Change Your Image
medcolpa
Reviews
Murder on the Orient Express (2017)
Hercules Branaugh
This film raises the question "Should movie versions of books be true to the story and characters." The core problem is books are long, and films are short. So how do you pick what to film? Given that you have to miss most of book out, does that mean you should add "new parts" in lieu of the redacted? I am tempted to think than Kenneth Branagh thinks so. In his version of MOTOE he makes some unique story changes to a Classic tale. The standard justification for this from film makers is that this adds to the "narrative drive" when moving from book to film. However, to have Poirot fight like Jackie Chan is so absurdly James Bond-like I wonder what on earth Branagh was thinking! This goes against the very core of the famous Poirot character and his method. (He can solve a crime by simply sitting in office and thinking about all the evidence. Though it is important to note that Christie was quite inconsistent with her characters - Poirot did indeed look for and find "clues". Things he often made fun of Hastings for always wanting.)
How does this adaptation compare to others of this well know detective novel? It is a book I know very well. I have not seen the 1974 version for many years, but did enjoy it very much. The BBC radio version is much better than David Suchet version for TV as it is truer to the novel. The Alfred Molina modernization is interesting attempt to deal with the "problem of the remake", but is unwatchable. All these versions highlight the problem of the extreme edit that is required for condensing a 350 page novel into 90-120 mins giving rise to the idea that bad novels can make good films, but great novels will result in bad films.
Examples of great book and film: Pride and Prejudice (1940).
A room with view.
Ivanhoe (1952).
Ipcress File
The Day Of The Jackal (1973)
Where Eagles Dare.
Chinatown (1974)
The Bourne Identity (2002).
The French Connection (1971).
The Odessa File (1974).
Better films?
The Scarlet Pimpernel (1934)
My Fair Lady (1964)
Toni Morrison: The Pieces I Am (2019)
worth seeing
Why do you make a documentary about someone who writes fiction novels? Indeed this question could be broadened to: Why do you make a documentary about any artist? It is a common idea that the art that can and must "speak for itself"? This idea suggests that if you need to explain the art, the artist has failed. Further, should a work of imagination tell us something about the writer? Do we need know their biography to appreciate their creativity fully?
In this film about Toni Morrison we learn about her life history from birth till 2018. We are told in broad terms what was going on when she wrote each of her books. If you do not know these things, are the books less? The answer must be surely no, as Morrison is over 80, and her books already enjoyed all over the world.
Her life is a remarkable story of a girl who grew up in a poor, working class, black American family who won the Nobel Prize for literature. Born in a southern state in the USA, where segregation of coloreds and whites was legal. Where, in the C19th, it was illegal to teach a colored person to read if you were white. Morrison's award of the Nobel Prize for literature is a wonderful achievement. But there is not enough content in the film for a two-hour cinema documentary. Thus, the many historical interviews, and the contemporary ones made for the film, reprise the same point over and over. In this context, quoting a single review of a Morrison book or event in her life that is negative without attribution is unscholarly, and scientifically meaningless. This happens several times in the film, and does great disservice to the seriousness of any documentary.
Much is made of the fact that Morrison is a female winner of the Nobel Prize for literature. One interviewee says, "only 2 or 3 others have won". Not knowing that there are five before Morrison, including one American, is surprising.
Further, the lack of content is emphasized by images and music that have a general association with the subject, but one that is not direct. Thus, these seem like padding.
Oscar Wilde said: "The only artists I have ever known who are personally delightful are bad artists. Good artists exist simply in what they make, and consequently are perfectly uninteresting in what they are. A great poet, a really great poet, is the most unpoetical of all creatures. But inferior poets are absolutely fascinating. The worse their rhymes are, the more picturesque they look. The mere fact of having published a book of second-rate sonnets makes a man quite irresistible. He lives the poetry that he cannot write. The others write the poetry that they dare not realize."
So I would suggest it is nice to have such a tribute to an important writer. But surely, even more than the Nobel or a film, her works are the really important legacy.
The Murder Room (2004)
Everyone is unpleasant
This feels to me like a pretty poor adaptation of a PD James book. The first espisode can almost be ignored completely. The editing in the initial 50 mins is awful...fast cut, cut, cut...no story continuity. But for me the real problem is that all the characters in the film are simply unpleasant. Dalgliesh's 2 junior officers seem to hate each so much that he let's let bicker and insult each other continually during the investigation. Would a Commander at the Met really let that happen during a murder investigation? All the other characters in the drama are awful people, with something to hide, and seemingly no redeeming features. OK Sian Phillips character is nice. Why PD James bothers to let Dalgliesh have a personal life I am not sure. It adds no value to stories ever. In this adaptation Dalgliesh is made out to be a complete fool with Dr Lavenham. The meal they almost have after 48 mins in Esp 1 - he really goes out on a date with an incredibly beautiful Cambridge Don with his phone on? But before he mobile rings, he is simply dithering in front of a "perfect woman". Dalgliesh is super smart (Met Commander) and a poet! But incapable of expressing himself on a date...oh come on. BTW they pour their own wine in a fancy restaurant - inconceivable that could happen. In the second episode the pace picks up and isn't bad. Finally, I do not think that Shaw makes Dalgliesh any more human than Marsden. in fact rather the opposite. Marsden's performances are more nuanced. But Shaw is a fine actor, and does a good job here. Overall I think "A taste for death" is the best TV adaptation.
Poirot: The Big Four (2013)
ripping yarn .... gone
I wanted to say that the review by "aramis-112-8048808" fro August 2017 is right on the money. The Book is one Christies early novels (1927). As many reviewers note, a very uncharacteristic story. However, I find the uniqueness quite good and once you accept it, the story is rather fun! But it is a very dense novel, not easily simplified to a 90mins TV story. Suchet remains excellent, but the others just seem old. Bit sad really, as we do love them in earlier series. There is a audiobook performed by Hugh Fraser that is excellent! % hours plus, but well worth.
Sherlock: The Lying Detective (2017)
reviews as a metaphor for society
I am a huge Sherlock Holmes fan. I also like Cumberbatch too (see BBC radio's "Cabin Pressure"). I read all the reviews here. What struck me was how intelligent the negative reviews were, and how triumphalist the positive reviews are. Is this division a metaphor for how "divided" our societies are becoming? The negative is a small minority. But they say something substantial. Most simply vote of 9.3 does not "lie", does it? Yes.
The First Monday in May (2016)
not a revelation
"Are clothes Art?" This film addresses this question. A documentary about organising the Metropolitan Museum of Art annual fashion exhibition and dinner for celebrities and rich people that occurs on the night before the exhibition opens. The exhibition is organised by the so called "Costume Insitute", the department at the museum that collects clothes. The department clearly feels that it is considered a second class citizen at this museum, as we hear many, many, many times from all of the main players in this documentary, that the Costume Institute is part of making a modern Museum that "does not have the traditional C19th view of art".
However, what these people forget is that the Metropolitan Museum of Art is already very far from that. Indeed their stereotypical image of "what Art is", namely 'paintings and sculpture' was never true of many Americans museums, let alone this museum. Such American museums collected "non-Western" art from the beginning of the C20th. Thus, collecting "clothes as Art" not radical as Anna Wintour (editor of US Vogue) and the Costume Institute (lead by Bolton and Koda) suggest.
However, what is confusing is the blurring the line between curatorial scholarship, and commercial sponsorship which the Costume Institute often proposes. (This is far from unique, as many museums in the Western world now suffer from this dilemma.) Thus, the exhibition organiser Andrew Bolton wears the clothes designed by his husband in at least half the film (this is not revealed, but the designs are very distinctive).
The tension between scholarship and fashion is also featured in the film. A curator in the Asian Dept at the museum (who speaks Chinese to the Chinese designer of the exhibition) is always worried that the gloss of the high fashion will over shadow his galleries. Frankly, what did he really expect?! As viewers will see, for this exhibition the museum decided to put half the clothes in the Asian gallery space, and not in normal exhibition gallery space. I saw the exhibition and have to say this unique design ploy was very nice to see.
So what is lacking is this documentary? Any serious discussion of the important intellectual issues. Any real attempt to edit idiosyncratic details from an objective account how to to mount a scholarly exhibition at the best museum in America. For example, why does Andre Leon Talley feature so strongly in this documentary? What do we have to see a photo of Bolton as 19 year old and vintage footage of London fashion in the 1980s and Bolton ruminating on the "bravery of new Romantics"? Nothing to do with China or the exhibition.
Who comes off well? Karl Lagerfeld: "We make clothes, not art." Jean-Paul Gaultier, who knows the history of fashion. He walks around the opening and knows about cabinets' contents and artists - amazing!
Weird facts: if you are a "special" museum trustee (Wintour) you can walk around the museum with cup of coffee whenever you want! For those who do not no visit museums, this is strictly forbidden for the rest of the world.
The gala raises "$12,500,000" for a museum that requires $390,000,000 annual, OK every dolla 'elps, but all da hoopla fir
waah?
Would I recommend this film? Not really, as we learn nothing new about fashion, fund raising, or mounting museums exhibitions.
Dunkirk (2017)
A monotonic and essentially dull film
I saw the film at the BAFTA screening in NYC on 18-July-2017. I went with some trepidation as my father was at Dunkirk (and my mother's first husband was a RAF pilot who was shot down during WW2). Much to my surprise I found the film rather boring. The vast majority of the action is extremely repetitive. The British soldiers trying to escape are continually thwarted in some way by water, holes in the hulls of the boats, followed by lots of swimming, standing/sleeping on the beach waiting for the next chance to do the same thing. This frustration is inter-cut with two other main story lines (not really stories, and that is the problem). RAF Spitfires coming over the Channel to help. Finally, the heroes of the rescue, the plucky small boats from the south coast, sensibly represented by one craft with three crew. The reality is this is film which we know what happens, as this is a historical truth - many soldiers are rescued by the small boats (I ticked spoiler in case you do not know this!). The inter-cutting of the latter two story lines with the soldiers is filmed is a poor way. First from a technical point of view - the no continuity of lighting. I know the weather is highly changeable in the Channel but the same scene is at once brightly sunlit, then cloudy, then grey, then sunlit within seconds. This happened so much that I wonder if they did it deliberately. Secondly, there is a slight historical non-linear telling of the three stories as they intersect. The idea is obvious to see the story from different points of view. But why? It is not as if the view points generate fundamentally different moral perspectives. However the core problem is there is no real narrative in the film. We do not get a chance to care in any way about the characters. This truth in stark contrast to much much better films about war. The simplest example to point to is "Mrs. Miniver", a truly great film about war and, as it happens, Dunkirk. There are many reviewers giving this new film 10 with 'greatest war I have ever seen'. With no narrative and scene scene showing the same thing, it cannot be. Other great war films: "The Grand Illusion" and "Apocalypse Now" and "Full Metal Jacket".
Italy Unpacked (2013)
Unique and enthralling mix of food and art history
Andrew Graham-Dixon is a well know as a leading BBC art historian. Giorgio Locatelli is an Italian who has been living in London for many years, running his eponymous Michelin- starred restaurant. They became friends when Graham-Dixon was eating at Locatelli's restaurant, and discovered they both loved Sicily. Thus, they established the novel format of this series about "main land" Italy in their journey through the island with "Sicily Unpacked". The format is simple, and you wonder no one has done it before: take 2 experts with very different personalities and alternate scenes reflecting their interests and passions. In "Sicily Unpacked" they could go to the many of the most famous places on the island as it is a much less well known tourist destination. In their second series "on Italy" they vary this theme a little, by selecting many less well known places, towns or sites. They are not doctrinaire in this approach (they visit La Scala and Milan Cathedral), but in Pisa they do not go to the Tower. They ignore Rome completely. Locatelli shows Graham-Dixon many of the producers that supply his restaurant. Graham-Dixon gets to show Locatelli (and us) many of his favorite Italian works of art which are a bit more obscure (no visit to the Uffizi!). Locatelli's emphasis on fresh local ingredients will not make you a "foodie", as this is not new, but his passion for cooking and life is quite wonderful. The contrast between the 2 friends is perfect, as each seems almost a stereotype of their cultures, together they celebrate Italy which is off the beaten track and completely authentic! Nothing to being middle aged or anything like that. Locatelli appears often as someone who is very scholarly when it comes to Italian food history, which is a nice surprise in the presence of an art historian from Oxford University. It requires no imagination to want an Italian holiday but this series makes you to enjoy all the non-tourist places they take you to.