Movies with people at advanced ages as characters are all the rage. At the rate they are being produced and released, the Academy may soon create a new category of Academy Awards – for Best Actor/Actress over 85. If such a thing were to happen next year, then one of the nominations (at least) would belong to June Squibb, who at 93 plays a woman who is exactly her age, in the sparkling and tender comedy ‘Thelma‘ (2024) written and directed by Josh Margolin. June Squibb is a phenomenon. She has about a hundred films and TV series in her filmography, but she was over 60 years old when she debuted on the big screens. But once started, she didn’t stop. She featured in ‘About Schmidt’ (she’s the wife who dies in the opening scene) and received an Oscar nomination for a supporting role in 2013. She’s been on screen in several movies or TV shows every year for the past decade. For writer-director Josh Margolin, this is his feature film debut, but, to use a cliché, I’ll mention that it doesn’t show. With the role of Thelma, June Squibb comes close the awards zone, even if the Academy does not establish that new and imaginary category.
Widowed for two years, Thelma is 93 years old, still strong and lucid enough to live alone. At least she thinks so. She is helped by her grandson, the adorable Daniel, who at 24 has not found his way in life, but is kind enough to visit often his grandmother and to introduce her to the secrets of computers and the Internet. When the somewhat naive old woman falls victim to an Internet fraud sending ten thousand dollars to the address of some crooks for a supposed bail for Daniel, neither the family nor the police can do much to help her get her money back. Then Thelma decides to act alone. Not that she critically needs the money, but a matter of principles. Her only help – reluctant too – comes Ben, an old friend from the same generation, who has chosen to become a resident in a nursing home and is very happy with life there. Will the two aged persons, using an electric scooter in the urban jungle of the Los Angeles area, manage to find the criminals, recover the losses and do justice? What is certain is that their disappearance puts the family, nursing home staff and the police on alert. Everyone is looking for the two, who are looking for the crooks.
Getting older is not a very nice thing. Physical and mental limitations appear, the world around is changing in terms of technology and mentalities, and not necessarily for the better, loved ones and friends have disappeared, or if they still exist, they are also suffering from the ravages of old age. Josh Margolin‘s script is sometimes naive and simplistic, in the style of television sitcom series, but it has the great quality of getting it right in what concerns the old age, dealing with it with understanding and empathy. I also have in care a soon-to-be 96-year-old mother, and I can testify that I recognized many experiences and situations in what I saw in ‘Thelma‘. June Squibb does not act, she rather lives her age on the screen, and therefore her role is truthful and also loaded with humor. Richard Roundtree, her partner in the film plays the role of Ben, who would be the same age as Thelma, but in reality he was 13 years younger. He died in October 2023 and this was his last feature film. Malcolm McDowell is probably the best-known actor in the cast, and he’s 14 years younger than June Squibb. Her Thelma dominates the film, not only because of the character but also because of the quality of her performance. The narration is cursive – even if the events on the screen do not quite fit into the calculation of the hours of a day – and the humor is natural and constantly present. ‘Thelma‘ is good summer entertainment that proves that even the experiences of older ages can be made into funny, sensitive and good taste comedies.
‘Teströl és lélékröl‘ (‘On Body and Soul‘ in the English distribution), the film that won the Golden Bear at the Berlin Film Festival in 2017 and was nominated for Best Foreign Language Film at the Academy Awards, is one of the successful films of Hungarian cinema from the last decades. Ildikó Enyedi, the film director and the author of the script, directed for Hungarian television the local version of psychologists series ‘In Treatment’, the format created by the Israeli Hagai Levi and exported in numerous adaptations on almost all continents. A psychologist also plays an important role in ‘Teströl és lélékröl‘, as she triggers a plot in which dreams, an unusual love story and a social parable are combined. Cinema from Central and Eastern Europe does not hesitate to blur the classical delimitations between cinematic genres and add different perspectives – the proof is this film that draws its viewers into its world and haunts them long after the viewing is over.
Endre is the general manager of a cattle slaughterhouse, a fairly modern establishment with industrial processes and production lines that only make the killing of animals harder for the sensitive to watch. This is just the unsettling background for the small human dramas we watch on screen. Endre is about 50 years old, his left hand is paralyzed, he is shy and lonely. Equally lonely is Mária, a new employee in charge of quality control. She is about 30 years old, extremely meticulous, a beautiful woman, but who has an obvious problem in communicating with those around her. A bizarre incident (the theft of an aphrodisiac substance for cattle, used for ‘insemination’) brings the police and a psychologist woman to the factory to clarify the case. She asks employees to tell their dreams. This is when we, the viewers, understand that the images of snowy forests that appear from time to time in the film are actually the dreams of the heroes. Endre and Mária dream exactly the same dreams: a deer and a doe meet in a forest. He is the deer, she is the fawn. The psychologist is convinced that the two want to play a prank on her. The man and the woman try to understand what is happening. Their lonelinesses approach, then they touch. Can the dream become a reality?
I really liked the story and the approach, until close to the end. We don’t learn anything about Endre and Mária’s past, about the traumas that made them the way they are physically (Endre) or behavior-wise (Mária about whom we only know has undergone some psychiatric treatments since childhood). Their approaching is timid and gradual, their meeting occurring first in a dream, then as an exploration of a possible friendship, and then the budding of a relationship. Both avoid physical contact for a long time. As in many fantasy stories, when the resolution belongs to the plane of reality, there is a risk of being disappointed. The two actors who play the main roles are superb. Alexandra Borbély is beautiful, strange and vulnerable as Mária. Géza Morcsányi, who plays Endre, is not a professional actor, and the choice is excellent, as he gives naturalness and sincerity to the role of the single man, who gets a chance at love late in life, and is afraid to commit himself in order not to hurt his partner The ending, like I said, let me down a bit, but I can’t imagine a better one. A strange and delicate film that I do recommend.
‘Potiche‘, François Ozon‘s 2010 film brings together Catherine Deneuve, Fabrice Luchini and Gérard Depardieu, which is reason enough to want to see it without delay. The film brings to the screen a plot inspired by a play that was successfully performed in the Parisian theaters of the time. The feeling I had while watching it was exactly this – I was lucky to enter a theater where a light comedy – like many of the comedies staged in Paris – was being played, with an exceptional cast. Even if the respective roles are not career peaks for the great actors on the stage, you can’t leave the theater unsatisfied.
The story takes happens in 1977. Suzanne Pujol is the heiress of an umbrella factory that is run with a capitalist iron hand by her husband, Robert. The beautiful grandmother is reduced to the role of ‘trophy wife’ (‘potiche’ in French), jogging, gardening and taking care of the household (with the help of the maid). When a labor dispute breaks out at the factory and Robert is sequestered and then suffers a heart attack, Suzanne assumes the role of an active participant in running the business, a role her husband had denied her for many years. Together with her daughter and son, Suzanne manages not only to resolve the conflicts, but also to make the business prosper, waking-up her long-suppressed talents. Robert, however, recovers from his illness and returns, not being too happy with Suzanne’s role or her ideas. In addition, there is a sentimental complication related to the relations between Suzanne and Maurice Babin, a communist politician with whom the woman had an affair long ago and who now plays an important role in local politics.
This whole story sounds like a political farce played out on a stage, and so it is. François Ozon decided that if it’s theater, theater be, and he didn’t avoid the theatrical lines in the script. In addition, he shot many scenes as if the actors were looking towards the fourth wall, that of the audience in front of the stage. If we understand and accept the conception, the result is not bad. We are dealing with a script that sounds like a play, a sparkling but a little too predictable comedy, with three great actors who are happy to act together. Catherine Deneuve seems to have found the recipe for slowing down time, Gérard Depardieu has put on a lot of pounds but this sin we can forgive him, and Fabrice Luchini is more diabolical than ever. Watching or re-watching ‘Potiche‘ can cause no regrets.
In 2000, Claude Chabrol, having turned 70 years old, was entering his last decade of life and cinematic career. ‘Merci pour le chocolat‘ (distributed in the English-language market under the rather funny title ‘Nightcap‘) was the sixth film in which he cast Isabelle Huppert, one of his favorite actresses. It would be the penultimate. Chabrol was and continues to be regarded as a disciple and follower of Alfred Hitchcock. In his films, the main heroines are women with icy allure who hide hot passions, and who better than Isabelle Huppert could play such roles? The film has many of the characteristics Chabrol is known for. It is a not-so-veiled critique of the morals of the bourgeoisie – the Swiss one in this case, the action taking place in and around Lausanne. It is a psychological thriller where the suspense is not created by the question ‘who committed the crime?’ but rather ‘Was there a crime?’ and ‘if yes, why was it committed?’. Finally, he abounds in reverence to his masters – Fritz Lang and Hitchcock. It’s one of those Chabrol films (about half of his filmography) where I get the impression that the French director wanted to continue the filmography of the British master in the French-speaking world.
The film begins with a civil marriage ceremony, with few participants, but all handpicked from the wealthy class living on the shores of Lake Léman. It is actually a re-marriage. Mika Muller, the heiress and CEO of a prosperous chocolate factory, and the famous pianist André Polonski are getting married again after being separated for 18 years. During this time, he had experienced another marriage from which Guillaume had been born, a boy out of adolescence who does not quite know what to do with his life. André’s second wife had died in a car accident, after an evening all spent with together with Mika. The three live in a villa on a mountain coast which resembles the motel in ‘Psycho’, especially since Chabrol films it in such a way that he makes sure that spectators don’t miss the hint. Their peaceful life, sweetened by the cups of hot chocolate prepared by Mika, is disturbed by the appearance of Jeanne, a young girl born on the same night and in the same maternity as Guillaume, who had just discovered a strange story: at birth there had been the suspicion that the two babies were were exchanged between them. Does she want to infiltrate André’s life? Or maybe she just wants to benefit from his music lessons, as she is also a very talented pianist? Maybe the fact that the girl is so gifted musically is not a coincidence either.
In life and in movies, family relationships (‘blood links’ as they say) are in most cases an axis of stability. Not in ‘Merci pour le chocolat‘. Paternity relationships are uncertain and DNA testing has not yet entered the arsenal of forensic experts and movie writers. Jeanne may be André’s daughter, but then Guillaume is not his son. Even though Jeanne is the daughter of the mother who raised her, she will find out that her father is not the one she adored (and who had also died) but an unknown donor. Even Mika, the rich heiress of the chocolate empire is an adopted daughter. To what extent does heredity determine the talents, destinies and behavior of each of the heroes? In one way or another, each of the film’s characters is in an identity crisis or is involved in the crises of the others. The screenplay adapts an American novel written by Charlotte Armstrong and published around the middle of the 20th century. The artist André Polonski is a pianist in the film and not a painter, as in the novel. This change introduced by the screenwriters allows the director to create a soundtrack based largely on the piano music performed by the heroes. Franz Liszt’s ‘Marche funebre’ in several different interpretations has an important role. Jacques Dutronc amazes me in almost every film I see him in with his acting talent, and I don’t know whether or not to regret that he didn’t act in more films, because that would have meant less composing and performing, or I also like him a lot as well as a musician. Anna Mouglalis is excellent in the role of Jeanne. She is a beautiful and talented actress. Why didn’t she become one of the screen stars in France? Finally, what can be said about Isabelle Huppert, except that she is fantastic as almost always and that the role suits her perfectly? As in many of Chabrol‘s films, the suspect and mysterious woman is a master of drugs and poisons. In this case everything is mixed in chocolate, with milk, of course. Yes – milk that reminds us of ‘Suspicion’ or ‘Spellbound’. However, Hitchcock is not the only master who is quoted. In which other film does the female suspect present one of the potential victims with a DVD of a Fritz Lang film as a present?
Jocurile Olimpice la Paris sunt ca în nicio altă parte a lumii. Afirmația este valabilă pentru ediția actuală, dar și pentru edițiile precedente, căci 2024 este a treia ediție a Jocurilor care se desfășoară în capitala Franței. Au trecut 100 de ani de la precedenta, cea din 1924. Acolo, cu exact 100 de ani în urmă, România câștiga prima sa medalie olimpică – bronzul cu echipa de rugbi (este adevărat, erau doar… trei echipe participante). Dar despre prima ediție a Jocurilor care a avut loc la Paris, în 1900, se știe mult mai puțin. Am cercetat puțin subiectul și am aflat că și aceea a fost o ediție foarte specială și foarte diferită de cea care a precedat-o și de cele care au urmat.
Prima ediție a Jocurilor Olimpice din era modernă, cea din 1896, avusese loc, firesc, în Grecia. Alegerea Parisului ca gazdă a ediției a doua nu a fost deloc controversată. În definitiv, aici, la Paris, în clădirea Sorbonei, avusese loc în 1894 adunarea Congresului Olimpic care a decis renașterea Olimpiadelor. Atunci au fost atribuite rolurile de gazde pentru primele două ediții. Parisul era în acei ani una dintre metropolele efervescente ale lumii, locul în care aveau loc revoluții culturale și artistice dintre cele mai semnificative, un centru industrial, economic și politic de prim rang. Era însă și un oraș al contrastelor și al conflictelor. Pentru majoritatea francezilor și a parizienilor, amintirea înfrângerii Franței în războiul franco-prusac și a asediului și ocupării Parisului de trupe străine în 1870-1871 era încă vie. Ultimul deceniu al secolului al XIX-lea fusese un deceniu de instabilitate politică, presărat cu atacuri teroriste anarhiste, iar afacerea Dreyfuss, care polarizase societatea și lumea intelectualilor din Franța, nu se terminase încă. Și totuși, sau poate tocmai de aceea, Republica Franceză dorea să se afirme ca o supraputere la scară europeană și mondială. Deja Parisul câștigase dreptul de a găzdui în acel an Expoziția Universală, un eveniment internațional menit să celebreze realizările secolului al XIX-lea și să le prezică și să le accelereze pe cele ale secolului XX. Expoziția, desfășurată între 14 aprilie și 12 noiembrie 1900 a avut loc pe esplanada din Les Invalides, pe Champ de Mars, în Piața Trocadéro și pe malurile Senei, cu o secțiune suplimentară în Bois de Vincennes, și a fost vizitată de peste cincizeci de milioane de oameni. În cadrul expoziției au avut loc multe congrese internaționale și alte evenimente. Jocurile Olimpice de vară din 1900 au făcut parte dint aceste evenimente integrate în Expoziția Universală.
Nu au existat festivități de deschidere și de închidere a Jocurilor. Competițiile au avut loc în decursul a peste cinci luni, între mijlocul lui mai și sfârșitul lui octombrie, unele fiind catalogate atunci doar ca evenimente ale Expoziției Universale, așa încât unii competitori, și chiar și învingători, nu au știut că participă la Jocurile Olimpice. Un exemplu celebru este Margaret Abbott, care, aflându-se la Paris, s-a înscris la turneul de golf împreună cu mama ei și a câștigat aurul. Din păcate, organizarea slabă a făcut că Abbott să nu știe niciodată că prin victoria ei devenise prima femeie medaliată cu aur olimpic din Statele Unite. Fiul ei a fost informat despre această realizare abia după 1980, la aproape trei decenii după moartea campioanei, în 1955.
Există două documente principale de referință despre eveniment: unul este raportul de 795 de pagini al Ministerului Comerțului, Industriei, Poștei și Telegrafului din Franța, întocmit la câteva luni după Jocuri, celălalt este website-ul Comitetului Olimpic Internațional (IOC), care este actualizat din timp în timp. Din prima sursă putem afla că peste 59 de mii de participanți și-au adus contribuția la buna desfășurare a Jocurilor, între care peste șapte mii de pompieri și trei mii de sanitari. Comitetul Olimpic menționează participarea a 1 226 de sportivi, în 19 discipline. Sunt incluse aici numai ramurile considerate ca ‘oficiale’, dar competiții au avut loc în mai multe discipline. În fapt, până în 1921, IOC nu a întocmit o listă oficială stabilă a disciplinelor olimpice. De exemplu, din programul primei ediții a Jocurilor, cea de la Atena, au fost scoase ridicarea greutăților (haltere) și luptele, care aveau să revină în edițiile următoare și să devină sporturi oficiale permanente. Lista celor 19 discipline de la Paris include: înot, polo pe apă, tir cu arcul, atletism, pelotă bască, crichet, crochet, ciclism, echitație, scrimă, fotbal, golf, gimnastică, polo, canotaj, rugbi, iahting, tir, tenis, trasul cu frânghia. Au mai avut loc și alte evenimente, care astăzi nu sunt considerate ca făcând parte din programul oficial, în discipline cum sunt pescuitul cu undița, zborul cu baloane cu hidrogen, baseball, prim-ajutor, curse de automobile și de motociclete, trasul cu tunul, curse de porumbei. Majoritatea participanților (720 în competițiile oficiale) au fost francezi. Nu exista încă noțiunea de echipe naționale. Concurenții reprezentau comitetele olimpice, și în unele discipline de echipă sportivii proveneau din țări diferite. În total au participat la Olimpiada din 1900 sportivi din 26 de țări. Pentru prima dată a participat și un olimpic român, un trăgător la proba de talere pe nume Gheorghe Plagino, care la competiția desfășurată între 15 și 17 iulie 1900 a obținut locul 13 din 31 de sportivi. Aveau să mai treacă 24 de ani până la următoarea participare românească la Jocurile Olimpice, din nou la Paris.
Cine au fost eroii sportivi ai acelei ediții? Trebuie menționat că majoritatea câștigătorilor din 1900 nu au primit medalii, ci cupe sau trofee. Concursul de scrimă a fost profesionist, iar Albert Robert Ayat (Franța), care a câștigat proba de spadă, a primit un premiu de 3 000 Franci (echivalentul a peste 15 000 de euro astăzi). Alvin Kraenzlein (Statele Unite) a câștigat proba de sprint de 60 de metri, fiind una din cele două persoane care a câștigat vreodată cursa pe această distanță la Jocurile Olimpice, deoarece proba a fost retrasă din competiția olimpică după Jocurile Olimpice din 1904. Tot el a învins în probele de 110 metri garduri, 200 de metri garduri și săritura în lungime. Este singurul atlet până în ziua de azi care a câștigat patru medalii de aur la probe atletice individuale. Jesse Owens a câștigat și el patru titluri în 1936, dar unul dintre ele a fost la ștafetă 4 x 100m. La Paris, femeile au participat pentru prima dată la Jocurile Olimpice, dar nu neapărat în probe separate, unele discipline acceptând echipe mixte. Prima campioană olimpică din istorie a fost Hélène de Pourtalès, sportivă născută în America, care a făcut parte din echipa mixtă a Elveției, câștigătoare în proba de navigație cu ambarcațiuni de 1-2 tone. Două luni mai târziu, Charlotte Cooper (Marea Britanie) a devenit prima femeie care a câștigat un eveniment olimpic individual, după ce a câștigat competiția de tenis de simplu feminin. Mai târziu, ea a câștigat și turneul de dublu mixt. O competiție controversată a fost cea de maraton, trei alergători din Statele Unite contestând rezultatul și susținând că alergătorii francezi care au obținut locurile unu și doi au luat-o pe o scurtătură. Ei au adus ca dovadă faptul că erau singurii concurenți care nu erau împroșcați cu noroi. Au trecut 12 ani până când contestațiile au fost judecate, respinse definitiv și titlul a fost atribuit campionului francez. Probele de atletism au fost dominate de sportivi americani, ei câștigând toate titlurile în afară de maraton și aruncarea discului, în care învingător a fost ungurul Rudolf Bauer. Au mai existat și alte controverse, unele de natură religioasă. Decizia de a organiza competiții și duminicile a atras proteste din partea multor sportivi americani, care au călătorit în calitate de reprezentanți ai colegiilor lor și cărora li s-a cerut să se retragă decât să concureze în ziua lor religioasă de odihnă.
Destule alte ciudățenii au rămas în istoria acestei ediții. Multe probe au avut un caracter militar, inclusiv tir cu tunul, o presimțire a conflagrațiilor secolului care începea. Au fost singurele Jocuri Olimpice care au folosit animale vii (porumbei) ca ținte în timpul probelor de tir. Sprinterul australian Stan Rowley a devenit singura persoană care a câștigat medalii pentru două țări diferite, la aceleași Jocuri Olimpice. A câștigat medalii la atletism pentru Australia și apoi ca parte a echipei britanice de cros.
Startul în proba de zbor cu balonul a fost dat într-o noapte cu lună plină, pe 9 octombrie 1900, din zona pariziană. Pentru stabilirea câștigătorilor au fost luate în considerare distanța parcursă și durata zborului, dar au fost acordate premii și pentru altitudine și distanța de zbor neîntrerupt. Au fost bătute recordurile mondiale și pentru distanța parcursă și pentru durata zborului. Concurenții plasați pe primele locuri au ajuns până pe teritoriul Rusiei de atunci. Unul dintre ei a fost arestat, deoarece nu completase cerere de pașaport. Câștigătorul, contele Henry de la Vaulx (Franța), a trebuit să se întoarcă pe cont propriu din zona Kievului, unde ajunsese cu balonul sau câștigător la 1 900 km de Paris în linie dreaptă.
Ediția 1900 a Jocurilor Olimpice a fost marcată de uriașe probleme de organizare. Era evident că Jocurile moderne se aflau încă în faza copilăriei, cel puțin din punctul de vedere al regulamentelor și al organizării. Unii istorici ai sportului se referă la ediția 1900 ca la ‘o farsă’ și chiar au dezbătut dacă ar trebui să fie considerată o Olimpiadă. Fondatorul Jocurilor Olimpice moderne, Pierre de Coubertin, a comentat mai târziu că a fost un miracol că mișcarea olimpică a supraviețuit. Experiența acumulată în 1900 și 1904 l-au determinat să centralizeze structura instituțională a IOC și să atribuie o responsabilitate crescută Comitetului în organizarea Jocurilor. S-a ajuns la asumarea de către Comitetul Olimpic Internațional a organizării Jocurilor Olimpice de la Paris din 1924 – ultima Olimpiadă a lui de Coubertin în calitate de președinte al IOC. Succesul jocurilor din 1924 este adesea considerat a fi salvat mișcarea olimpică. Jocurile de acum un secol au fost considerate ca un succes spectaculos, care a anunțat transformarea Jocurilor Olimpice într-un eveniment internațional major. Numărul de țări și sportivi care au participat a crescut semnificativ față de jocurile anterioare, la fel ca și numărul de spectatori. Participarea mai multor sportivi din clasele sociale inferioare a stimulat, de asemenea, interesul publicului. În acel an, la Chamonix, a avut loc și prima Olimpiadă de iarnă. Mișcarea olimpică a devenit un fenomen de masă și unul global. Controversele nu au lipsit nici atunci, ele au însoțit istoria Jocurilor și nu lipsesc nici astăzi. Regimuri dictatoriale au încercat să folosească organizarea Olimpiadelor pentru scopuri propagandistice. Terorismul a lovit Jocurile în 1972 și 1996 și reprezintă un pericol permanent. Disputele politice și boicoturile au însoțit edițiile din ultimele decenii. Și totuși, ideea olimpică a supraviețuit. De fiecare dată când Parisul și-a asumat organizarea, Jocurile Olimpice au fost un eveniment deosebit. Istoria continuă să fie scrisă.
(Articolul a apărut iniţial în revista culturală ‘Literatura de Azi’ – http://literaturadeazi.ro/)
Historical movies are getting old too. ‘La reine Margot‘, the adaptation of Alexandre Dumas’ novel produced by Claude Berri and written (in collaboration) and directed by Patrice Chéreau was made in 1994. I am passionate about history (including historical books and films), I am quite knowledgeable in the history of France, I read Dumas’s novels (albeit half a century ago or even more) and I also did some reading in preparation for watching this movie. And yet, with all that and all the cast and some remarkable cinematic moments, I was left quite disappointed. ‘La reine Margot‘ is a difficult film to watch, which fails to tell the historical drama. Its qualities have nothing to do with the novels of Alexandre Dumas and little to do with Queen Margot herself.
I think that those who have not read Dumas’ novel last week or who are not experts in the history of France in the second half of the 16th century will find it quite difficult to make sense of the first 20-30 minutes of the film. The opening scenes depict the 1572 wedding of Henri de Navarre with Marguerite, sister of King Charles IX of France, a marriage of convenience intended to ease the conflict between Catholics and Protestants that had torn France apart in recent decades. It would be a good opportunity to get to know the characters of the historical drama that unfolds, but the solution chosen by the director is not the most suitable. On the one hand we are dealing with a dynamic, diverse and interesting cinematic portrait of the era. On the other hand, dozens of characters that appear on the screen and viewers have too little time to get to know them and understand their relationships. The event that follows does not need much explanation, however. This is the massacre triggered on the night of Saint Bartholomew in which thousands of people, mostly Protestants, lost their lives. It is one of the most successful parts of the film, and the dramatic filming style brings to the viewers’ minds events from recent European history (the Holocaust) and even contemporary to the years when ‘La reine Margot‘ was filmed (the Balkan wars). The continuation of the plot quite faithfully follows the story in Dumas’ novel – with the love story between the young queen and one of the Protestant soldiers in the service of the king of Navarre, with the religious wars and court intrigues sprinkled with betrayals and assassinations.
Seen 30 years after it was made, Patrice Chéreau‘s film version failed to captivate me. Isabelle Adjani was stunningly beautiful, but neither her relationship with La Môle nor her maturation within the political intrigues of the court seem convincing. Daniel Auteuil seemed to me at first a strange casting for the role of Henri de Navarre, but his personality manages to impose itself and offer a dramatic version of the historical character. I found Jean-Hugues Anglade in the role of the hypochondriac and corrupt King Charles, whose human dimensions are revealed only in the last hours of his life, to be a remarkable creation. Finally, among the memorable roles, I cannot fail to mention that of Virna Lisi who plays Catherine of Medici, in the evil vision conceived by Alexandre Dumas. The acting, dramatic cinematography and Goran Bregovic‘s music only partially compensate for the confusing narrative. A few of the film’s memorable sequences rise above the whole.
Yorgos Lanthimos invites us into his world with the triptych ‘Kinds of Kindness‘ (2024). The format of the short-medium format film collection is not entirely new. Of course, we know him from the small screens with illustrious precedents such as ‘Alfred Hitchcock Presents’ or ‘Tales from the Crypt’, but also from the creations for the big screens by directors from Jim Jarmusch to Cristian Mungiu. The world of Yorgos Lanthimos is that of parables loaded with symbols, of absurdity combined with the horror genre, of extreme experiences anchored in a confusingly familiar immediate reality. The three films that make up ‘Kinds of Kindness‘ are linked by several common thematic elements (individual will in contrast to social control, the relativity of the independence of individual actions, the presence of death as an element of reality rather than a metaphysical threat. The stronger ones belong to the style and the cinematography: the same group of actors, characters with similar names or initials, a continuous soundtrack that combines the sometimes inharmonious piano with church hymns, alluding to another, holier, Trinity. As in the case of the brothers Coen, Lanthimos‘ (and co-screenwriter Efthimis Filippou‘s) characters are bizarre and rarely invite sympathy.
All three stories take place in immediate American reality, although any localization is carefully avoided. In the first episode, Robert, an employee of a corporation based in a metropolis, is under the total control of his boss, Raymond. He dictates his daily schedule, what to wear, what to eat and drink, when to have or not have relations with his wife. On the day Raymond asks him to commit a murder, Robert hesitates and tries to refuse. Can a bird that has lived a long time in a cage return to free life? In the second story, the policeman Daniel mourns the disappearance at sea of Liz, an oceanographer. After a while, she returns after being found on a remote island. But is she the real Liz? Some details do not match. Maybe they are changes due to the trauma the woman went through. Daniel becomes more and more convinced that she is a hoax. Those around him consider him paranoid. Maybe they are right. Events evolve into madness. The third story has as the main heroine, Emily, a woman who left her family to join a bizarre cult dominated by the all-powerful Omi. The task received from them is to search for a woman who has supernatural powers, including healing any wound or disease and even raising the dead. But she too falls victim to the brutality of the world she is trying to leave and is cast out by the cult. But what if he finds the healer? Will she save herself and rehabilitate herself in the eyes of the community that had rejected her?
Quotations and symbols abound in the three stories, from Cinderella to the films of Stanley Kubrick. Lanthimos constantly attacks the taboos without destroying them. Cruel parody is ultimately a form of admiration. Willem Dafoe and Emma Stone were with the director in his previous film, ‘Poor Things’. It will be interesting to see if these collaborations continue and where they will evolve. They are joined in this film by Jesse Plemons, Margaret Qualley and a few more actors with roles in each of the three films. The atmosphere in ‘Kinds of Kindness‘ is that of a theater performance by a troupe playing with the same actors, in the same evening, three different plays in one act. Black and macabre theater, farces and tragic comedies about the cruelty of life and dancing with death. A show signed by Yorgos Lanthimos.
‘Ensemble, c’est tout’ (2007) is the last film that Claude Berri wrote (based on a novel by Anna Gavalda) and directed to the end. His filmography ends with another film (‘Trésor’), which he was unable to finish and see released, the film being completed by another director. ‘Ensemble, c’est tout‘ can therefore be considered as a beautiful end to his career, a ‘feel-good’ film, having at its center a love story as it happens with many of his successful films. The title, oddly enough, fits the story. It was strangely translated in the English distribution as ‘Hunting and Gathering’ (!).
The film has four main characters, and at the beginning of the story none of them seems too happy. Paulette, an old woman who lives alone in her house, surrounded by her beloved cats and parrots falls, fractures her hip and has to be hospitalized for surgery and a long recovery. Her grandson, Franck, the only one who takes care of her, is exhausted from his work as a chef in a restaurant and also takes care of his grandmother (and her cats). Franck lives in a huge apartment with Philibert, a young man from an aristocratic family, a rich boy, unhappy as well because he aspires to become a stand-up actor despite an obvious stutter. In the same Parisian building lives Camille, a pretty and modest girl, a talented portretist, who works hard as a cleaning woman for a living. The four loners will grow closer and turn their relationships into friendships and more than that.
The recipe for this kind of films can be found in the American comedies of the 40s and 50s of the last century. The role of young Camille is played by Audrey Tautou, an actress I adore, part of a series of roles of her that seem to be inspired by those played by the other Audrey – Hepburn – in American films. How is it that this formula, where the characters get better and better with little obstacles, and which seemed outdated even in the original films, works so well here? One of the secrets is, I think, the fact that the characters are believable and many of the situations described are part of real life experiences. Guillaume Canet and Françoise Bertin play their roles excellently, but next to the incomparable Tautou I would mention Laurent Stocker, an actor with a special comic talent in a delicious role. ‘Ensemble, c’est tout‘ is an elegant farewell film that Claude Berri left us at the end of his career.
When ‘Lucie Aubrac‘, Claude Berri‘s 1997 film, was made, the story of Resistance and love at the heart of the film was already more than half a century old history, but its main characters were still alive. Lucie and Raymond Aubrac, communist fighters in the anti-Nazi Resistance, had survived the war and become national heroes for most of the French, but also controversial figures for some. They had been involved in the fall of an important part of the leadership of the Resistance, led by Jean Moulin, probably due to a betrayal that even to this day has not been fully elucidated. The script of the film ‘Lucie Aubrac‘ is based on the memoirs of the heroine who gives the title of the film and presents the point of view of the Aubracs, dressing the episode of arrest and betrayal in a romantic love story. It could be that the historical part and the love story are both true. But illustrating a personal version of history in a controversial case is not the best starting material for a film that has ambitions of authenticity. It is probably one of the reasons why ‘Lucie Aubrac‘ fails to convince to the end and the film does not live up to its promises. Luminous, unblemished characters are not ideal material for a film about a controversial case in troubled and dark times.
Raymond and Lucie Aubrac had met and married just before the outbreak of World War II. Raymond was a civil engineer and an officer in the French army, a leader of the Resistance, a politician and an activist after the war – quite an interesting personality, but this is not visible much on screen, the film rather assigning him the role of the husband repeatedly rescued from detentions by the devoted wife. At the center of the story is placed the character of Lucie, with her struggles to free her husband, through ruse, threats and armed actions. The couple was heavily involved in the Resistance struggle and Raymond had been one of the eight heads of the organization arrested in Lyon in 1943. The woman’s passion and devotion will overcome all obstacles. They also dominate the film.
The historical reconstruction is very well done – the setting, clothing, cars, trams and the characters’ way of speaking. Detention and brutal interrogations are shown without avoiding details. The role of Raymond is played by Daniel Auteuil, an actor I really like. Here he makes the most of the script, but the historical personality of the man would have allowed, I think, a more complex representation. Because of the script, the role of Lucie Aubrac becomes key. Carole Bouquet physically meets the requirements, she is excellently dressed and all the stills look very good. On the screen, however, something is missing – the charm that would make the love story believable and the magnetism that would convince us that the heroine could really pull the strings with the occupation police chiefs and organize the armed actions that freed Raymond. The role was originally to be played by Juliette Binoche, who dropped out of filming after two weeks due to ‘artistic differences’ with Claude Berri. How ‘Lucie Aubrac‘ would have looked and how it would have been appreciated with Juliette Binoche instead of Carole Bouquet is an exercise in imagination and a chapter in an alternative history of cinema.
‘Reality‘ (2023) is a simple and effective TV movie that tells a story inspired by a real case. Playwright Tina Satter took over the text version of the first interrogatory taken to Reality Winner, translator and analyst, external employee at the National Security Agency, on the occasion of the search that led to her arrest and conviction. She first turned it into a successful play which was staged also on Broadway and then adapted it for this film, which she also directed. It’s a simple story that plays out in near real time, but it raises important questions in the minds of viewers: How can the balance be kept between abiding laws (including those related to the confidentiality of government materials) and the duty to act as a citizen when one suspects wrong-doing? What is the distance between a banal ‘normative’ life and sliding into the status of suspect, with life and career destroyed? What price is worth paying for speaking the truth?
The events took place on June 5, 2017. Reality Winner was returning home after a day at work, at the end of which she had stopped by a supermarket to do some shopping. The play and film are based on the transcript of the tapes recorded by the two FBI agents who interrogated the young analyst. The film lasts about 80 minutes, the events covered by the script lasted less than two hours. Two hours in which Reality transforms from a normative young woman, ambitious but with a seemingly ordinary life, to a person suspected of one of the crimes severely punished by the law. Two hours in which the rented and not very well furnished house becomes a crime scene surrounded by yellow ribbons and searched by a lot of FBI agents. The two agents both play the role of ‘good cops’, trying to gain the young woman’s trust in order to extract a confession from her. Her cooperation is voluntary. At first, Reality seems not to know the reasons why she is suspected and her home is searched. She seems more concerned with the fate of her pets (a dog and a cat) than of herself. In less than 120 minutes her life will change completely and irreversibly.
The story is told with a minimum of cinematic means. The dialogues take place on the lawn surrounding Reality’s house and in an outhouse, unused and unfurnished. The whole drama is based on acting and this is formidable. Sydney Sweeney is a great talent, and I hope she gets more roles like this in the future. In 80 minutes we see her transform before our eyes, we see her life take a course of no return, we live with her the dilemmas of a seemingly ordinary young woman who finds it natural to be involved in the life of her country, but does not know how to do it, getting into trouble with the law and the system. The roles of the investigators are played with discretion and naturalness by Josh Hamilton and Marchánt Davis. The conversation is natural, seems to be recorded, maybe even sometimes it is the recording that we hear, as the director Tina Satter occasionally inserts authentic photos and documents, accentuating the feel of a docu-drama or even a filmed documentary. Minimalistic simplicity works great. The facts appear to be reported as they happened. ‘Reality‘ does not directly ask any questions. This task is left to the viewers.
