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.
One of the most useless intellectual exercises, in my opinion, is to compare a book and a movie, even if the movie is inspired by the book or is an adaptation. Literature and cinema are as different arts as dance and painting, for example. Each has its specific materials and means of expression, and comparing two works from different arts, even if they approach the same theme, seems ridiculous to me. ‘Un amour de Swann‘, the 1984 film by Volker Schlöndorff starts from the characters and plots described in the first volumes of the monumental series of novels ‘In search of lost time’ by Marcel Proust. If nothing else, at least the complexity of the Proustian text should be sufficient as an argument to avoid comparisons. ‘Un amour de Swann’ is a period film, adapted for the screen by Volker Schlöndorff, with a screenplay written by Peter Brook among others, which uses characters and settings from Proust’s novels and partly rewrites, for the screen, one of the many story lines in the books. It is a story of obsessive love, of social conventions, of feelings confessed in manners dictated by the social rules and the etiquette of a world that was in its twilight, but was not aware of it. It’s a film that deserves to be judged as a stand-alone work.
Charles Swann, the hero of the film, is a rich bourgeois living in the last decades of the 19th century. He is rich enough to afford to do nothing, to maintain a not very spacious apartment but with an appearance and agglomeration of objects of a museum in Paris, a personal servant and a two-horse carriage. He has access to a high society that is a mixture of bourgeoisie and nobility, although the Jewish origin of his family is not forgotten by those around him. He has all the time in the world to occupy himself and describe in a private diary his own feelings, the center of his self-centered universe. When his best friend introduces him to Odette, a luxury courtesan, falling in love with her puts him in front of difficult dilemmas. First of all, he is terribly jealous and needs to come to terms with the woman’s feelings and his own. Then, he must decide whether to formalize the relationship through marriage. A second social barrier created by his marriage to a former courtesan risks isolating him from the circles of high society in which he revolves. Everything will be played out and decided in one day and especially one night.
Volker Schlöndorff succeeds in recreating on screen the atmosphere of 19th century Parisian finery, with its decadent sophistication, with its masked social prejudices, with its feelings dressed like the characters in corsets and layers of sophisticated fabrics. Every now and then we have, for a fraction of a second, clues to the cruelty of the real world around the heroes: a silhouette in rags on the streets on which the carriages gallop, a look or a word that alludes to the contradictions, exploitation of women, anti-Semitism or homophobia that gnawed at the social edifice that it would collapse at the outbreak of the Great War. The characters, however, are narcissistically concerned with their own feelings, and the conflicts are drowned in the loaded aestheticism of the settings and self-concerns of the big bourgeoisie. Jeremy Irons is the ideal actor for the role of Swann, bringing to the screen a passion that is intended rather unsuccessfully to be controlled by social conventions. Ornella Muti is the beautiful and mysterious Odette, and each of the viewers will have to decide, like Swann, what her true feelings are. Alain Delon is counter-cast as the Baron de Charlus, a rather unusual role for his filmography, but further evidence, in my opinion, that he was a much more complex actor than the one known from his very commercial films. Fanny Ardant is also on screen in the role of the Duchesse de Guermantes, reduced in importance in the story, so that we do not have much opportunity to enjoy her formidable talent. The finale puts events into perspective and concludes a solid, well-acted period film that I greatly enjoyed and that will only disappoint those who insist on making comparisons. For Volker Schlöndorff this film is, I think, another study of a decaying society, one of the main themes of his filmography.
‘Down by Law‘ made in 1986 is Jim Jarmusch‘s third feature film. The previous film, ‘Stranger Than Paradise’ had enjoyed an unexpected success. To a large extent, ‘Down by Law‘ continues the same creative line, taking a classic theme and treating it in a personal manner, ignoring the rules of cinematic genres to focus on the heroes and their relationships, but also on the landscape that surrounds them. Like the previous film and like the vast majority of those that will follow in the film director’s career, it is an independent movie, made outside the system of the great studios. From the creative freedom thus acquired resulted a unique style, then in full formation, which already gave Jarmusch the status of a promising, talented and interesting filmmaker.
The story begins in a New Orleans that looks more like a post-apocalyptic movie landscape. Zack is a pimp whose business isn’t going too well, Jack is a serially fired radio DJ. Separately, Zack and Jack are arrested by the police and thrown into jail on what appear to be framed accusations. The two small thugs convicted of crimes they did not commit meet in the same prison cell, where they will have to put up with each other and find a way to survive together. When they’ve barely gotten used to the situation, appears Roberto, an Italian convicted of murder, though from the looks of it and the way he acts, his worst crime seems to be that he speaks rudimentary English. The ever-optimistic Roberto will not only change the mood in the cell, but also discover a way to escape. The adventure of the three is just beginning.
Director and screenwriter Jim Jarmusch doesn’t seem too concerned about the credibility of what’s being told on screen. Why were Jack and Zack framed for crimes they didn’t commit? How does the escape happen? There are ‘details’ that Jarmusch does not feel obliged to clarify. A story is a story. He seems more concerned with presenting us with the natural and economic setting in which the story takes place, and he does it masterfully, on black and white film and with the help of cinematographer Robby Müller, who shoots terrifically both in New Orleans and in the swamps of Louisiana. John Lurie plays the role of Jack and also composes the music, Tom Waits is Zack, but the show is stolen by Roberto Benigni, already famous at that time in Italy but practically unknown to the American public. His character, with an innocence and a humor that defies the harsh reality in which he finds himself, predicts the hero of his own film ‘La vita è bella’ which he would make 11 years later. Benigni, who had already made three films as a director by that time, admired and learned a lot from Jarmusch. Some fans of the adventure or escapist genres may be displeased. ‘Down by Law‘ is before all a Jim Jarmusch movie.
Since the first scenes of ‘We Live in Time‘, the 2024 film by the Irish director John Crowley, I had a feeling of ‘déjà vu’. After about a quarter of an hour in the movie, I suddenly remembered. Of course, I had seen a similar movie before, a romantic story about a young and handsome man who loves a young and beautiful woman, a story in which the two face hardships because of those around them, in which their love overcomes all obstacles until they are hit by the serious illness that risks taking the life of the young and beautiful heroine. The film – directed by Arthur Hiller – was called ‘Love Story’ and was written by Erich Segal. Released in parallel with the novel of the same name, it enjoyed enormous success. The year was 1970. I was 17 when I saw ‘Love Story’, now I’m 71. How do the two films compare? ‘We Live in Time‘ uses exactly the same romantic melodrama formula and the main characters are very similar in typology. I think what deeply moved me then works well now – a love story written honestly and intelligently and well served by a couple of handsome, talented and well-cast actors.
If the formula, theme and main characters are similar, the narrative structures of the two films are very different. For about two-thirds of ‘We Live in Time‘ the script written by Nick Payne lets viewers witness a sequence of episodes that take place over several years and are presented in seemingly random order, requiring the reconstruction in the mind of spectators of the love story between Tobias and Almut. The meeting between them happens as in the movies: he is almost newly divorced and wanders at dawn on a highway in a hotel bathrobe, she runs over him with a car. The pieces of the puzzle fit together and the picture we reconstruct is that of a love story between two of the nicest and most attractive young people we’ve seen on screens lately. To formalize the relationship in a marriage, to have children or not, to succeed in their respective professions (she is a very talented Michelin-starred chef) – everything is approached with love and humor. When the so often merciless disease strikes, Tobias and Almut will try to deal with it in the same way, but how far can living lives to the fullest postpone the blows of fate? The final part of the film uses linear narrative, building a crescendo towards a somewhat expected ending.
From 1970 to 2024, mainstream cinema had time to accept scenes with nudity and sex only to kind of abandon them in the name of a new yet unwritten code of decency. John Crowley reintroduces them without hesitation, integrates them well into the plot and adds a dramatic childbirth scene. I have nothing but praise for the two actors who play the lead roles with talent and intensity. Andrew Garfield builds the character of a charming and sensitive man, radiating empathy and with a sense of humor present at all times. Florence Pugh is strong and beautiful, and very well embodies the dilemma of the women who succeed in their professions, but for this they must constantly adjust the balance between their professional lives and their feelings. I would have liked the script writer and director to have described her culinary creations in more detail, and not just because I’m a fan of movies with and about food, but it would have given more motivation to the decisions made by the chef character at key moments. I also want to mention the appearance of Lee Braithwaite in a debut role on the screens, with a special physiognomy and expressiveness. ‘We Live in Time‘ proves that well-written and well-made films that express feelings and emotions honestly and authentically have a chance in any era of cinema history.
