glad to see Geoffrey Fletcher getting the recognition for “Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire”, the first African American to win a screenwriting Oscar, and with his first feature screenplay.  He was definitely moved, “This is for everybody who works on a dream every day, Precious boys and girls everywhere.”

When interviewed after the show, Kathryn Bigelow had this to say to all prospective female directors: “Never give up on your dream.”

So, it was a late-winter night’s dream for many.  And it’s gratifying to see some deserving talents have theirs realized in a most amazing way.

For a full list of Oscar Winners, CLICK HERE to the official site of The Academy of Motion Pictures of Arts and Sciences.

THEATRE by W. Somerset Maugham: In Search of Reality

It was pure serendipity. I thought I knew almost all of Maugham’s titles, but this one just escaped me.  I found it on the ‘New and Notable’ shelf in the public library. It’s a Vintage International edition paperback published in 2001. Not new but it looked untouched and inviting.

Two pages into the book I knew right away I had seen it before. Of course, that’s the movie Being Julia (2004). Annette Bening got a Best Actress Oscar nom for her portrayal of Julia Lambert, a famous actress on the London stage in the 1930’s. The movie is a colorful account of how a successful stage actress deals with her mid-life crisis. With fame, fortune, and achievement in bounty, what more could she ask for but… love and passion. And during the course, obstacles, jealousy, and betrayal are all overcome, and revenge carried out; on or off stage, no matter, it’s equally exciting for the glamourous Julia Lambert.

But not until I read this novel on which the movie was based did I realize that a most important passage had been left out. And oh what an omission! For the crux of the book rests on those few pages. And not only that, the screenwriter had chosen to alter a character to suit his fancy, rounding off the edges of conflicts and alleviating tensions in presenting a smooth and suave storyline.

In the movie, Julia’s son Roger is a young man fresh out of Eton and planning to attend Cambridge after the summer. That much is true to the book.  Roger is shown to be a devoted son, lovingly supportive of his mother in her pursuits in career and love life. But this is not the case in the novel.  Maugham has crafted Roger as a critical young man, offering the necessary tension to the story. In a crucial scene at the end of the book, he questions Julia’s behaviour and integrity. These challenges form the climatic confrontation between mother and son, projecting the meaning behind the very title of the novel.

Here is an excerpt from this scene that captures the essence of the whole book. Julia asks Roger:

“What is it you want?”
Once again he gave her his disconcerting stare.  It was hard to know if he was serious, for his eyes faintly shimmered with amusement.
“Reality.”
“What do you mean?”
“You see, I’ve lived all my life in an atmosphere of make-believe…. You never stop acting. It’s second nature to you. You act when there’s a party here. You act to the servants, you act to Father, you act to me. To me you act the part of the fond, indulgent, celebrated mother. You don’t exist, you’re only the innumerable parts you’ve played. I’ve often wondered if there was ever a you or if you were never anything more than a vehicle for all these other people that you’ve pretended to be.  When I’ve seen you go into an empty room I’ve sometimes wanted to open the door suddenly, but I’ve been afraid to in case I found nobody there.”

By turning Roger into a complacent and docile young man, the screenwriter had failed to present the necessary tension in the story. Further, by avoiding the character foil between the successful actress mother and her meaning-pursuing, idealistic son, the movie fails to deliver the essential subtext, despite an impressive performance by Annette Bening.

Further, the best is yet to come in the book… such is the ingenuity of W. Somerset Maugham.  After a superb, revengeful performance, overarching her rival, the young and beautiful Avice Crichton, and drawing everyone’s admiration back to herself, Julia celebrates on her own with a nice meal and mulls over a gratifying notion, on the very last page:

“Roger says we don’t exist. Why, it’s only we who do exist.  They are the shadows and we give them substance. We are the symbols of all this confused, aimless struggling that they call life, and it’s only the symbol which is real. They say acting is only make-believe. That make-believe is the only reality.”

This is ever so relevant for us today. With all the online personae we can create and project, all behind the guard of anonymity, Roger’s quest for what’s real remains a valid search.

Sherry Turkle, the acclaimed ‘anthropologist of cyberspace’, has observed the liminal reality in our postmodern world and stated her own quest:

“I’m interested in how the virtual impinges on what we’ve always called the real, and how the real impinges on the virtual.”

Let’s just hope that the advancement of technology would not get the better of us, blurring the lines of fact and fiction, offering shields for fraud and deceits. Behind the liminal existence, let’s hope too that we still care what’s real and what’s not, and that our humanity will still be valued and not be compromised or lost in the vast abyss of bits and bytes.

The upcoming Academy Awards too, is another platform to showcase such a duality. I always find the acceptance speeches of award winners intriguing: what’s genuine and what’s fake in their thank you’s. Are they presenting their real self or merely acting? Outside of their roles, which part of them is authentic? Or, do they ever get out of their roles?

It’s interesting too to explore the influence of movies nowadays. Again, the postmodern emphasis is on the narrative, multiples of them, and storytelling the vehicle of meaning. Does the notion of Maugham’s character Julia mirror our world… that movies have become the symbols of what we call life? That make-believe has sometimes been merged with reality? Can we still tell them apart? Or, should we even try? Considering the pervasive effects of pop culture in our life today, considering a single movie can command a worldwide box office sale of $2.4 billion, and counting… Maugham was prophetic indeed.

***

The Hurt Locker (2008, DVD)

UPDATE March 7:  The Hurt Locker has just won 6 Oscars including Best Picture and Best Director.  CLICK HERE to read Oscar Results 2010.

UPDATE Feb. 21:  The Hurt Locker just won Best Picture at the BAFTA Awards (British Academy of Film and Television Arts). Kathryn Bigelow became the first woman to win Best Director.  “I would like to dedicate this to never abandoning the need to find a resolution for peace,” she said in her acceptance speech. Mark Boal won Best Original Screenplay.   CLICK HERE TO READ MORE.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE ACCEPTANCE SPEECHES.

With The Hurt Locker, Kathryn Bigelow could well have shattered the stereotype of female filmmakers, if there even was an image established for them.  But a good guess is that they have generally been misconstrued as merely producers of romances, tear jerkers, simply put, ‘chick flicks’.  A look at Bigelow’s filmography shows a track record of action thrillers. But it’s with The Hurt Locker, a captivating work about a bomb disposal team in Iraq, that she has garnered floods of accolade.

Professor Martha Lauzen of San Diego State University studies women in the movie industry over the years.  She found that women represented only 9 per cent of Hollywood directors in 2008 – the same figure she had recorded in 1998.  In this male-dominated circle, Bigelow is only the fourth woman ever in the 82-year history of the Oscars to be nominated Best Director.  The other three were Lina Wertmuller (Pasqualino Settebellezze, 1975), Jane Campion (The Piano, 1993) and Sofia Coppola (Lost In Translation, 2003).  None of them won.

Recently, Bigelow made history by being the first woman to win the Director’s Guild Award with The Hurt Locker.  According to past trend, winners of the DGA usually went on to win the Oscar, with a few exceptions.  Bigelow could be making Oscar history as well comes March 7.  But of course, she has tough competition from her ex James Cameron.

The Hurt Locker focuses on an Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) team in Iraq in 2004.  In this urban guerrilla war zone, the signature weapon is the Improvised Explosive Device (IED), or, roadside bomb. What stands out in this film is the intense psychological tension captured by the camera, the excellent editing, and the poignant performance of the three specialists in the EOD team.  The nuanced playing out of their opposing psyche and the dynamics of their interactions are what fuel the riveting momentum.

Into this three-men EOD team the story zooms in on one character, Sgt. Will James (Jeremy Renner), bomb specialist, reckless maverick whose hubris and adrenalin cravings propel his dubiously heroic acts.  The quote at the beginning gives a hint of what is to come: “… war is a drug.”  Unlike other typical reactions to war, James embraces it.  The whole movie is a character study exploring such a psychological make-up.  And we are held on the edge of our seats as we follow the Dirty Harry of Baghdad clearing IED’s on the streets.

But the script excels in presenting a multi-layered character.  As the story progresses, we see a softer side to the tough bomb expert, and yet, all revealing is movingly restrained.  Renner’s performance is magically convincing.  He has me on his side as soon as he appears on screen.

Using relatively unknown actors, the film poignantly portrays the vulnerability of Everyman in the war zone. But they can’t be unknown anymore after this. Jeremy Renner (Sgt. Will James), Anthony Mackie (Sgt. Sanborn), and Brian Geraghty (Spc. Owen Eldridge) have left their impressive marks here. Pitching in, albeit for only short moments, are some more well-known actors, Ralph Fiennes, Guy Pearce and David Morse.

Impressively shot like a documentary, its every scene intense, drawing the viewer in like a participant, an onlooker. Great camera works, excellent editing, breath-taking pacing, and thoroughly human.

Unlike other war movies, there are few bloody scenes, no gratuitous war mongering or protesting. Bigelow in the special feature mentions that the film takes an apolitical, non-partisan stance.  Such a neutral, matter-of-fact depiction, focusing on the micro-level of three men handling the most dangerous job in the world, is no less powerful in conveying the danger, the sacrifice, and the courage needed to go through every single day in Iraq.  The film stands out among other war movies in its sensitive and sometimes even eloquent treatment of the raw emotions and the dynamics of personalities caught in a hurt locker.

The term ‘hurt locker’ refers to a situation of extreme pain and hardship.  The production itself could well illustrate the point.  Filmed on location in Jordan, cast and crew had to endure long hours in searing heat of 115 degrees, had to make do with scarce resources, and improvise in tough circumstances. It had been suggested that “no woman over 40 could possibly have the stamina to direct a feature film.” Overcoming such a sexist view is the challenge every woman director has to face.  Bigelow has proven herself to be admirably competent, crafting and delivering a superb production with an all male cast, (except a short appearance by Evangeline Lilly), in a land far from home.

The Hurt Locker ties with Avatar with 9 Oscar noms, including Best Picture and Best Director, but it gets nods in two categories that Avatar doesn’t, Best Actor and Best Writing, Screenplay written directly for the screen.

Jeremy Renner receives a Best Actor nod for his engrossing performance as Staff Sgt. William James.  A fusion of James McAvoy and Russell Crowe, Renner has proven himself to be a worthy contender in the Oscar race.

Mark Boal gets an Oscar nom for his very first screenplay.  This in itself is impressive, and a pointer to what makes a good piece of writing: write what you know.  His personal 2004 experience in Baghdad as an embedded journalist with a bomb squad is what makes the story, characters, and every single detail so real and poignant.

The DVD has some fascinating Special Features capturing the Behind The Scene moments, a Gallery, and commentaries from Bigelow and Boal.  Those who want to see the film before the Awards show will have to opt for the DVD. As a smaller, indie production, The Hurt Locker had only a short release in selective theatres.  Hopefully after March 7, it might get a chance to be put on the big screen again.  So, now you know who I root for comes Oscar night.

~ ~ ~ ½ Ripples

 

***

Click here for an insightful panel discussion on the movie, Spoiler Warning though, from Canada’s National Post.

***

Popularity versus Art

This year’s Oscars marks a new battleground for the dichotomy of art-house vs. blockbuster movies.  By increasing the Best Picture category from 5 to 10 selections, it looks like the Academy is aiming at allowing the blockbusters a shot at the coveted statuette, and not the other way round.

[picapp align=”center” wrap=”false” link=”term=oscars+statuette&iid=6857799″ src=”0/7/6/2/Academy_Of_Motion_6f24.jpg?adImageId=10186953&imageId=6857799″ width=”234″ height=”156″ /]

.

Why do I say that?  A look at the past winners in recent years would give a hint or two:  Slumdog Millionaire (2008), a production of just $15 million and a cast of unknown, foreign actors; No Country for Old Men (2007), a $25 million production and not a big hit domestically in terms of box office sales.

Several of the Best Picture contenders in recent years are represented by low-budget indie films, such as Juno (2007) and Little Miss Sunshine (2006).  Mind you, they might have reaped millions from their Oscar nods after the fact.

Not that blockbusters are necessarily artistically deficient, or that indie films must be artistically worthy, but it’s safe to say that blockbuster movies are crowd pleasers and more readily received. Art-house films are offered only in limited release, and appreciated by a much smaller audience.  Their low budget usually means no A-list stars.  It also restricts the profuse use of innovative technology as in big budget productions such as Avatar (2009).  So their general appeal is the essence of the screenplay, the acting, the storytelling within very limited means.

[picapp align=”center” wrap=”false” link=”term=oscars+academy+awards&iid=7789226″ src=”7/2/4/e/Kathryn_Bigelow_nominated_99e7.JPG?adImageId=10186835&imageId=7789226″ width=”234″ height=”156″ /]

.

The two front-runners of this year’s nominations best illustrate this point. The battle of the ex-es aside, Avatar and The Hurt Locker are neck and neck with 9 nods, competing in many of the same categories. But The Hurt Locker appears in two that are crucial in defining its artistic value as a motion picture:  Best Actor (Jeremy Renner) and Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen (Mark Boal), while Avatar falls short in these categories.

From the popularity angle, some refer their contention as David and Goliath.  The Hurt Locker, with a production cost of just $11 million and box office sales of $12.6 million, is miniscule when compared to that of Avatar’s $635 million, so far, and a reported budget of $237 million, one of the most expensive movies ever made.

Another way of seeing the two is the number of theatres screening the movies.  Avatar has over 3,000 theatres domestically, while The Hurt Locker, well, you’re lucky to catch it before it disappears from its limited release.  The DVD is out, so that really helps if you want to see it before the Awards night.

The other contenders pose a similar scenario.  Other than Avatar, four Best Pictures nominees have passed, way passed, the $100 million box office sales:The Blind Side ($242 million), Up ($293 million), Inglorious Basterds ($120 million), and District 9 ($115 million). Slightly trailing behind are Up In The Air ($77 million) and Precious: Based On The Novel Push By Sapphire ($46 million).

So what stand out are two little films, meager in comparison in terms of box office sales:  An Education ($9.6 million) and A Serious Man ($9.2 million).Their high acclaim from critics do not materialize in popular reception from movie goers, which is not surprising, for generally, these two groups don’t always see eye-to-eye.

Box office sales are the mark of popularity.  They measure how many have flocked to the theatres and are willing to pay to see a movie. Low ticket sales of course is related to how widely released the movie is, but it also gauges popular taste. There’s the rub, would the Academy members vote for a movie that has been seen by just a fraction of the viewing public?  Would they judge a movie only on its artistic and technical merits rather than the sales it generates?

[picapp align=”center” wrap=”false” link=”term=oscars+academy+awards&iid=7783787″ src=”6/8/5/9/The_Blind_Side_eb8a.JPG?adImageId=10187133&imageId=7783787″ width=”234″ height=”156″ /]

.

Michael Phillips of Chicago Tribune calls the inclusion of The Blind Side in this year’s Best Picture pool “a triumph of the till”.  Many critics are surprised to see it on the list.  And I suppose for Hollywood insiders and members of the Academy, they know very well what the bottom line is.  I’ve heard the argument before: If you want to see indie films and artsy productions, go to Sundance and Cannes.  I can hear them grumble … be realistic, the Oscars is a celebration of the movie business in all its glory and glamour.

I’ve appreciated what one entertainment writer has noted:

… popularity is the spiritual currency of Hollywood’s art. That’s why we call it ‘pop culture.’

It seems that nowadays, spurred on by reality talent shows which generate winners through popular votes, the contention of popularity versus skills or artistic merits is tipped way out of balance.  The critics are now made up of the populace; the panel of judges can only voice their opinion, however biting, but they do not get to vote.

And for the lesser known gems like An Education and A Serious Man, I’m glad they are included in the Best Picture pool, thanks to those who have nominated them despite their meager showing at the box office. After all, besides the money-generating function, film is in essence an art form.  Art for art’s sake or for profit remains the on-going debate.  Of course, the two need not be mutually exclusive… reality is, the financial component often is the main sustenance of a production.  It’ll be interesting to see though how the battle of David and Goliath turns out at the Oscars this year.  The implications could be more far-reaching than just churning out another winner.

Emma (2009, TV): Episode 3

The final instalment of Emma has a major challenge, to reveal the hidden agendas, and to tie up all the loose ends in just under an hour. The hurried scenes leave me with a feeling of watching a trailer, a montage of excerpts loosely linking up the story.  This is especially so in the first half dealing with Jane Fairfax and Frank Churchill’s secret relationship.

If the story feels a bit fragmented in this last episode, the cinematography makes up for that shortfall.  The hour is saturated with stunning shots, magnificent scenic views and exquisite interior renditions.  The Box Hill picnic scene is a vivid example:

Ironically, the pivotal Box Hill scene was not shot in Box Hill, a busy tourist attraction in Surrey.  Instead, it was shot in Leith Hill, Mole Valley, another much quieter scenic point.  For an interesting comparison of the two hills, click here to go to ‘this is surrey today’.

The Box Hill picnic is a crucial turning point in the story.  Emma’s callous and sarcastic joke on Miss Bate and the subsequent scolding she receives from Mr. Knightly is nothing short of an epiphany in self-knowledge.  The genuine remorse she feels could well reflect her greatest strength.  I’m sure such quality of character is what seizes Mr. Knightly with tenderness, moving him to consider her “faultless in spite of all her faults.”

I have a feeling too that this is the very reason Austen finds her heroine likable.  Romola Garai has effectively portrayed a contrite and humbled Emma, while Jonny Lee Miller has delivered convincingly a silent lover with passion and principle.  My initial reservation about his role has definitely changed for the better in this final episode.

Fortunately as well, the endearing lines of Mr. Knightly to Emma, no, not the ‘badly done!’ admonition, but the heartfelt praise he spurts out in spontaneity, remains intact and without any modernized alteration from screenwriter Sandy Welch.  Of course it needs to be declared in its authentic whole… Miller has the best lines of the series:

“I cannot make speeches, Emma… If I loved you less, I might be able to talk about it more.  But you know what I am.  You hear nothing but truth from me.  I have blamed you, and lectured you, and you have borne it as no other woman in England would have borne it.”

As with all Austen’s novels, the ending comes with nuptial ties. But as Masterpiece Classic’s host Laura Linney points out at the opening, considering the social discriminations inflicted upon the woman in Jane Austen’s time, allowing no ownership of properties, no decent employment (even Jane Fairfax compares the governess position with slavery), and no respect or rights given to the single female of low means, it is only a justifiable reward for the author to end her story with loving marriages for her well-deserved protagonists.

Towards this end, the camera takes us to the magnificent view of Beachy Head in the last scene.  As Emma and Mr. Knightly stand on the edge of the cliff overlooking the boundless ocean, we see the series come to an idealistic end, maybe a broader stroke than that in Austen’s novel. But as some critics have noted, it is love that the author emphasizes rather than romance.  From that perspective, looking outward together to the ocean vast instead of gazing into each other’s eyes may well be an apt interpretation of Austen’s heart.

***

CLICK HERE to go to Episode 1

CLICK HERE to go to Episode 2

Arti’s reviews of Emma (2009), Episodes 1 to 3, have been compiled into one article and published in the Jane Austen Centre Online Magazine. CLICK HERE to read the many other interesting articles on Jane Austen and her time.

**Photo Sources: Box Hill Picnic bbc.com; Beachy Head, not a scene from the movie, taken from Wikimedia Commons.

Oscar Nominations 2010

February 2, 2010 was a big day for announcements.  We’d all been waiting for this special occasion… yes, groundhog day.  For us who live in the Calgary area, we welcomed the news as we began the day: our very own groundhog Balzac Billy did not see his own shadow.  A reward for us resilient folks: an early spring.

But even hours before Balzac Billy popped his head out of his burrow, another excitement stirred at 5:38 am PST.  At the Samuel Goldwyn Theater in Beverly Hills, CA, Academy President Tom Sherak and actress Anne Hathaway got up on the stage and announced this year’s Oscar Nominations to a house full of early risers.  What a way to start the day.   Click here to watch the announcement video.

[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=oscar+nominations&iid=7783783″ src=”4/b/0/8/Anne_Hathaway_and_a398.JPG?adImageId=9870627&imageId=7783783″ width=”275″ height=”300″ /]

.

The major change this year of course is the expansion of the Best Picture category from 5 to 10 selections.  I’ve pondered the pros and cons about this move.  While more films can be included so not to snub deserving ones, it also begs the question of what’s so deserving if the number of contenders are increased.

For the full list of nominations, CLICK HERE.  I won’t repeat them here but I’ll just highlight some items that pique my interest.

The Golden Globes and the SAG Awards remain the best predictors of the Oscars.  So, there are no surprises, just delights, for the three films I’ve reviewed here on Ripple Effects have all been nominated for Best Picture.

[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=oscar+nominations&iid=7783801″ src=”8/7/b/4/Up_in_the_bd47.JPG?adImageId=9870657&imageId=7783801″ width=”395″ height=”275″ /]

Up In The Air receives 6 noms.  Other than Best Picture,  Jason Reitman gets a nod for Best Director and Best Adapted Screenplay.  Clooney, Kendrick, and Farmiga all nominated in their respective acting category.

[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=oscar+nominations&iid=7784549″ src=”9/b/d/e/Carey_Mulligan_nominated_8cec.JPG?adImageId=9870639&imageId=7784549″ width=”395″ height=”270″ /]

An Education gets a Best Picture nod with Nick Hornby nominated for Best Adapted Screenplay, while Carey Mulligan, who plays 16 year-old Jenny, gets to compete with Meryl Streep, 16-time Oscar nominee, this time as Julia Child in Julie and Julia.

[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=oscar+nominations&iid=7784555″ src=”5/a/2/b/Meryl_Streep_nominated_5614.JPG?adImageId=9870681&imageId=7784555″ width=”395″ height=”275″ /]

.

I’m glad too that the Coen brothers’ A Serious Man gets a nod for a chance at the Best Picture Oscar Award as well as a nom for Best Original Screenplay.

Are these deserving smaller films getting the nods reaping the benefits of the expanded Best Picture category?  Or, is it just the other way round, that popular, big box office hits get a chance to be included because of their mass appeal?  It’s that same old art vs. popularity debate again… well, some other time.

Avatar and The Hurt Locker each receives 9 nominations. Both are contenders in the coveted Best Picture and Best Director categories.  Yes, James Cameron will be competing with his ex-wife Kathryn Bigelow for these two coveted prizes.  In all of the Academy Awards’ 82 years history, there have only been three female directors nominated, and none has won. Kathryn Bigelow is the fourth.  Will she make Oscar history this year by being the first woman Director taking home the statuette?  After all, it’s a decade past the twenty-first century now.

[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=avatar&iid=7789230″ src=”9/2/0/c/James_Cameron_nominated_7354.JPG?adImageId=9871271&imageId=7789230″ width=”160″ height=”235″ /]

[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=hurt+locker&iid=7764534″ src=”f/7/c/d/Kathryn_Bigelow_wins_6674.JPG?adImageId=9871306&imageId=7764534″ width=”210″ height=”235″ /]

.

Inglorious Basterds is another major contender with 8 nods.  Quentin Tarantino’s altered-history fantasy is ingloriously riveting.  Christoph Waltz, who brilliantly plays the cold, callous, and calculating Nazi Colonel Hans Landa, is likely to continue his winning streak following the GG and SAG.

Christopher Plummer gets a nom for his role as Tolstoy in the film The Last Station, a biopic about the last years of the great Russian author.  So, why is he nominated in the Best Supporting Actor category?  Who is he supporting?  Mrs. Tolstoy? … whose star Helen Mirren gets to be nominated for Best Actress, not supporting.

[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=oscar+nominations&iid=7788913″ src=”3/4/1/b/Christopher_Plummer_nominated_c758.JPG?adImageId=9871178&imageId=7788913″ width=”152″ height=”190″ /]

[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=helen+mirren+oscar&iid=7784548″ src=”3/b/8/5/Helen_Mirren_nominated_6e30.JPG?adImageId=9871651&imageId=7784548″ width=”215″ height=”160″ /]

.

It’s interesting to see the animated feature Up get to compete with the other nine feature films, aiming for the highest prize in the Best Picture category.  I believe only Beauty And The Beast had that honor in the past.  Animated features have taken on a brand new versatility in recent years, with all sorts of technical innovations creating fresh new visual effects.  But it’s always the story that is the winning factor.  Up deserves the nom.

[picapp align=”none” wrap=”false” link=”term=oscar+nominations&iid=7783800″ src=”4/d/4/2/Up_nominated_for_5299.JPG?adImageId=9870774&imageId=7783800″ width=”385″ height=”275″ /]

So hopefully March 7 will not only bring star-studded excitement but the warm and gentle breeze of spring for me as well.

**All photos from the copyright-free picapp.com**

Emma (2009, TV): Episode 2

‘An authentic human being’ is how the host of Masterpiece Classic Laura Linney describes Emma.  Jane Austen’s characters have no supernatural powers, she notes.  But herein lies the magic of her writing.  She takes the ordinary and draws out the unnoticed features.  From these everyday characters like you and me, she skillfully displays the intricacies woven in their interactions, and reveals the undercurrents of hidden intentions and desires.  It is in the revealing of the subtext that makes her story so captivating even for us modern day readers.

Episode 2 continues with this interesting story as we see Emma confused by her own feeling towards Frank Churchill, Harriet’s shifting admiration for the same, Frank Churchill’s seemingly open admiration for Emma, Mr. Knightly’s growing sentiments for the same, and, Jane Fairfax’s hidden anguish, ignored by the subject of her desire.  It seems that everybody’s feeling is mixed up with everybody else’s.  The comedy of errors gathers momentum.

Cinematography continues to be a major contributor to the storytelling.  I particularly appreciate the several Vermeer moments, like the one with Emma gazing out the window deep in thought, or the camera silently captures her playing the pianoforte, immersed in diffused light.  I’ve also enjoyed how the visual reveals inner thoughts.  Mr. Knightly’s longing is projected by the flashback of his dancing with Emma, shifting to the single swan in the pond, warm music enfolding… a beautiful cinematic moment where the visual and music communicate effectively without words.

Mrs. Elton is animatedly played by Christina Cole.  In terms of comedic and obnoxious effects, she is of her husband’s equal, a good match indeed. While Rupert Evans is proficient in portraying a sly Frank Churchill, he does not look like the one I have in mind.  But that is not important. My main concern is with the role of Jane Fairfax.  This second episode confirms my misgiving from the beginning.  I feel there is a miscast here.  I miss her elegance, poise and subtleties as described by the author.  She is supposed to be Emma’s worthy rival after all.

The dance at The Crown Inn is a delight to watch.  That is also the occasion showing everybody’s true colour.  And Mr. Knightly has proven himself to be one considerate gentleman as he invites Harriet to dance after she is slighted by Mr. Elton.  Also, we’re beginning to see Mr. Knightly more and more in love, while the object of his desire remains relatively clueless, albeit a sense of appreciation has arisen in her confused heart.  The dances are fun to watch too, much more lively and convivial than the courtly dances we see in other Austen adaptations.

After two episodes, the story and the characters are well developed, the overall effects pleasing and enjoyable.  I look forward to the next instalment.

*****

CLICK HERE TO GO TO MY REVIEW OF EPISODE 1

CLICK HERE TO GO TO EPISODE 3, THE CONCLUSION

Arti’s reviews of Emma (2009), Episodes 1 to 3, have been compiled into one article and published in the Jane Austen Centre Online Magazine. CLICK HERE to read the many other interesting articles on Jane Austen and her time.


Emma (2009, TV): Episode 1

Previously on Masterpiece Classic…

Yes, treat this post as a recap to prepare you for Episode 2 in just a couple of days.

So finally, North American viewers have the chance to see the long awaited 2009 BBC production of Emma, three months after its release in the UK.  A click on imdb will find no less than 15 different versions of this popular Austen work.  Yet another one?  It just naturally leads one to question, why?  After seeing this first episode, let me give it a shot: just because it’s so much fun to do.

That’s how I felt as I watched the PBS broadcast last Sunday.  This newest adaptation of Emma is probably the best I’ve seen, and Romola Garai easily the best-cast Emma so far.  Yes, I’m comparing her with Gwyneth Paltrow (1996) and Kate Beckinsale (1996, TV).  She may well be one of the best-cast Austen heroines for their roles in my opinion, let’s just say, neck and neck with Jennifer Ehle’s Elizabeth Bennet.

What a difference from her guilt-ridden Briony in the movie Atonement.  Well, Garai’s Emma is guilt-ridden too as the errant, over-confident matchmaker, but her genuine heart and willingness to own up to her misjudgment have made her personality shine through.

In creating Emma, Austen had said that “I’m going to take a heroine whom no-one but myself will much like.”  Seems like this adaptation does a great service pulling us over to Austen’s side. Garai’s Emma reflects the probable reasons why the author found her character likable: vivacious, charmingly clueless, and above all, her readiness to admit faults, her genuine heart towards herself and others.  Garai’s animated performance is most apt in a comedic genre such as this.  So far in the first episode, the irony and humor have come through.

The impressive cinematography matches perfectly the personality and atmosphere of the novel, brisk, agile, fun, and yes, as Mr. Knightly narrates in the beginning, golden.  Just the kind of colour scheme for a clever comedy, the exact reflection of its main character.  As a comedy, a little exaggeration in the colours is acceptable and quite effective I think.  Overall, the visuals are captivating, beautiful shots of the English country landscape, the well situated mansions and their interior renderings.  I’ve particularly appreciated the few overhead shots, and some of the contrasting darker scenes in the beginning.

And yes, the beginning is where a film can captivate right away.  I’ve enjoyed screenwriter Sandy Welch’s treatment of the plot, drawing out three characters, Emma, Frank Churchill, and Jane Fairfax, who had all lost their mother as a young child, and focusing on how markedly different their lives have turned out.

For the casting of Jonny Lee Miller as Mr. Knightly, however, I have a little reservation, in this first episode anyway.  The sparks between Emma and him look more like sibling bickering than the undercurrents of subliminal lovers’ quarrels, which Austen so brilliantly depicts. The 16 years of age difference is almost unobservable here, although in real life they are ten years apart.  But I’ve enjoyed Jonny Lee Miller’s portrayal of the conflicting Mr. Knightly, at times detached, at times involved, and at times, exasperated.

Michael Gambon is excellent as the fastidious Mr. Woodhouse. The legendary actor has delivered a convincing performance as an endearing but taxing hypochondriac.  As for Harriet Smith and Jane Fairfax, I’m afraid my preference is the 1996 TV production‘s casting of Samantha Morton and Olivia Williams in these roles.  But then again, my view can change as I continue watching.

This first episode strikes me as a lively, contemporary rendition. While screenwriter Sandy Welch had chosen to use more modern language in her dialogues, I don’t think she needed to stray too far from the original to achieve this.  As I’m re-reading Emma for these screenings, I find the book very accessible for modern readers, the characters are those whom we can relate to, their motives and emotions very similar to what we are familiar with.  Austen’s skills in observation and her intelligence in depicting human nature and her characters’ inner world are simply impressive, considering she was writing almost a hundred years before Freud and the birth of modern psychology.

****

CLICK HERE TO GO TO MY REVIEW OF EPISODE 2

CLICK HERE TO GO TO EPISODE 3, THE CONCLUSION

Arti’s reviews of Emma (2009), Episodes 1 to 3, have been compiled into one article and published in the Jane Austen Centre Online Magazine. CLICK HERE to read the many other interesting articles on Jane Austen and her time.