We live in crazy times and one of the best things that can offer an alternative of the unbearable reality for at least an hour and a half is a crazy comedy. If that’s what you’re looking for, ‘The Brothers Grimsby‘ (2016) might be just the stuff you need. The film director is the Frenchman Louis Leterrier, who directed several action films, and the lead actor is Sacha Baron Cohen. This combination is for some movie lovers a meeting of two of the best possible cinematic worlds, and ‘The Brothers Grimsby‘ is likely not to disappoint as an action comedy. Those who dislike Sacha Baron Cohen‘s cheeky, physical and sometimes physiological humor probably already know to avoid his films.
The story takes place on three continents: Africa, South America and Great Britain. These are the three continents on which the matches of the twothousandandsixteen (written as 200016 on a chest tattoo) football World Cup take place. The owner of the tattoo is Nobby, the hero of the film played by Sacha Baron Cohen, a hooligan supporter of the England national team from Grimsby (a real city in the north of England, twinned with Chernobyl, the filming did not take place there). He has nine children and a wife … you better see her with your own eyes. An orphan, as a child he was separated from his brother Sebastian – MI6 agent, killer of bad guys and protector of the good guys – whom he finds at the exact moment he is carrying out a mission to prevent the assassination of the head of the World Health Organization. As a result of the physical collision of the two reunited brothers, the mission fails and Sebastian is suspected as a traitor. The good guys and the bad guys, MI6 and the terrorists, they all want to kill him. The only ones who help him are an operator from the MI6 headquarters and brother Nobby, who may seem like a perfect idiot but has as allies the whole tribune of hooligans who support England in football.
That’s pretty much the premise of the story, but you already know that in Sacha Baron Cohen‘s films (he also co-wrote the script) the story is just a pretext for a continuous string of gags of all kinds, from the physically comic to the character ones, from impossible stunts to shameless language. You can rely on humor to be as politically incorrect as possible. This is what happens all the time in ‘The Brothers Grimsby‘. Anyone and anything can be the subject of jokes: spies and spy movies, football and its supporters, obesity, families with many children, welfare, terrorists and counter-terrorists, the World Health Organization, philanthropists, Daniel Radcliffe and Donald Trump. Sacha Baron Cohen as the hooligan brother is outrageous as always, while Mark Strong as the spy brother tries to be funny by dullness. The action scenes are very well done, you can see that the director is an expert in this field. The humor has extreme moments and those who do not taste political incorrectness are warned. I liked the movie, it achieved its goal of entertaining me for its duration. Before I forget – Penélope Cruz is also in the cast.
There are several good reasons why Richard Fleischer‘s ‘Soylent Green‘ (1973) deserves to be seen in 2023. Fleischer had made three years earlier together with two Japanese directors the film that would remain the biggest success of his career – ‘Tora ! Torah! Torah!’ – a reenactment of the events leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor and of the attack itself from the perspectives of both sides. But ‘Soylent Green‘ belongs to a completely different category of films. It is a dystopia of anticipation, imagining then, in 1973, the sick world of 2022. Beyond the comparison of predictions with reality, it is also interesting to watch Charlton Heston, an actor who had specialized in films that did not foresee a very optimistic future mankind. The dystopia genre was also evolving, with many films transitioning the sources of destruction from atomic apocalypse to ecological catastrophe. Finally, ‘Soylent Green‘ also marks the last screen appearance of Edward G. Robinson, the actor born in Romania who had specialized decades before in roles in gangster films. Here, at 79 years old, he has a completely different kind of role.
The story is based on a novel by Harry Harrison. The population of New York in 2022 has reached 40 million inhabitants. The ecosystem is almost completely destroyed and social differences are polarized to the extreme. The majority of the population lives in poverty, even water is rationed, natural food is a luxury commodity being replaced by synthetic food produced by a large and unique corporation. A minority of the rich live in luxury housing estates, guarded by armed forces, with everything at their disposal, including women for entertainment who are called ‘furniture’. In this environment a crime takes place, which is investigated by a detective named Thorn, who, without being an incorruptible angel, still does his job. The victim is one of the rich people of this world, connected to the ultra-powerful corporation. The stake is the artificial green food, supposedly made from algae. A terrible secret hangs over this food supply, and revealing it could endanger not only the lives of those who own it, but the entire system.
In the scene that opens the film, the evolution of the world from industrialization to self-destruction is presented to us through a sequence of backflashes. The prediction of ecological catastrophe is remarkable, and still represents a possible pessimistic scenario, even if it may look now delayed by several decades. The characters still don’t know how to say ‘global warming’, but there’s no need either, because we see their faces and bodies permanently drenched in sweat. Unlike other anticipation films directors, Richard Fleischer decided not to invest too much in technological predictions. In fact, the world of 2022 he envisioned in 1973 has not evolved, quite the opposite. Futuristic gadgets are not completely absent, but they are concentrated in a few places and are located in the world of those who own and control the system. Most of the city is characterized by chaos, crowding, violence. The scenes of the mass demonstrations (filmed with yellow filters to suggest the pollution outside) or the dirty and deserted city at night are the most impressive. The police inquiry thread that connects the episodes is quite banal and the acting, with one exception, does not exceed the standard of B-movies of those years. I confess that Charlton Heston, who does the lead role, is not one of my favorite actors. I’ve always thought his repertoire of grimaces was limited and this movie didn’t change my mind. Edward G. Robinson‘s role is impressive, though. He is old Roth, Thorn’s friend and roommate, and one of those who can still read books and remember how the world used to be. The final scene in which he appears, that of the character’s death, was filmed 12 days before the actor’s death. While dying he watches a movie that shows the wonderful planet that was Earth. The message to protect it and preserve its beauty is still relevant today.
Sergio Leone directed seven feature films throughout his career. Seven films out of which six, grouped in two trilogies, are enough for his name to be considered today among the most important directors of the 20th century. ‘Once Upon a Time in the West‘ (1968) is the first film of the second trilogy. In the previous years he had made the three spaghetti western films which are today considered a revolution in the history of the western genre and perhaps the films that saved this genre and demonstrated its vitality, ensuring it a future. The first films were made with the modest financial means typical of European films. In 1968, for ‘Once Upon a Time in the West‘, Leone obtained financing from one of the major American studios, Paramount. With their money he afforded a lavish production and he was able to approach first rank Hollywood stars for casting. Henri Fonda responded, and his inclusion in the cast is a nice homage to classic American westerns. Asa reward, Leone cast him in the first big ‘bad guy’ role of his career and gave him the opportunity to play for the first time … in a bedroom scene. He filmed lavishly, with many extras and super production sets. Some scenes are filmed in the American state of Utah, in the desert area where the story of the film takes place. However, most of the filming was again done in Spain, as in the previous films, and the studio scenes at Cinecittà. After changing the destiny of westerns, Sergio Leone inaugurates with this film the ‘Once Upon a Time …’ trilogy and opens a new perspective to the genre of the great American epics.
The original script is signed by Leone together with Sergio Donati, but Bernardo Bertolucci and Dario Argento also took part in the writing of the story on which it is based. We are in a dusty town on the edge of the desert, on America’s moving frontier. Construction of the railroad that will cross the continent to the Pacific is nearing. If there are laws, they aren’t really followed, and everyone kind of makes their own law, often with the help of guns and gunmen gangs. Jill McBain is a beautiful woman from New Orleans who arrives in the city to meet her future husband. However, she finds herself in the situation of a widow, because the man she had married by correspondence had just been assassinated along with his three children. The reason and the stake is the land in his property, through which the railway line is to pass, land which the tycoon Morgan wants to seize with the help of the gunmen gang led by a bad fellow named Frank. Jill decides to stay to fight for the inherited property and to make her husband’s dream of building a prosperous city around a future train station a reality. She will be helped by other characters always on the edge of the law and by a mysterious man who plays the harmonica and seems interested in Frank’s person. They all wield their guns with dexterity, and these don’t stay unused too long time throughout the story.
Sergio Leone narrates as if he and his audience have all the time in the world. A scene can last ten or fifteen minutes, culminating in a gunfight lasting a few seconds. Each scene, however, is a story in itself, with characters that we know to the whites of their eyes and a setting in which we seem to be absorbed. Today a duration of more than two and a half hours for a film is something common, but in the 60s it was an exception. Sergio Leone actually sets a kind of standard in terms of running time for films depicting great American stories. To accommodate the format of American screenings, producers and distributors created shorter versions, and this also happened here and with other of his films. Each of the actors is given plenty of time to develop their character, and this happens even with the supporting roles, and there are many memorable ones in ‘Once Upon a Time in the West‘. The big roles cast is outstanding. Sergio Leone chooses first-rate actors, but counter-casts them in roles different than the usual in their careers up to that point, which reinforces the freshness feeling that we get while watching the film. Henry Fonda abandons the character of a man of justice and good causes and crosses over to the other side of the law. Charles Bronson on the other hand gives one of the best roles of his career as a positive character in the role of the mysterious man with a harmonica, proving what a good actor he was in addition to his acting talent in action films. Claudia Cardinale develops with charm and charisma the role of the widow, a role that was originally written for Sophia Loren. Ennio Morricone‘s music is organically integrated into the complete visual and emotional experience this film provides. ‘Once Upon a Time in the West’ is a timeless masterpiece.
One way to look at Claire Denis‘s ‘Trouble Every Day‘ (2001) is as a realistic and gory vampire movie (yes, even bloodier than many other vampire movies). Critics and experts in film history will say that the film belongs to the controversial current ‘New Extremity’ (or ‘New French Extremity’ if we don’t include Lars von Trier and Michael Haneke) which in the years before and after the turn of the millennium shocked the film world and viewers with themes and scenes of extreme violence. Leaving aside the categories and applying the disclaimer that the film is not for those who dislike violence on screen, I found ‘Trouble Every Day‘ to be an engaging and original film, well written and acted, of a strange and unsettling beauty.
The film’s opening scenes define postcard Paris as where much of the story takes place and introduce the two narrative planes, which will alternate until the meeting that throws the characters’ destinies up in the air. Léo is a doctor and Coré is his wife which he is forced to imprison in their own house, as when she escapes she attracts and seduces men, and then kills them and eats of their flesh. Shane and June Brown are an American newlywed couple traveling to Paris on their honeymoon. Arriving in Paris, Shane seems absent and preoccupied with something else. He had once worked with Léo and maybe even had an affair with Coré. He is looking for him and the reasons are not clear. Something about the joint research in which a revolutionary idea of Léo’s seems to have led to catastrophe? Or is it Shane’s obsessive tendencies that seem to be similar to Coré’s and are putting the fledgling marriage in jeopardy?
The directorial approach of Claire Denis (who is also a co-writer) is original for both a horror film and an art film, ‘Trouble Every Day‘ claiming to belong to both genres. The story is told coldly, indiferently. The music of the alternative rock group Tindersticks plays a different role than in Hitchcock’s films for example – it accompanies the bonding and tension-building moments, but stops at key scenes, when only the sounds of the action convey the drama of what is happening on screen. The cinematography belongs to the formidable Agnès Godard, a regular collaborator of Claire Denis but also of other directors such as Wim Wenders, Catherine Corsini or André Téchiné. The casting of Vincent Gallo, himself a controversial personality, seems counter-intuitive. He doesn’t look very American and doesn’t exude the apparent calmness that the role might demand. When the masks come off though, the intensity of his acting is just right. Béatrice Dalle as Coré is attractive and lethal. Tricia Vessey and Alex Descas are well cast in the roles of June and Léo. Tense and alert in pace, well filmed and without reticence in going far to exploring the limits, ‘Trouble Every Day‘ has good chances to satisfy art film lovers as well as those of horror and extremes movies fans.
Am intrat în ultima lună a anului, luna bilanțurilor. Ce an a fost! Am impresia că repetăm această exclamație de vreo patru ani încoace, de la începutul deceniului, din 2020 care a fost primul an al pandemiei. Veștile bune și veștile mai puțin bune se succed într-un ritm infernal. În domeniile științelor și al tehnologiilor avansate suntem martorii unor realizări de excepție și ai unor progrese rapide, adevărate salturi calitative, istorice în anumite domenii. În același timp se acumulează și devin din ce în ce mai reale pericolele avansurilor prea rapide și necontrolate sau prost controlate, precum și efectele distrugătoare ale unor politici greșite sau ale lipsei de politici pentru calitatea vieții planetei și a locuitorilor săi. În acest articol vom privi din nou în sus, spre spațiul extra-terestru și spre explorarea umană a limitelor Universului. Suntem și aici martori ai unei combinații de progrese reale și de pericole datorate extinderii în Cosmos a conflictelor pământești. Anul 2023 are șanse să rămână în istorie că Anul Unu al epocii războaielor spațiale.
Războiul dintre Israel și organizația teroristă Hamas ocupă de două luni încoace un loc important în fluxul de știri pe medii diverse. Pericolul extinderii conflictului la nivelul întregii zone geografice a Orientului Mijlociu sau chiar dincolo de aceasta încă există. Poate mai puțin observată a fost o știre care indica faptul că în acest conflict a fost depășită încă o frontieră geografică. Pe 31 octombrie, sistemul de rachete Arrow (Hetz în ebraică = săgeată) al Israelului a interceptat și distrus cu succes o rachetă balistică suborbitală, lansată probabil din Yemen de un grup terorist Houthi, care probabil viza localitatea Eilat, un oraș israelian de pe coasta Mării Roșii. Ziarul britanic The Telegraph susține că racheta a fost interceptată și distrusă deasupra liniei Kármán, aflată la 100 de kilometri deasupra nivelului mării și recunoscută pe scară largă drept granița dintre atmosferă și spațiul extra-terestru. Este vorba despre o premieră tehnologică. Sistemele balistice de apărare antirachetă se ocupă, în general, de amenințări în atmosfera Pământului. Chiar dacă testele anti-sateliți, cum ar fi cele efectuate de SUA, Rusia, China și India, au demonstrat capacități la altitudini mai mari, acestea au fost diferite de interceptarea unei rachete în zbor. Sistemul Arrow, construit de Israel în colaborare cu SUA, a fost testat pentru prima dată în 2013. Au urmat teste efectuate în 2014 și în 2019 deasupra statului Alaska, pe fondul îngrijorării cu privire la programele continue de rachete nucleare și balistice ale Iranului. Sistemul de apărare este conceput pentru a intercepta rachete balistice în afara atmosferei Pământului, permițându-i să doboare racheta lansată de teroriștii Houthi. Arrow oferă capabilități supersonice și poate apăra o zonă vastă, oferind o apărare cuprinzătoare a siturilor strategice și a zonelor populate mari. De asemenea, poate distruge la mare distanță, departe de ținte, obiecte amenințătoare, inclusiv cele care poartă arme de distrugere în masă. Sistemul de rachete folosește tehnologia numită ‘hit-to-kill’ pentru a distruge rachetele care se îndreaptă spre țintă, lansându-se vertical și deplasându-se spre punctul de interceptare estimat. Tratatul privind spațiul cosmic (OST) – un tratat multilateral care formează baza dreptului internațional al spațiului, în vigoare din 1967 – interzice plasarea armelor nucleare sau a altor arme de distrugere în masă pe orbită în jurul Pământului, pe corpuri cerești sau staționarea lor în spațiul exterior. Nu interzice în mod explicit armele convenționale și nici nu menționează interceptarea rachetelor în spațiu. În consecință, distrugerea unei rachete balistice convenționale de către sistemul Arrow – chiar dacă are loc deasupra liniei Kármán – nu pare să încalce OST. În plus, trebuie luat în considerare și articolul 3 din OST, care prevede că părțile participante la tratat vor acționa „în conformitate cu dreptul internațional, inclusiv cu Carta Națiunilor Unite”, care, în articolul 51, prevede dreptul la auto-apărare. Foarte probabil, racheta balistică nu s-a apropiat nicăieri de orbita Pământului, așa că, spre deosebire de testele anti-sateliți efectuate de alte țări, distrugerea ei probabil că nu a generat resturi orbitale periculoase. Acest incident demonstrează nu doar un progres în tehnologia defensivă a Israelului, ci stabilește o nouă paradigmă în considerente militare strategice. Națiunile din întreaga lume ar putea fi nevoite să-și reevalueze capacitățile ofensive și defensive în lumina acestei evoluții, care ar putea afecta securitatea internațională și politicile diferitelor state privind controlul armelor.
Un alt conflict care durează deja de peste șapte decenii este cel dintre cele două Coree. Cele două părți ale peninsulei, aflate în conflict, au ceva în comun: ambiții stratosferice. După ce a încercat și a eșuat de două ori să lanseze pe orbită circumterestră primul său satelit militar de spionaj la începutul acestui an, Coreea de Nord a susținut că a reușit aceasta pe 21 noiembrie. Coreea de Sud a răspuns lansând primul său satelit de spionaj pe 1 decembrie. Satelitul nord-coreean Malligyong-1 a devenit sâmbătă, 2 decembrie, complet operațional, potrivit unui articol publicat duminică de purtătorul de cuvânt al Agenției Centrale de Știri din Coreea de Nord (KCNA). Primul satelit de spionaj deținut de Coreea de Sud a fost lansat pe o rachetă SpaceX Falcon 9, de la baza forțelor spațiale Vandenberg, din California. Satelitul a fost plasat pe orbita desemnată la aproximativ o oră după decolare și a stabilit cu succes comunicarea cu stația de la sol. Lansarea a făcut parte din Proiectul 425 al Coreei de Sud, în cadrul căruia un satelit electro-optic în infraroșu (EO/IR) – cel lansat sâmbătă – și încă patru sateliți radar cu deschidere sintetică (SAR) vor fi trimiși pe orbita joasă a Pământului până în anul 2025, cu scopul de a spori capacitățile de recunoaștere ale armatei și de a reduce dependența de sursele de informații străine. Sateliții SAR au capacitatea de a capta date în toate condițiile meteorologice, fără limitările cu care se confruntă cei EO/IR, care nu pot pătrunde în norii groși. Odată operaționali, cei cinci sateliți vor efectua o supraveghere de înaltă rezoluție asupra facilităților militare cheie ale vecinului cu arme nucleare la intervale de două ore, îmbunătățind astfel în mod semnificativ sistemul „Kill Chain” al Coreei de Sud, care este o platformă concepută pentru a contracara preventiv amenințările nord-coreene, prin detectarea semnelor unui atac iminent. Se știe puțin despre capacitățile tehnice ale satelitului nord-coreean, cum ar fi tehnologia de operare a camerei, procesarea datelor și capacitatea de transmisie a dispozitivelor sale de comunicație. Se estimează că rezoluția spațială a satelitului nord-coreean este semnificativ în urmă față de cel al Coreei de Sud. Satelitul militar sud-coreean este capabil să detecteze un obiect de până la 30 de centimetri și va fi astfel capabil să surprindă mișcările oricăror vehicule militare nord-coreene, în timp ce satelitul nord-coreean este cunoscut că are o rezoluție estimată de aproximativ trei metri. Nu este suficient de sofisticat pentru a desfășura activități de recunoaștere militară semnificative, altele decât detectarea vehiculelor masive și a navelor maritime uriașe. Tehnologiile însă se îmbunătățesc permanent, și această nouă cursă spațială emergentă are implicații mari pentru securitatea regională și globală.
Pare că nu trece vreo săptămână fără știri senzaționale despre Elon Musk, antreprizele, inițiativele și luările sale de poziții. La sfârșitul lunii noiembrie, Musk a vizitat Israelul, întâlnindu-se cu liderii țării și vizitând un kibbutz distrus de Hamas în atacul din 7 octombrie, în timp ce încerca să calmeze indignarea cauzată de susținerea unei postări antisemite pe platforma sa de socializare, X (fostul Twitter). Pentru Gaza a propus, desigur, folosirea sistemului de comunicații prin satelit Starlink. Lansările Starlink deja depășesc ca număr toate celelalte lansări efectuate de alte companii particulare și de agențiile guvernamentale și internaționale împreună. Musk are însă ambiții și mai mari. Pe 18 noiembrie a avut loc al doilea zbor de probă al rachetei sale Starship, cea mai mare rachetă construită vreodată. Primul test, în aprilie, s-a încheiat cu o rampă de lansare deteriorată și o rachetă care s-a autodistrus după probleme cu mai multe dintre cele 33 de motoare ale primei trepte a rachetei și eșecul celei de-a doua trepte de a se separa corect. A doua lansare a fost o mare îmbunătățire. Un nou sistem de răcire a împiedicat racheta să distrugă rampa de lansare reconstruită. Toate motoarele primei etape au rămas aprinse. Un nou sistem de separare, care a necesitat ca a doua treaptă să înceapă să-și pornească motoarele în timp ce era încă atașată la prima, părea să funcționeze bine. Firma sperase ca prima treaptă să zboare înapoi la nivelul mării pentru un test de aterizare, dar aceasta a explodat la scurt timp după separare. A doua treaptă, între timp, a atins o altitudine de 148 km înainte ca o defecțiune să activeze sistemul de autodistrugere. Aceste teste par a fi eșecuri succesive, dar nu este chiar așa. Spre deosebire de rivalii săi cu mai multă vechime, SpaceX folosește „proiectarea iterativă” – lansând des și învățând din eșecuri, mai degrabă decât să încerce să prevadă fiecare problemă în avans. Treptele inferioare ale rachetelor sale Falcon 9 s-au prăbușit și au ars de multe ori înainte că firma să stăpânească arta aterizării și reutilizării lor, lucru care nu se mai făcuse înainte. În zilele noastre, cu peste 250 de misiuni de succes, Falcon 9 este cea mai fiabilă rachetă realizată vreodată. Unul dintre propulsoarele sale a zburat de 18 ori. Dacă Starship poate fi, de asemenea, făcută să zboare fiabil, ea ar putea transforma explorarea spațială. Este concepută pentru a transporta până la 150 de tone pe orbită, de peste șase ori mai mult decât un Falcon 9 și, datorită faptului că este complet reutilizabilă, va fi mult mai ieftin de lansat. NASA se bazează pe o versiune modificată ca parte a planului său de a reveni pe Lună. Astronomii sunt entuziasmați de perspectiva de a zbura cu telescoape spațiale enorme sau de a transporta pe Marte flote de rovere.
Primele zboruri ale programului Artemis de explorare a Lunii urmează însă să folosească racheta Space Launch System (SLS), proiectată de NASA și lansată cu succes cu un an în urmă. Dacă totul va merge după plan, misiunea Artemis 2 este planificată să fie primul zbor de testare cu echipaj al SLS și al navei spațiale Orion. Cei patru membri ai echipajului vor efectua teste extinse pe orbita Pământului, iar Orion va fi apoi propulsat într-o traiectorie de întoarcere liberă în jurul Lunii, care îl va întoarce pe Orion înapoi pe Pământ pentru reintrare și amerizare. Lansarea este programată nu mai devreme de sfârșitul lunii noiembrie 2024. Nu aș paria că această dată este reală. Programele spațiale, ca multe alte proiecte inginerești complexe, au faima de a fi totdeauna în întârziere și mai scumpe decât prevederile inițiale. Echipajul lui Artemis 2 va fi format din patru astronauți: comandantul Reid Wiseman, pilotul Victor J. Glover, specialistul în sarcină utilă Christina Koch și specialistul în misiune Jeremy Hansen. Cum ne aflăm în epoca diversității, Glover, Koch și Hansen urmează să fie prima persoană de culoare, prima femeie și și primul ne-american (Hansen este canadian) care vor depăși orbita joasă a Pământului. Va fi frustrant pentru ei să fie atât de aproape de Lună și să nu aselenizeze? Nu este o premieră: prima aselenizare, în iulie 1969, a lui Apollo-11 a fost precedată de trei asemenea zboruri pregătitoare (Apollo 8, 9, 10).
Știrile din spatiu, ca și cele de pe Pământ sunt și ele, deci, amestecate. Nu putem decât spera ca veștile anului 2024 să fie cât mai bune și cât mai pașnice. Războaiele spațiale și bătăliile spectaculoase, gen Luke Skywalker, să facă bine să rămână pe ecranele cinematografelor și ale jocurilor video.
(Articolul a apărut iniţial în revista culturală ‘Literatura de Azi’ – http://literaturadeazi.ro/)
‘Marguerite‘ (2015), directed by Xavier Giannoli, is one of two films made less than a year apart based on the fascinating story of Florence Foster Jenkins, the wealthy American amateur soprano who became famous and ridiculous for her flamboyant stage costumes and vocal anti-talent. Her career in the social and bohemian circles of 1920s-40s New York raises many questions about by whom and how art is appreciated, about the connection between money and culture, about truth in art, in love and in life. Paradoxically, the cinema ignored the story until a few years ago, but when it came to it two films appeared within a year. I saw ‘Florence Foster Jenkins’, the American biopic directed by Stephen Frears in 2016 shortly after its release. A good movie, with Meryl Streep gorgeous as usual and Hugh Grant in maybe the best role of his career. It is only now, however, that I got to watching ‘Marguerite‘. If Frears‘ movie was good, Giannoli‘s is very good.
The screenplay written by Giannoli together with Marcia Romano moves the story to France in the years after the Great War. French bourgeois and aristocratic society tries to survive and continue its life of luxury after the war based on conservative patriotic values, but the whole system is put to the test by radical political and artistic movements. Now it’s the start of ‘les années folles’ with a lifestyle as if there was no tomorrow and with the Dadaist and avant-garde artistic challenges. Marguerite Dumont (the name is borrowed from the Marx Brothers films) is a rich aristocrat who is in love with her husband (who cheats on her) and with music. She sponsors musical evenings with the noble purpose of raising donations for war invalids. The problem is that her passion for music is not limited to listening and to organizing private evenings, but extends to vocal recitals where she sings. And she is awfully strident and completely out of tune. When she sings, children hide under the tables, her husband simulates mechanical problems with his car to avoid listening to her and those present laugh discreetly and applaud frantically at the end. Do they want to take advantage of her money? Do they want to manage her and dare not tell her the truth? Probably both. A group of young anarchist artists publishes an enthusiastic critique (after all, Marguerite is both original and passionate about what she does). A disastrous performance of the Marseillese ends with exclusion from aristocratic circles, but the desire to give a recital with a real audience increases. The wall of lies around her continues to protect her, even encourage her. Her devoted butler and her repentant husband support her. A famous opera singer past his peak of glory is hired to train her, after being blackmailed into silence. The public recital takes place. The ending is different than the one in the heroine’s life and in the American biopic, but it is not a happy one here either.
The French perspective of Marguerite‘ allows the authors to introduce elements that do not exist in the American version, which is more faithful to Florence’s biography. The eccentric atmosphere of the ‘crazy years’, excellently recreated in the film, means that Marguerite’s musical anti-talent can be framed as one of the many artistic defiances launched in that avant-garde period, from Dadaist automatic dictation to Marcel’s ‘Fountain’ Duchamp. Xavier Giannoli‘s treatment of his heroine is harsher than Stephen Frears‘ treatment of Florence in his film. Marguerite’s confrontation with the truth is almost violent. Questions about the relativity of truth and the need to position it as an absolute value remain open. Catherine Frot makes in this film the best role of her career. Her Marguerite is passionate, sensitive, naive, in love. Michel Fau is formidable as the singer and singing teacher Ațos Pezzini, while Denis Mpunga also creates a memorable role as the devoted butler Madelbos. The entire production has style and quality. ‘Marguerite‘ is a cinema experience not to be missed, a beautiful and interesting film, a refined interpretation of the story of Florence Foster Jenkins, which keeps us thinking after the end of the viewing about the questions it asks about art and truth.
Henri Verneuil is a director whose films need to be re-watched and re-evaluated. It is not necessarily about his blockbuster films, the ones for which he gained fame as ‘the most American of French directors’. Several of the films at the end of his career have a strong political tone. The first of them is ‘I … comme Icare‘ (‘I for Icarus‘ in the English distribution) from 1979 – an elegant and stylish political thriller inspired by the assassination of JFK. Many film critics and historians consider it more interesting and better cinematically than the film that Oliver Stone would dedicate to the Kennedy case 12 years later. I think they are right.
The screenplay written by Verneuil together with Didier Decoin (who had received the Goncourt Prize in 1977) places the story in an imaginary country, democratically governed (elections, supreme court) and with a presidential regime. In the opening scene of the film, we witness the assassination of a re-elected president at the inauguration ceremony, in a scene that closely resembles the famous images entered in the public consciousness of the assassination of President Kennedy on November 22, 1963. In the following scenes, we understand that the individual suspected of murder, whose name is Daslow (anagram of the name Oswald), is actually the victim of a set-up, being eliminated immediately after his assassination in an execution disguised as suicide. A commission of inquiry is formed to elucidate (or perhaps cover up) the events. From here the plot of the film separates from the historical events. A honest and courageous prosecutor refuses to sign the convenient and too obvious conclusions of the commission’s work, and is given the task of investigating and elucidating the case. Basically the movie starts here. Next we will follow the unfolding of an investigation as in a very good procedural detective investigation film. It is becoming increasingly clear that this is a plot with political implications at the highest level. The lives of witnesses and investigators are also in danger.
If the speculations surrounding the perpetrators and the reasons for JFK’s assassination gave birth to some beautiful conspiracy theories, then we can consider ‘I … comme Icare’ as one of the ultimate films that circulate such theories. But Verneuil‘s intention was, I think, partly different. Placing the story in an imaginary country, but which can be any of the European democracies or South American semi-democracies, he tries to draw attention to the phenomenon of the involvement of secret services in the political life of the most democratic states. One of the most memorable scenes of the film popularizes a real experiment that aimed to explain the causes that lead some people to blindly submit to authority (political, military, legal, universitary) and carry out the most absurd orders, even if they cause suffering of their fellow humans. The conditioning to obeying orders explains the ease with which criminal organizations or totalitarian regimes recruit executors and accomplices to their deeds. As a detective plot, the film is excellently made. Yves Montand plays here one of the roles he had specialized in in the decade that was ending, in political films such as those by Costa Gavras. Ennio Morricone composed the music. The cinematography is also remarkable. Verneuil shot the outdoor scenes in Cergy, a suburb in the northwest of Paris with a futuristic architecture, which is very suitable for the image of the imaginary country in which the action takes place and the atmosphere of slightly oppressive anticipation also present in the corridors of the institutions of justice. Effective and well executed, ‘I … comme Icare‘ is one of the best political thrillers I’ve seen, plus an opportunity to watch Montand, which is always a treat.
I believe that Robert Zemeckis conceived ‘Allied‘ (2016) as sort of an homage to one of my most beloved films – Michael Curtiz’s ‘Casablanca’ (1942). The first part of the action takes place exactly in 1942 in Casablanca and the atmosphere is so similar that I expected Humphrey Bogart and Ingrid Bergman to sit at one of the neighboring tables to the ones occupied by the heroes played by Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard. Later a key scene quotes the defiant singing of the Marseillese in a bar full of German soldiers. Last, the final scene takes place at an airport. ‘Allied‘, of course, has a completely different plot, and the story will still take us to London during the bombings and to still occupied France towards the end of the war. Zemeckis is behind several great cinematic successes of the last three decades. Here he ‘just’ manages to make a good film. Are the days of romance combined with espionage stories set during World War II gone? I don’t think that’s the problem, but rather a few too many historical errors in the script and a surprising (especially for Zemeckis) lack of inspiration in working with the actors.
In the opening scene of ‘Allied‘, Max Vatan, the film’s Canadian hero, is parachuted into the desert. His mission is to reach Casablanca where he will contact the French agent Marianne Beauséjour, with the mission to assassinate the German ambassador. The two must disguise themselves as husband and wife. Disguise turns into attraction which turns into love. After completing the mission, arrived in London, the two will get married and have a child. However, the idyllic love story risks turning into a drama combined with a spy story in the context of the war, when Marianne is suspected of being a German spy. How will the love between the two protagonists endure? Who is really Marianne, the woman who had conquered Max, with whom he had lived an intense love, with whom he had founded a family?
Steven Knight‘s screenplay has some major problems in the credibility of the espionage story, starting with the motives of the first act of sabotage, passing through the methods of British counter-espionage and with the ending. All this, however, is perhaps less important, because the relationship between the man and the woman who meet and fall in love under the tense conditions of war and of their clandestine activities is well written and psychologically justified. Robert Zemeckis is known as a director who picks the best actors and directs them with finesse and attention to detail. That happens here as well, and I can’t even say that Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard are doing bad roles, but something is not working in the relationship between the two. The supposed passion in the story does not cross the screen. We are left with the pleasure of seeing Brad and Marion together, with a story interesting enough to keep us on our seats throughout the entire film, with Alan Silvestri‘s overwhelming music and compelling and spectacular description (even if some details are not are very accurate) of the atmosphere in wartime Casablanca and London. For the passion part we have the memory of the scenes with Humphrey Boggart and Ingrid Bergman.
‘The Nice Guys‘ (2016) is one of the few directorial experiences of Shane Black, best known as the screenwriter of some of the most successful films and especially action comedies of Hollywood in the last 36 years. And here he is the co-author of the script, so we can assume that we owe a lot of it to him for the quick pace, the situations and verbal comedy well combined with the story and the introducing of yet another couple of heroes of the genre that we are likely to meet in upcoming movies.
Jackson Healy and Holland March are two flawed detectives in a polluted city. The city is Los Angeles, the year is 1977, and the metropolis is air-polluted (LA’s smog was world-famous, with news bulletins some days recommending avoiding outdoor activities before 6 p.m.) and culturally polluted by the invasion of pornography which threatens to spread over Hollywood as well. Healy deals with protecting young women and girls by any means (meaning ANY means), and March with dubious investigations, including the search for either a husband whose funeral urn is on the shelf or a porn star whose death has been announced two days before. But if wifey or auntie pay well, why not? March is also an alcoholic and seems depressed following the death of his wife a year ago, a death for which he feels guilty. His luck is Holly, his 13-year-old teenage daughter, beautiful and intelligent enough to compensate for the father’s clouded mind. The two detectives clash (including a broken bone) at first, but later they make a great pair, actually a trio if you count Holly, investigating the disappearance of a girl involved in the making of the dead star’s latest film. Before long hitmen, the Department of Justice, the pornography and polluting automobile industries will be on a rampage to thwart the investigation and eliminate the detectives.
The story seems quite complicated, but Shane Black knows how to write a plot well where everything that happens is improbable and still seems logical to watch. The two main characters get along wonderfully after they clear up their initial misunderstandings and have the important quality to fall on their feet from any height. The stunt people list is twice as long as the actors list, and I think that says a lot. Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe are two actors who each can carry a movie. Together they make a wonderful pair and the ‘chemistry’ between them seems perfect, a fact also proven by some dialogues that seem improvised and are among the funniest. The real star of the film, however, is Angourie Rice, another very beautiful and very talented actress coming to Hollywood from Australia. She was 15 years old when she filmed ‘The Nice Guys‘ and played the role of a 13-year-old girl. I hope that her future career will live up to the potential shown in this film. Kim Basinger also appears in the film, in a sort of opposite role to what she has done in other LA gangster movies. The music takes us back to the atmosphere of the 70s, although some compositions are original. Shane Black turns out to be an excellent director as well, and I don’t know if I prefer him to use his time in the future to write scripts or direct movies. I seldom wish for a movie to have a sequel but this is the case with ‘The Nice Guys‘.
‘Stavisky‘ (1974) is Alain Resnais‘ most successful film with the public, which may be partly due to the fact that it’s one of his most accessible films, but mostly to the exceptional cast led including Jean-Paul Belmondo. For him, the role of Serge Alexandre Stavisky is one of the most complex and serious of his career, a role in which he is brilliant without abandoning the personal charm that built his fame. It was also one of the cases where the critics did not quite agree with the audience, as Resnais‘s elegant and colorful vision did not match the political approach and social criticism that they expected from a film that recreated one of the famous cases of French history, a time when the Third Republic was closer than ever to an economic catastrophe and a coup d’état. In the perspective of the 50 years that will soon be celebrated since the release of the film, we can appreciate that Resnais‘ bet on the complexity of the character and his relations with the surrounding society was won, at least from an artistic point of view.
As this is a film by Alain Resnais, we are not surprised if the story is not told linearly. The narrative structure seemed very modern to me, and then I realized that it is almost identical to that of ‘Oppenheimer’, one of the blockbusters of 2023, with three narrative planes: the testimonies from the Stavisky Case investigation that generate flashbacks related to the events set in the final months of the hero’s career and life, which are in turn interrupted by flashbacks to the period of the 1920s in which his first adventures and encounters with the law had taken place. The portrait of Stavisky is drawn gradually and it is a complex portrait. Apparently in 1933 he was at the peak of his glory, living an exuberant lifestyle together with his beautiful wife, Arlette, surrounded by politicians, bankers, nobility and men of the law, some of whom were his cronies or bought by him, and at the same time he was known in artistic circles as a patron of the arts and especially of the theater. But everything was based on a series of scams, pyramid schemes facilitated by the years of inflation due to the great global economic crisis. His social position means that he is surrounded by friends, false friends, but also enemies waiting for the moment to destroy him. There is a scene in ‘Stavisky‘ where the hero reveals his vulnerability. Without ever telling him directly, his political and business enemies spread rumors about his ethnic origin – he was second generation in France and son of Jewish immigrants from early 20th century Tsarist Russia. Citizen Stavisky throws in the face of the interlocutor his identity card, his voter card and his invalid card, a proof that he had fought at the front in the Great War and had been wounded for France. In the eyes of many of those around him and part of the press, however, he remained a ‘meteque’.
Jean-Paul Belmondo is terrific as Stavisky. Nonchalance and bravado characterized him until the last moments of his life. The mystery of his death is not resolved in the film. Suicide or assassination? We’ll probably never know. His wife is played by Anny Duperey, and his friend Baron Jean Raoul is played by Charles Boyer in the penultimate role of a formidable career. In parallel with the main plot, a secondary plot follows the period of Leon Trotzky’s stay in France as a political refugee after fleeing Stalin’s Soviet Union. Stavisky and Trotzky never met, and their destinies represent two poles of the possible destinies of Jewish émigrés from what had been the tsarist empire, two men who choose opposite paths: one takes advantage of the system and climbs the capitalist social and economic hierarchy, the other plans and acts to destroy it. I also noticed in the cast Silvia Badescu, a beautiful and talented actress born in Romania who had a surprisingly short career, Michael Lonsdale, an actor I love who never disappointed and Gérard Depardieu at the beginning of his career, proving in just one scene his huge talent. The film’s score is composed by Stephen Sondheim, one of only two films for which he composed an entire soundtrack (the other being Warren Beatty’s ‘Reds’) and it contributes, along with Sacha Vierny‘s cinematography and Jacqueline Moreau‘s costume design, to the sophisticated and sumptuous look of the film. Befitting the hero and befitting the ambitions of Alain Resnais.
