‘Megalopolis‘ (2024) is Francis Ford Coppola‘s life project. He started working on it and talking about it while filming ‘Apocalypse Now.’ He read scripts and discussed castings with entire generations of great actors. Many of them left to the stars in the sky and did not live to work on the project. Over the course of his career, Coppola produced three films on his own dime. The first two left him in debt and he had to make other films and sell wine for several decades to pay off the debts and raise money to make ‘Megalopolis‘. This is a monumental and mad movie, spectacular and pathetic, personal and brilliant, full of so many qualities and flaws that no one but himself would have accepted or risked financing it. It’s a movie that will probably lose money, but one that Coppola could not give up making. And no one else could have made it.
‘New Rome’ is an alternative vision of our not too distant future. Most of the filming was done with New York in mind. The characters are dressed and their hair cut in a way that combines Modern America with Ancient Rome. In this retro-futuristic Rome, the visionary inventor Cesar Catalina and the conservative mayor Cicero face each other. Cesar has invented the material of the future and plans to rebuild the city according to plans that may be the only ones that could save the metropolis and the planet. Reconstruction from the ground up, however, means shaking the order that allows the rich to live a life of luxury and debauchery, but also the destruction of the houses and the way of life of the plebeian crowd. At the head of the opposing forces is the town’s corrupt mayor. When Cesar falls in love with Julia, Cicero’s daughter, the plot gets complicated. Where is the city and the world going in the film? What is the role and power of love? Is the New Rome our world?
The Shakespearean structure and ambitions are obvious. The conflicts recall the treacherous labyrinths of the Bard’s historical plays, while the narrative structure and parables draw inspiration from dramas about ancient history. Visually, the film is impressive. The overflowing imagination of the screenwriter and director Coppola build a city-world, where the debauchery of antiquity meets the lights of New York or Vegas. The director of cinematography is Mihai Malaimare Jr., who has accompanied Coppola in his productions for almost two decades. The cinematic model cannot be, I think, other than Fritz Lang’s ‘Metropolis’. The list of actors who wanted to participate in this film and managed to enter the credits is very long. Outstanding creations make, in my opinion, in this film Adam Driver – a Cesar who acquires, loses and regains through love the power to control time -, Giancarlo Esposito as the enemy or Cicero, Nathalie Emmanuel – beautiful and expressive as Julia -, and Jon Voight as the old tycoon Crassus, a character who brings together and combines Roman and American corruption. I can’t help but notice the presence of Dustin Hoffman. Every role he adds to his filmography is a treasure, even if here the role is not too generous. The script sometimes forgets some of its narrative threads, but in the end the spectacular show overwhelms. ‘Megalopolis‘ has so far had a rather negative reception from critics and part of the audiences. I am convinced that its appreciation will grow over time and that in not many decades it will become a cult film. At the press conference after the world premiere in Cannes, Coppola assured us that this would not be his last film. I hope so. Utopia doesn’t always have to end in dystopia.
I chose to watch ‘River of No Return‘, a 70-year-old western film for a few reasons. First of all, because Marilyn Monroe, who has the opportunity to demonstrate her talent as an actress in addition to her physical beauty and singing skills. Her partner is Robert Mitchum, also a rising star in 1954, when the film was made. Finally, because the film direction is credited to Otto Preminger (who worked under contract with 20th Century Fox studios) and Jean Negulesco, a polivalent film-maker born in Craiova, Romania, who worked in France before moving to America, a name unjustly forgotten today by histories of cinema in the country where he was born and the countries where he worked. The film also experimented with the new widescreen and color film technology called CinemaScope, the latest in filmmaking and image projection techniques of the era.
The story takes place in 1875 in the American Northwest. Widower Matt Calder returns after years spent in prison for killing a thug who threatened the life of a friend. He retires to an isolated farm in the mountains with Mark, his 11-year-old son, from whom he had been separated for a long time. Their idyllic life is disturbed by the appearance of Kay and Harry, the bar singer who had been looking after Mark in the absence of his father and her crook husband. Harry attacks and robs Matt, taking his rifle and horse in order to get to Kansas City, where he plans to collect a card debt (possibly won by cheating). Matt, Mark and Kay will set off, unarmed, down the river in his pursuit.
The intention of producers and directors to extract the maximum from the visual possibilities offered by CinemaScope technology is evident. Most of the nature shots are spectacular and inspiring, and we can feel when these are combined with scenes shot in the studio. It is one of the first and most spectacular films of a subgenre that we could call ‘river films’, combined with two melodramas – one with a romantic triangle, the other depicting father-son relationships. The script of this seemingly conventional Western includes two scenes related to Matt’s relationships that would be delicate and questionable even in the context of screen morality today, or perhaps more so today than 70 years ago. The bond between Matt and his son develops in the shadow of the father’s guilt and the child’s understanding of what he has done. The relationship develops between Matt and Kay that also has its problematic sides. The presence of Marilyn Monroe is electrifying and the erotic tension also succeeds to ignite Robert Mitchum, an actor who (in my opinion) was not really great in expressing his feelings. Her character being a bar singer, we also get to hear her sing on four occasions, two of the songs being very good. Acting talent? She is not phenomenal, but she has spontaneity and naturalness which are remarkable, taking into account that the conflicts between Preminger and the private acting coach who accompanied Monroe to filming sessions during that period of her career have remained significant in history. The reasons why audiences were drawn to this film in 1954 remain much the same today.
I very rarely re-watch movies. I made an exception today, watching again after almost half a century ‘Picnic at Hanging Rock‘, the 1975 film directed by the Australian Peter Weir, about a decade before he began an international career that would bring him some notable successes. It was probably the first Australian film I saw in my life. It was at an Australian film festival, a rather rare event in Romania in those years. I had been very impressed then and on re-viewing I understood why. ‘Picnic at Hanging Rock‘ is a magical and powerful film, both visually and musically impressive. Some movies are said to ‘age beautifully’. In the case of Peter Weir‘s film, it’s more than that. It is a timeless creation.
‘Picnic at Hanging Rock‘ is inspired by a novel that relates events that may have taken place in reality. In 1900, on Valentine’s Day, which in the southern hemisphere is celebrated in the middle of summer, the students of a girls’ boarding school go on a trip to the Hanging Rock area – one of those rock formations that break the monotony of the endless Australian desert. The ‘mountain’, as it is called by the locals, has a magical reputation. Perhaps it is about magnetic phenomena, certainly about legends related to the original inhabitants of the continent, not seen in this film. Three of the girls and a teacher go exploring the cliffs and disappear without a trace. The whole community – the school, the police, experts of all kinds – look for them and the case becomes famous throughout Australia. One of the girls is found alive a few days later, but is in complete shock and has no memory of what happened on the day of her disappearance. Nothing is known about the fate of the others to this day. Will this mystery ever be solved?
We can look at ‘Picnic at Hanging Rock‘ as a combination of a period film and a thriller and the film works well from that point of view as well. Viewers will quickly realize, however, that this is not what the filmmakers seem to have been primarily interested in. Peter Weir builds an atmosphere of mystery wrapped in magic, using the cinematography designed by Russell Boyd in the style of Jean Renoir’s paintings and the pipe music played by Gheorghe Zamfir. The first scenes introduce us to the world of teenage boarding school students, who are preparing for the trip. A secondary plot describes the conflict between the headmistress of the boarding school and one of the students, with a more rebellious character, the only one who is forbidden to participate in the trip. Victorian discipline seems to be reinforced by women’s heavy clothing. It is a social commentary specific to the literature of the Victorian period (Dickens, Thomas Hardy, Charlotte Brontë, etc.) but also a political one. The way the characters dress does not harmonize at all with the climate of the continent, and the institutions imported from the capital of the empire do not resist the confrontation with a mystery that seems to have its solution beyond the accepted logic. Behind the appearances created by corsets and well-kept hairdos, the characters are fragile and hide dramas they are not allowed to share. Or suppressed dramas often end in tragedy. ‘Picnic at Hanging Rock‘ is a beautiful, sensitive, poetical, disturbing film. Today’s spectators will not escape the magic of the Mountain.
Ed Harris, an actor I admire a lot, has stepped behind the camera only twice so far, to sit in the film director’s chair. His third film is now in pre-production. The second one, which I saw last night, is from 2008 and is called ‘Appaloosa‘. It is a western in which Harris casts himself in the lead role, as he had done in 2000 with ‘Pollock’, a very different film. Appaloosa is the name of the town in New Mexico where the story is set in the 1880s. There is no such town on the map, but there is a breed of horse with that name. The film is special and different, one of those Westerns that follows the rules of the genre by providing a respectable amount of gun duels, battles with Indians and stories about justice on the moving frontiers of America at the time, but at the same time tries to say more about real life and the feelings of the heroes. It’s actually quite a modern story of friendship and love, which could very well have taken place in another place or century.
Virgil Cole and Everett Hitch are two guns-to-hire who are on the good side of the law. Appaloosa notables hire them to defend the town from the actions of rancher Randall Bragg, a thug who terrorizes the peaceful residents and who assassinated the previous sheriff. Establishing the rule of law is not easy when laws do not really exist in the frontier territories of those times. Things get even more complicated when the beautiful Mrs. French appears, a poor but sophisticated widow who hides secrets in her past and who will awaken the passions of the three men. Will the friendship between the two heroes last?
The denouement will come after many adventures and gun duels that will satisfy fans of the genre. ‘Appaloosa‘ is filmed like a classic western in which the atmosphere of frontier America of those times is very well brought to the screen. of life. The dialogues between Virgil Cole – the fearless but sometimes lacking words sheriff – and Hitch – the more cerebral and well-versed deputy – take up a large part of the story. Men who have been through wars and the adventures of conquering the West seem clumsy precisely when it comes to relationships with women. Ed Harris and Viggo Mortensen (the later with an impossible makeup though) are very suitable in these roles. On the other hand, I was surprised by Jeremy Irons, who makes one of the less inspired roles of his career, in my opinion, failing to nuance his ‘bad guy’ character enough. Renée Zellweger, also, failed to reveal the motivations of her character – Alli French. When is this woman honest? Who does she really love? The feminine mystery, you will say. Maybe. Anyway, in the end we are left with the same dilemmas as the male heroes of the film. But also with enough reasons to think about this film and its characters even after watching it.
Jacques Audiard has never disappointed me before. Many of his films have as their main theme (or one of the main themes) the search for identity and changes of identity. Many of the memorable characters in his films search for their identities or hide under false identities or have at the end of the story in the film a different identity than the one we had known them under earlier. This is also the case with ‘Emilia Pérez‘ (2024), one of the films that made a sensation and also collected awards at this year’s Cannes Film Festival. It is an interesting and original combination of a film about the Mexican mafia and social and political criticism, of soap opera and musical. The story takes place most of the time in Mexico, but the filming took place in France. The cast is international and the film is spoken and sung in Spanish, although the director is not fluent in the language. ‘Emilia Pérez‘ is a film that divided the opinions of critics and also divides the opinions of the audiences to extremes. I am one of those who liked this movie a lot.
The film begins as a narco-thriller, continues as a sci-fi musical, moves into melodrama with social overtones and ends as a narco-thriller, coming full circle. Along the way, we will have the opportunity to follow the transformation of two main characters: an insecure lawyer who cannot make her way in a world dominated by men, and a gangster who wants to lose his trace and identity. Both characters want to transform into something else entirely. The transformations are radical and there is no going back.
The main criticism leveled at the film is perhaps justified. Apparently it’s about Mexico, with the violence of a society based on drug trafficking and kidnapping, but the rendering seems to be based on stereotypes about Mexico rather than reality. There are plenty of other films, including those by Mexican filmmakers, that present a much more humane, more complex, more nuanced picture. The director’s attention is focused on the relationships between four women who love and hate, suffer and try to realize themselves in a world that oppresses them. We are witnessing a family drama that does not shy away from melodrama, but we are definitely in the land of soap operas. Of the four characters and performers who received an interesting collective award for female performance at Cannes, that of the lawyer Rita played by Zoe Saldana and that of Karla Sofía Gascón as the gangster Manitas del Monte turned Emilia Pérez I think stand out. Characters from Almodovar’s films immediately come to mind, but here I think both the story and the character are much more complex. Can gender transformation also lead to a complete personality transformation? It is the central question related to the heroine of the film, and I think the answer will be given by each of the viewers. The artistic vehicle of this question is an emotional captivating story, told in an original and engaging style. “Emilia Pérez” is the second film in a few months that proves that the musical genre is alive. The other is ‘Joker 2’. Both movies have their fans and their critics. Proof of vitality.
Spațiul internetic al multora dintre noi a fost ocupat în primele două săptămâni ale lunii octombrie cu discuții legate de Premiul Nobel pentru Literatură. După ce ne-am lămurit că nici în acest an Mircea Cărtărescu nu se află printre laureați și după ce am dezbătut aprig cauzele și ce este de făcut, putem examina în liniște cine sunt laureații celorlalte premii, trecând în revistă biografiile și realizările acestora. Desigur, pentru rubrica CHANGE.WORLD, ceea ce ne interesează sunt premiile din domeniile legate de știință. În acest an, multe dintre aceste premii au legături directe și aplicații imediate și în ramuri ale tehnologiilor avansate, inclusiv Inteligența Artificială (AI). Trecerea în revistă a premiilor din acest an ne-a dezvăluit că nici în aceste categorii nu lipsesc surprizele sau controversele.
Primul premiu anunțat în ‘săptămâna Nobel’ a fost cel pentru fiziologie sau medicină. Câștigătorii sunt Victor Ambros (născut în 1953), în prezent profesor de științe naturale la Școala de Medicină a Universității din Worcester, și Gary Ruvkin (n. 1952), în prezent profesor de genetică la Spitalul General și Școala Medicală din Harvard. Ambii laureați au studiat la reputatele universități MIT și, respectiv, Harvard, și lucrează în același stat american, Massachusetts. Descoperirea pentru care au primit premiul se numește microRNA (microARN), mecanismul care permite celulelor cu informație genetică (cromozomială) identică să se dezvolte în tipurile de celule diverse și diferențiate care alcătuiesc diferitele părți ale plantelor și organe ale animalelor. Domeniul lor de expertiză, aflat la frontiera dintre chimie și biologie, se numește biologie moleculară. Premiul din acest an este un fel de continuare și completare a premiului acordat anul trecut, care îi recunoștea pe descoperitorii mesagerilor RNA (mRNA), transmițători de informație despre sinteza proteinelor. Savanții premiați în acest an au răspuns unei întrebări care i-a preocupat pe cercetători vreme de decenii. În nucleul fiecărei celule se află un set complet de instrucțiuni – genomul – pentru crearea unei ființe vii. Biologii au fost intrigați de modul în care același set de gene și instrucțiuni poate duce la tipuri atât de diferite de celule în organism, de la celule musculare la celule hepatice. Răspunsul este că nu toate genele dintr-un nucleu sunt traduse în proteine. Diferite tipuri de celule își urmează propriile căi de dezvoltare folosind doar acele instrucțiuni genetice relevante pentru creșterea și dezvoltarea lor. Selecția necesară pentru fiecare tip de celulă este controlată parțial de moleculele miARN, descoperite de cercetătorii Ambros și Ruvkun. Acestea sunt o clasă de molecule mici compuse din doar 20 până la 24 de nucleotide (literele A, C, G, U ale genomului) care codifică modul în care se diferențiază celulele. Descoperirea lor, publicată în 1993 și rezultat al muncii de peste un deceniu în laboratoarele MIT, a fost întâmpinată cu indiferență la început de comunitatea științifică. De vină a fost poate faptul că experiențele erau făcute pe o specie de viermi rotunzi numiți ‘Caenorhabditis elegans’, și a trebuit să treacă mult timp și să fie acumulate informații diverse care să demonstreze că este vorba despre mecanisme comune întregului regn animal. Aplicațiile sunt însă multiple. Reglarea defectuoasă de către moleculele miRNA poate contribui la cancer și epilepsie. Mutațiile genelor care codifică moleculele miRNA provoacă afecțiuni precum pierderea congenitală a auzului și se crede că sunt implicate în patologia multor tulburări oculare, cum ar fi cataracta, glaucomul și degenerescența maculară. Moleculele miRNA sunt, de asemenea, considerate a avea un rol în numeroase boli osoase, cum ar fi osteoporoza, osteosarcomul și metastazele osoase. Novo Nordisk, un gigant farmaceutic danez, este una dintre firmele care încearcă să producă medicamente folosind miRNA. Anul acesta a achiziționat Cardior, o firmă germană, al cărei candidat principal la medicament, CDR132L, funcționează prin blocarea unui anumit miRNA, în speranța de a ajuta pacienții cu insuficiență cardiacă cronică și hipertrofie cardiacă (îngroșarea și rigidizarea pereților inimii).
Premiul Nobel pentru fizică a fost câștigat de John Hopfield (n. 1933) de la Universitatea Princeton, și Geoffrey Hinton (n. 1947), de la Universitatea din Toronto. Va rămâne probabil în istorie ca primul Nobel în a cărui motivație este menționată Inteligența Artificială: „pentru descoperiri și invenții fundamentale care permit învățarea automată cu rețele neuronale artificiale”. Activitățile celor doi savanți datează și ele începând cu anii ’80 ai secolului trecut. Despre ce este vorba? Sistemele AI se bazează pe procese de învățare care folosesc, spre deosebire de memoriile calculatoarelor digitale clasice, rețele neuronale, similare celor din creier. Rețelele neuronale artificiale sunt programe de calculator bazate pe modelul funcționării rețelelor biologice reale de celule nervoase sau neuroni. Acestea sunt legate între ele prin sinapse, iar intensitățile conexiunilor (cunoscute sub numele de „ponderi”) dintre „noduri” (echivalentul neuronilor) în astfel de rețele sunt variabile. Rețeaua „învață” prin dezvoltarea de conexiuni mai puternice între noduri. Această flexibilitate conferă rețelei capacitatea de a procesa informații în mod diferit în funcție de performanțele din trecut. Cu alte cuvinte, rețeaua învață. Rețelele Hopfield, în care fiecare nod este conectat la oricare altul, cu excepția lui însuși, utilizează procese fizice care descriu caracteristicile unui material datorită spinului său atomic – o proprietate care face din fiecare atom un magnet mic. Procesele iterative duc – de exemplu – la clarificarea unei imagini „încețoșate” sau a unei înregistrări sonore „bruiate” – procese similare reconstituirii „amintirilor” din trecut. Geoffrey Hinton a folosit rețeaua Hopfield ca punct de plecare pentru un nou tip de rețea care utilizează o metodă diferită – mașinile Boltzmann, un concept vechi de un secol, care provine din mecanica statistică, inventat de Ludwig Boltzmann (1844 – 1906), pentru a explica legea a doua a termodinamicii. Mașinile Boltzmann pot fi folosite pentru a crea sisteme care învață în mod autonom, recunoscând elementele caracteristice dintr-un anumit tip de date. Hinton a combinat cele două teorii, ceea ce a dus, printre altele, la dezvoltarea explozivă actuală a învățării automate.
Premiile Nobel pentru Chimie au și ele legătura lor cu Inteligența Artificială. AI și structura proteinelor, mai exact. Laureații din acest an sunt David Baker (n.1962), de la Universitatea Washington din Seattle, care a realizat ceva considerat aproape imposibil cu ceva timp în urmă – crearea de tipuri complet noi de proteine –, și Demis Hassabis (n. 1976) și John Jumper (n. 1985), de la Google DeepMind, care au dezvoltat un model AI pentru a rezolva o problemă veche de 50 de ani – prezicerea structurilor complexe ale proteinelor. Elementul comun al tuturor acestor cercetări premiate acum cu Nobel este folosirea de modele matematice computerizate în combinație cu biochimia teoretică. Proteinele constau, în general, din 20 de aminoacizi diferiți, care pot fi descriși ca elemente de bază ale vieții. Într-o lucrare de referință din 2003, David Baker a reușit să proiecteze o proteină complet nouă. Folosind un program de calculator pe care l-a numit Rosetta, a găsit o secvență de aminoacizi capabilă să se plieze în moduri necunoscute în natură. De atunci, grupul său de cercetători a produs serii după serii de proteine, inclusiv proteine care pot fi folosite ca produse farmaceutice, vaccinuri, nanomateriale și senzori minusculi. A doua descoperire se referă la prezicerea structurilor proteinelor. În proteine, aminoacizii sunt legați împreună în șiruri lungi care se pliază pentru a forma o structură tridimensională, care este decisivă pentru funcția proteinei. Începând cu anii 1970, cercetătorii au încercat să prezică structurile proteinelor din secvențele de aminoacizi, dar acest lucru a fost considerat extrem de dificil. În 2020, Demis Hassabis și John Jumper au prezentat un model AI numit AlphaFold2. Cu ajutorul acestuia, ei au reușit să prezică structura aproape a tuturor celor 200 de milioane de proteine pe care cercetătorii le-au identificat. De la descoperirea lor, AlphaFold2 a fost folosit de peste două milioane de oameni din 190 de țări. Metoda are o multitudine de aplicații științifice prin care cercetătorii pot înțelege mai bine, de exemplu, rezistența organismelor la antibiotice sau pot crea imagini ale enzimelor care descompun materialele plastice, reducând aproape complet unul dintre factorii majori ai poluării la scara globala.
Criticile au fost acerbe și în acest an și ele au început din momentul anunțării fiecăruia dintre premii. Desigur, subiectul principal a fost și în categoriile științifice cine a câștigat și cine merita dar nu a câștigat. Dar nu a fost singurul subiect. Pentru a rămâne relevante în secolul XXI, premiile Nobel vor trebui să treacă printr-un proces de reforme. Categoriile nu mai corespund domeniilor contemporane ale științelor și tehnologiilor. Limita de trei nume individuale în fiecare categorie nu mai este nici ea relevantă, mai ales că multe dintre realizările științifice aparțin azi unor echipe sau firme tehnologice. În fine, în acest an, toți laureații din domeniile științifice sunt – din nou – bărbați, accentuând un dezechilibru de gen despre care am scris deja în trecut. Exista însă și tendințe pozitive. Cel mai în vârstă laureat Nobel în domeniile științifice în acest an are 91 de ani, în timp ce cel mai tânăr are 39 de ani. Unele dintre cercetările premiate cu Nobel în 2024 erau deja în curs atunci când cei mai tineri laureați abia se nășteau. Dincolo de combinația interesantă de generații, este de remarcat ca o trăsătură comună a tuturor cercetătorilor faptul că premiile primite sunt rezultatul unor eforturi ale unor echipe complexe și multi-disciplinare. Cu câteva decenii în urmă, știința părea că se află pe drumul compartimentalizării și specializărilor înguste. Explozia cunoașterii amplificate de metodele AI a făcut ca modelele matematice bazate pe baze mari de date (Big Data) să devină mai accesibile cercetătorilor și tehnologilor. Enciclopedismul și multi-disciplinaritatea care-i caracterizau pe marii oameni de știință ai Renașterii pare să revină la modă.
(Articolul a apărut iniţial în revista culturală ‘Literatura de Azi’ – http://literaturadeazi.ro/)
Michael Winner‘s ‘Appointment to Death‘ (1988) is the sixth and last film in the series of adaptations of Agatha Christie’s novels starring Hercule Poirot and starring Peter Ustinov. In several places I read that it is also considered the weakest of the films in this series, a kind of exemplification of the fact that the studios rely on previous successes and do not stop until a film is made too much and too weak at the end of the series. I don’t really like classifications of this kind, and I confess that I didn’t suffer at all when watching this film, which has qualities, it has flaws, but it also has a cast and a production that make it interesting for cinema fans and viewers of today.
‘Appointment with Death‘ depicts a crime typical of the ‘whodunit’ formula of Agatha Christie’s novels and the films inspired by them. Emily Boyton is a rich man’s widow who fraudulently appropriates his entire inheritance at the expense of his and her children. Everyone around her seems to have reasons to kill her, and the only wonder is how late the murder happens, about halfway through the film. Until then, viewers are invited to follow the heroes (Emily and her family and entourage) on a trip to the Europe of 1937, on a cruise on the Mediterranean and to the Holy Land, then under British mandate. The crime takes place under the burning sun of the Judean desert, on the shores of the Dead Sea. The characters (almost all suspects) will be gathered by Poirot in a final scene where the name of the murderer will be revealed. The classic formula is respected.
Bringing Agatha Christie’s novels to the screen is not easy, Kenneth Branagh can testify. Her detective stories are intellectually stimulating yet theatrical in their lines, characters and setting. Those who dare must create a natural and believable setting, or emphasize the theatricality and mystery. Actors have to give life and individuality to characters that sometimes seem like multiplications of stereotypes. The producers of the film were Yoram Globus and Menahem Golan who, in the 80s, tried to revolutionize the film industry with productions that were both spectacular and economically viable, making films with an appeal to the public, mostly action films, with tight-controlled budgets. Using their relationships with Israeli cinema, they organized the filming of ‘Appointment with Death‘ on location in Jerusalem, Jaffa and on the shores of the Dead Sea. Qumran replaces ancient Petra from the novel (located in present-day Jordan) as the place where the final part of the action takes place. This is a historical license, as large-scale archaeological excavations began there only a decade later, after the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls. With this exception, noticed only by history buffs, the atmosphere is of truthfulness as the context of the era is rendered very well. Surrounding the drama in the film are historical dramas of major proportions in Britain (the abdication of Edward VIII and the accession to the throne of George VI), Europe (the story passes through Mussolini’s Italy) and Mandatory Palestine. The cast brings to the same screen several famous actors. Peter Ustinov is at his last appearance as Poirot and seems a bit settled into the routine. Two great female stars of the past – Lauren Bacall and Piper Laurie – receive beautiful end-of-career roles and play them with charm and elegance. Carrie Fisher and John Gielgud, two other actors I really like, have rather thin roles and do everything to fill them with some content. Even if the rest of the cast is far below their level, the ensemble works satisfactorily. Solving the mystery in the novel is based on putting together, as in a puzzle, the testimonies of various witnesses who had seen something, each from his point of view. This intellectual exercise is recreated in the film through flashbacks that bring Poirot’s interpretations to the screen. ‘Appointment with Death‘ is not the best of the films inspired by the Hercule Poirot novels, but not one to be avoided either.
How many times have you said ‘It’s not the end of the world!’ lately? Next time you do, be careful, because there might even be a version of the end of the world happening beyond the walls of the room you’re in. This is what happens to the characters in the British film ‘Shaun of the Dead‘ (2004), directed by Edgar Wright and written by him together with Simon Pegg, who also plays the main role in the film. It’s a slapstick comedy, – which is the only formula in which I could stand a movie with zombies -, a parody and homage to ‘classic’ films of a genre that is far from my comfort zone. Still, I enjoyed and thoroughly enjoyed ‘Shaun of the Dead‘, which was just the right movie for my Halloween night.
Five young Londoners are the heroes of this film. Shaun and Liz are a couple, but Liz seems to have had enough of the lack of ambition and intellectual mediocrity of Shaun, who doesn’t know better than to spend every night at ‘The Winchester’ pub, named after the shotgun hanging above the bar. Dianne and David, a somewhat more ‘normative’ couple and Liz’s roommates encourage her to break up. To top it off, Shaun’s roommate Ed is a goofball incapable of anything other than making bad jokes, playing video games, and lounging on a couch. A kind of end of the world is happening in London, but these TV sitcom-like heroes notice nothing for a couple of days being too absorbed in their own conflicts, and not realizing that the behavior of those around them it’s a different degree of zombification than usual. When people begin to be devoured, their only escape plan is to take refuge in the pub that is the center of their Universe. The Winchester rifle will also play a role.
The themes of the pub as a fundamental institution for his heroes and that of the end of the world will be explored by film director Edgar Wright together with his accomplice, the actor Simon Pegg, and in a film made almost a decade later – ‘The World’s End’. The success (and near-masterpiece rating on IMDB) has several reasons. First of all, the characters in the film are real and familiar. Real and familiar, not necessarily like our neighbors, but certainly like TV sitcom heroes. Each character is well-defined, the pace of the story and the jokes flow freely and there are almost no dead lines in the film. The horror side is treated with humor and an indifference to political correctness that makes any excess acceptable. Even the creatures called zombies are filmed in such a way that they become flags in the comedy slalom and not obstacles to entertainment. The confusion between their world and the ‘real’ one is a nice social commentary. I saw ‘Shaun of the Dead‘ on Halloween night, but I bear witness that it’s a delicious movie any day of the year.
Three of the four films made in the last 11 years by Emmanuelle Bercot have Catherine Deneuve as the star. Bercot is one of those film directors who, being also an actress, knows very well how to highlight the actors who play in her films. I think that they appreciate and enjoy the freedom of expression and the collaboration with a filmmaker who understands their experiences and feelings well. ‘Elle s’en va‘, the first film that brought the two together in 2013 (the title in the English distribution is ‘On My Way‘) is a good proof of the advantages of such collaborations. Catherine Deneuve creates one of her good and consistent roles, and for Bercot this is one of the most successful films of her entire career as a director.
The opening scenes describe one of the most catastrophic days in the life of Bettie, the main heroine of the film. She is in her 60s and lives a secluded life, running together with her mother a family restaurant that is in danger of bankruptcy. The most important memory of her life is participating in a Miss France beauty contest that had taken place some 40 years ago. The sweetheart of her youth is dead, so is the husband she may or may not have loved, and she is just now finding out that her lover has left her for a much younger woman. Nervous, she starts smoking again and gets into the car, driving where the roads take her. Her journey gets on a purpose when her daughter calls asking her to take her 11-year-old grandson to his other grandfather, whom she has never met. Traveling by car from one end of France to the other helps her get to know a world from which she had been cut off, her grandson and ultimately herself.
In ‘Elle s’en va‘ we see two films. One of them is a ‘road movie’ set in ‘Deep France’ seen from the perspective of a woman who chose (or fate chose for her) to spend four decades in an isolated corner of the country. The other is a family drama spanning four generations. I really liked the ‘road movie’ part. Wanting to distance herself from the American or German models of the genre, Emmanuelle Bercot presents a diverse and positive human perspective and landscape. With one exception, Bettie meets good people, even if some are strange, people who jump in to help her rather than rob her, and at no point does she feel threatened as a single woman traveling alone. It is perhaps also a reflection of the other drama he is experiencing, the personal one. Viewers will never find out if her isolation was voluntary, if her relationships failed more because of her own fault or not. Some interesting themes are rather sketched out than developed, such as the repeated failure of women in every generation of the family to live independently, away from or without the men they loved. The scenes of the reunion after many decades of the participants in beauty contests of the last century would deserve a separate film. The ending is far too conventional to be believable. Catherine Deneuve is, of course, amazing. Not only does she seamlessly play the part of a woman ten years her junior, but she does so with sensitivity and depth, filling the screen with beauty and personality, just as she did 50 years before and will do 10 years from later. The role is written for her, the camera follows her from far and near, and the actress enters the role and imposes her persona and personality on her. Here, however, is the problem and perhaps the weakness of the film: Deneuve is so dominant that everything that happens around her character is overshadowed. It is as if we are in the central square of a city in the middle of which a superb statue or fountain absorbs the eyes of the visitors and does not allow them to see the beauty of the surrounding houses.
‘Le diable par la queue‘ (1969) is part of a series of successful films that Philippe de Broca made in the 60s and 70s. Most of them combined comedy with action films, and the casts included some of the best-known actors of the era, which ensured them immediate and constant success with audiences. Revisited half a century or more after release, we can see that many of these films have not only ‘aged beautifully’, but are still enjoyable entertainment for today’s viewers and have something special and interesting to say in addition. This is also the case for ‘Le diable par la queue‘.
The film’s premise might as well be that of a thriller. In a corner of France, a noble family runs a hotel in a semi-ruined castle. They attract their customers in complicity with the local garage and gas station owner, who sabotages the cars of passers-by. Arriving at the castle-hotel, these are greeted by the family composed of counts, countesses, barons and marquises, who ensure a stay full of special services. Things get complicated when one of the customers forced to spend the night at the castle turns out to be a burglar, who had just committed a robbery and tries to leave the area with a hard case bag containing the loot of the heist.
The French love castles and movies set in castles. ‘Le diable par la queue‘ was made at the end of a decade in which several of the successful ‘serious’ films had castles as a setting. This time the romantic vein and social commentary are almost completely replaced by the naughty and sexy humor of many comedies of the same period. Although the film is not a parody, we can guess that Philippe de Broca and his screenwriters had in mind the mentioned French models, but maybe also horror films like ‘Psycho’. The result is very nice. The ladies of the noble family, from the marquise mother of the family played by Madeleine Renaud, the countess daughter (Maria Schell) and the baroness niece (Marthe Keller) flaunt and use their charms with aplomb. We can also see Jean Rochefort, at an age when he was more of a cuckolded husband than a standard of French pronunciation. Of course, however, the bulk of the feast is provided by Yves Montand, in a role in which he makes extensive use of his showmanship talents. A viewing of this film is likely to appeal to spectators looking for nostalgia, as well as to those who just want to be amused by a sparkling comedy.
