More complaints about P+P 2005

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?view=BLOGDETAIL&grid=P30&blog=yourview&xml=/arts/2006/02/15/bfblbafta1.xml

What bollocks. Pride and Prejudice is a crock of shite, devoid of any noticable acting, a risible 'modernised' script and a plot incomprehensible to anyone who wasn't already au fait with the book. The characters were poorly developed, the Bennet sisters were little more than a gaggle of giggling girls, Mr Bennet mumbled his lines - and when he didn't you could clearly tell he wasn't from round there. Keira Knightley an actress? Rubbish. She can't act for toffee - look at all the Jennifer Ehle mannerisms she resorted to in the P&P film - she had no idea how to play her character. I could go on. P&P is one of the worst films I've ever seen and I'm disgusted that I was tricked into buying the DVD of it by the ridiculous hype and uncritical reviews.

Posted by John Monk on February 16, 2006 9:27 AM

Keira Knightley's nomination for an Oscar is (in my opinion) not worthy, especially considering the original performance by Jennifer Ehle, which was exquisite. Knightley's appearance and continual sulky expression did nothing to show the kindly nature of the character Elizabeth Bennet. Her omission from the BAFTA nominations was a reflection of her poor performance as that character, although her acting has to be acknowledged as good in general. Having said that, the fact that Munich received Oscar nominations a plenty is testament to the quality of not only the film, but also the acting; it is a superb film well worthy of acclaim.

Posted by Fiona-Louise on February 16, 2006 11:37 AM

Keira Knightley is a gem and was perfect in P&P! Lord, I loved Colin and Jennifer a decade ago, but let's get over it folks! Different treatment, different times. Keira shines - she may not deserve to win the Oscar (look at the competition) but she earned the nomination.

Posted by N. Pollard on February 16, 2006 11:14 PM

Keira's omission from the BAFTAs really is a disgrace. Shouldn't we be showing our appreciation for a truly beautiful piece of cinema? Keira shines as Miss Bennet, in a way that could only come through a reading of THE BOOK, not of past productions. Let us not forget the very different formats the two productions above named are in. Joe Wright does an admirable job with the story, as do Matthew Macfadyen and the rest of the cast. The voters should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by M. Lewis on February 17, 2006 11:34 AM

My short essay on acting

Annabeth Gish once said in an interview that the fashion among casting directors these days is to try and find the actual person that was written about in the script.

Harrison Ford, by contrast, has said there are only two types of casting:
casting by type and casting against type.

What can we draw from these two seemingly contradictory statements?

That although someone can be gifted in playing a wide variety of characters, the actors are always limited by their own personalities, and we must content ourselves with what variation they can provide.

This is why Harrison Ford has never played a serial killer.

I remember Ellen Barkin once commenting on how Laurence Olivier was not such a great, because he couldn't anything beyond standard British theatrical.
And it occurred to me at the time that she had a point. Patrick Stewart is a "classy" actor, but can he play a street thug.

I think there is some confusion of acting "range" with acting "skill"

I've read accounts of Jack Nicholson on the set of Terms of Endearment or Winona Ryder on the set of Great Balls of Fire!, both describing how each gave a different line reading for each take. That is skill.

By contrast, Morgan Freeman has played a number of different characters, from pimp to President, from CIA agent to God, to a chauffeur driver at various ages.
That is range.

Freeman is a good example of the "best" actors, because he is able to transcend both class and age between all his roles.

The much-celebrated "character actors" like (the always smug) Kevin Spacey or (the always offbeat) Gary Oldman have not shown themselves capable of this range.

------------------

How much you like someone, and even whether you think them attractive, I think determines whether you consider them a good actor.

For example, Brad Pitt never did much for me as an actor until I saw Meet Joe Black, where he shows range by playing both Everyman *and* the Angel of Death.
But recently, after having (apparently) left his wife (whom I do not even like)
for Angelina Jolie (who I do like) I cannot help but kind of think of him as kind of a lout. And after the fiasco that was Mr. and Mrs. Smith, I am even less charitably disposed.

Tom Hanks used to be one of my favorites, when he was in films like The Money Pit, The Man with One Red Shoe, and Joe vs. the Volcano. Then came Forrest Gump, and Sleepless in Seattle, and, with the exception of Saving Private Ryan, which I like very much, I really haven't cared for any of his films since 1994.
So I think of Tom Hanks now and pull a face.

Sometimes one can overcome one's prejudices.

I've never liked Tom Cruise- everyone says he's such a nice guy in person, and that may be true, but in nearly all his films, he's a controlling, arrogant, aggressive prat. Could he ever play a passive person? Yet...I can respect his acting in Far and Away, Minority Report, Collateral, and The Last Samurai. They are still variations on his arrogant persona, but they are *effective* variations. And Mission Impossible is one of my favorite films, despite Tom Cruise being in it, or maybe yet *because* of it- he is very effective in the role.
-------------------

We have to make a distinction between "best", "most important", and "favorite".

People rarely make these distinctions when talking about films, even less when talking about actors.

For example, one might say Schindler's List is one of the most "important" films of the past 25 years. Does that mean it is also *necessarily* one of the most well-made? Does it mean it is one of your favorites, as in you'd want to watch it over and over? Does it mean it speaks to you personally, or defines for you some ideal or sense of style that you have? Some people are quite honest, and will tell you, say, maybe Roger Corman films are their favorites, but other people are just pretentious, or perhaps haven't though the matter through, and will spout out as their favorites what they think should be their favorites.

With actors, one have to make a distinction between who one likes, who one thinks is attractive, and who one thinks is a good actor, a distinction between "favorite" actors, "hot" actors, and "good" actors.

Several years ago, I once tried to rate my "favorite" actors and actresses this way:

1. Consider all the films the actor has made.
2. Rate the ones you've seen, from 1 to 4 stars.
3. Add the total of the films rated 3 stars or above.
4. Add the total of the films rated 2 and a half stars or below.
5. Subtract the total of no. 4 from no. 3, and then you have your "actors" score.

(Sequels do not count. For example, Mel Gibson only gets a rating for his original portrayal of Martin Riggs.)

Considering that few except perhaps film critics actually ever see all the films of any particular actor, one could argue that the results will inevitibly be distorted but here was my top ten result at the time-

1. Morgan Freeman
2. Mel Gibson
3. Steven Seagal
4. Denzel Washington
5. Samuel L. Jackson
6. Keanu Reeves
7. Harrison Ford
8. Bruce Willis
9. Wesley Snipes
10. Richard Gere, Ving Rhames (tied)

Actually, that's pretty accurate, because if I were to try to narrow it down to five, we'll get Bruce, Samuel, Morgan, Keanu, and Mel- and this is not necessarily because I like them (Bruce and Mel both have their annoying moments, and Samuel can over-do the angry black man schtick, so I guess Morgan and Keanu take top honors)

Of course, there are many other actors I like and/or respect, from the old stars like Cary Grant and James Stewart, British actors like Tom Conti or Colin Firth or Richard Harris, European actors like Jean Reno or Rutger Hauer, or American standbys like Gene Hackman. In most cases, these men have starred in at least one of favorite films, so that probably has something to do with it.

When it comes to who I think is most attractive male actors, the list is again different- Keanu Reeves, Kiefer Sutherland, Ewan MacGregor, Heath Ledger, River Phoenix, Freddie Prinze, Jr., Liam Neeson, Kevin Kline

Favorite female actresses? My scoring system came out like this-

1. Meg Ryan
2. Anne Heche
3. Tamlyn Tomita
4. Lauren Holly
5. Julia Ormond and Kate Winslet (tied)
6. Ally Sheedy
7. Sigourney Weaver
8. Mira Sorvino and Ashley Judd (tied)
9. Selma Hayek and Rene Russo (tied)
10. Neve Campbell and Laura Linney (tied)

This is where the scoring system is weaker, because with most of the actresses the high ratings on only based on mybe two films they did that I really liked, not the entire range of a career. This means either I tend to like male-oriented films, or Hollywood really does give short shrift to women in starring roles- perhaps both. Also, I did the survey in 1999. Doing it over now, I'd probably drop Holly, Sheedy, Weaver, Russo, Linney, Campbell, and add Angelina Jolie, Cate Blanchett, Catherine McCormack, and Rachel Weisz.

"Best" actresses, though? I'm hard-pressed. I don't think much of Meryl Streep. Cate Blanchett is pretty good in terms of range. Winona Ryder, as noted above, is reported to be good at skill but I don't see the evidence of range. Any thoughts on the subject? Should we start a new topic on the board?

Most attractive actresses (not most attractive female celebrities, in which case we'd have to add a few more and drop a few of these)- Jami Gertz, Navi Rawat, Shannon Elizabeth, Keira Knightley, Naomi Watts, Kate Beckinsdale, Evangeline Lilly, Claire Forlani, Rhona Mitra, Piper Perabo, Monica Belucci...

But sometimes there is a inverse relationship to the aesthetic quality and the quality of films. For example, I have never seen anyone with such a resume of crap films as Shannon Elizabeth- I cannot think of a single one which I have liked. But she is totally gorgeous. And Jami Gertz, you know, you could blame it on just having a bad agent, or being too young and not having well-informed tastes, but now that she is older, she should know better, yet still she stars in crap like that Still Standing sitcom.

Oscar wrap-up 2005

Well, it was a very blue-state affair, another orgy of Hollywood self-importance.

The big surprise of the night was that Crash instead Bareback, er, I'm sorry, I mean Brokeback Mountain won for Best Picture, even though director Ang Lee won for Best Director. Usually the best picture is the one directed by the best director, but split occasionally arise as they did last night because directors vote for directors, actors for actors, etc., but everyone in the Academy votes for best film.

I suspect that the whole thing was political, that voting for a film about race, whose message was good (but not especially uncharted territory) was "safer" than voting for a film which acknowledges that people of the same gender can love each other.

And although my opinions about homosexuality may deviate from most members of the Academy, it incenses me they should do such a thing, that they don't have the integrity to stand by their convictions.

Also, while I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain, I strongly suspect it is a very well-made film, more artistically accomplished than Crash. I liked Crash, but it seemed a bit like a TV movie. I also saw Munich, one of the other Best Picture nominees, and that was better than Crash, too.

But I am glad that Crash's writer-director, Paul Haggis, won an award, because he deserves one for the whole first season of Due South.

And I am happy for Rachel Weisz, although I think her best role to date was actually in Confidence. Now hopefully no one will remember her having been in Constantine or the Mummy films, for that matter.

And I am happy for Ang Lee, who deserved awards for Sense and Sensibility and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and probably deserved an award for Brokeback as well. We will forget about that boring film he did a few years ago, The Hulk.

Typically, people get Academy Awards for things which are not really their best or most memorable work.

Kinsey

Kinsey has good dialogue and is structured well, and Liam Neeson is quite good in the lead role, but the film glosses over the serious deviations in Kinsey's life, and ignores the fact that his methodology was messed up, an error which has led to the justification of many bad ideas, although we can perhaps be grateful that Kinsey's findings did some good in the sense of opening up discussion about sex.

The end credits are in poor taste.

It is interesting to see how much Kinsey was like his father.

Open marriage is not a good idea.

What was the real attitude of the Rockefeller Foundation towards Kinsey's findings?

Munich

There are spies, there are saboteurs, and then there are warriors.

Most espionage thrillers are actually about saboteurs, and they galmourize, simplify, and exaggerate the subject of black ops. But Munich gives the feeling of being real, as it captures the tedium of the process.

The film may be mistitled, as it it not so much about the death of the Israeli atheletes in 1972, but the targeting for assasination of those who assisted in the massacre.

Eric Bana deserved a nomination as he is able to convey to us a transformation of chracter from someone who seem vaguely idealistic to someone deadened by fear and killing. Geoffrey Rush also give another great performance as Bana's case officer in the Mossad.

There have been complaints about the film not being "accurate", and that the persons involved were never consulted, or that the film is too "pro-Israel" or too "anti-Israel".

For me, the most profound line was when one member of the assasination team decides to leave, and tells Bana's character: "It doesn't matter that people have hated us for thousands of generations. What matters is my own righteousnes, and if I lose that, I lose my own soul."

Therese/The Island/Austeria

In the film Therese, about the Roman Catholic saint Therese of Liseux, the filmmakers do not establish their characters well. There are many scenes in which the music seems like it is telling us what what ought to feel (in fact, there may be more dialogue than music!) but how can we be moved? If there is no emotional investment, there is no payoff either. The lead character comes across as whiny and maudlin, but I read her autobiography a long time ago, and she was not like the way they were portraying her. For example, on her deathbed the film's Therese bemoans the fact she can't have a chocolate eclair- what a pious dispostion! but beyond that, I distinctly remember her saying in her writings that she perferred savory dishes to sweet ones! And yet, this film gets approved by the Vatican? Standards must be slacking off for imprimaturs!

The second half of the film, after she enters the convent, is better than the first half. The themes are about the renunciation of the will for God's sake, simplicity of faith, and how one can be used of God just by being oneself, without trying to aspire to "greatness".

Similar problems of character development beset an entirely different sort of film: Michael Bay's semi-obnoxious The Island, kind of a cross between The Matrix, Logan's Run, and The Sixth Day. It could have been made as a meditation on the subject of consciousness. Do people have an innate awareness of both God and sex, or is it possible to weed it out? Would a clone share its parent's memories and inclinations? But these questions are only touched upon, with the main focus being a rip-roaring action film, which would have been fine, if the director's infamous Attention Deficit Disorder Style didn't make everything so bloody hard to follow. As it is, the film, at more than 2 hours, is both far too long, and yet, ironically, the premise is not developed enough.

Austeria is a 1983 Polish film about a Jewish innkeeper who takes in some Hasidic Jews, an Austrian baroness, and a Hungarian hussar fleeing from the Cossacks during World War I. It's very low budget, as I guess it might be before the Fall of Communism in Eastern Europe, but sometimes this is distracting as there are some shots which are out of focus. It's refreshing to see something about European Jewry that's not in reference to the Shoah.

The theme of the film is the struggle between faith and doubt in the midest of persecution, war, and conflicting desires. The doubts of the innkeepers are contrasted with the mysticism of his largely Hasidic guests, who try to chase away their wicked thoughts by praising God.

Organ Transplants and Cellular Memories

In line with the theme of The Island, one might be interested in perusing this article:

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/CellularMemories.html

According to this study of patients who have received transplanted organs, particularly hearts, it is not uncommon for memories, behaviours, preferences and habits associated with the donor to be transferred to the recipient.

Pride and Prejudice (2005) revisited

When I went to see the film in theaters a few months, I think I was so distracted by my swooning over Keira Knightley, whom I have a bit of a crush on, that I couldn't clearly see the many flaws.

Watching Knightley's performance again, I can hear that her line readings, while not exactly flat, are inadequately nuanced. I think that perhaps as an actress, she's out of her league. In particular, I could detect too much Estuary in Knightley's accent, which is all wrong for the role- why didn't she get a dialect coach? There's a reason the British Academy didn't nominate her.

I think too many critics, probably men, are confusing "charming young lady" with "really good actress". I'm not saying she's a bad actress, but just that she needs a lot more training- there's no better evidence than her shite performance in Domino. I'd know she'd be pissed off to hear someone say that, but she needs to be pissed off, so she gets motivated to be better.

I also discussed with the persons I was watching the film with how much we felt the film was miscast. One thought Rosamund Pike would have made a good Lizzie, but the other and myself disagreed. We all seemed to agree that Clive Owen and Ion Gruffudd, Knightley's co-stars in King Arthur (not a great film but better than this P+P) , would have made better Mr. Darcys, or a Mr. Darcy and a Mr. Bingley, or a Mr. Darcy and Mr. Wickham. They are far sexier and masculine in my estimation.

And Judi Dench even is miscast, seeming nothing so much as an 18th century incarnation of Jean Pargetter.

I also noticed on this viewing that this Mr. Darcy is a total wuss. Twice he confesses to Lizzie "I love you" and I just had to blurt out "I don't believe you!". Whereas Knightley quite believably shifts from favor to disfavor during the course of the film, I realized there's no reason for her to do so, and she winds up making Lizzie look like an idiot!

Now, before the film came out, Keira gave an interview with the London Telegraph where she said

"Filmmakers tend to go for that slightly more androgynous look these days, which is lovely, but one of the most romantic things in the world is a manly man"

but, excuse me, Matthew Macfadyen seems to be exactly part of that whole generation of Generic Boring White Guy that I think Keira is talking about, guys who are indistinguishable from each other by their lack of personality.

For example, I remember Milla Jovovich and Michelle Rodriguez very vividly from Resident Evil, but their white guy co-stars are a blur in my mind. And it's not as if it was such a great film that it could afford bad casting decisions as well.

Same goes for Angelina's co-stars in the Tomb Raider films, Daniel Craig and Gerard Butler. I know their names now, as a result of the first being cast as the new Bond (wrong choice), and the second because of Phantom of the Opera, but their performances in the Tomb Raider films were bad and utterly forgettable.

People these days seem so much less interesting than they used to be. It took me a long, long time to distinguish or even register the cast of American Pie. But back when I was a kid, there was no way that one could confuse Emilio Estevez, Molly Ringwald, Ally Sheedy, Judd Nelson, and Anthony Michael Hall. I know they were playing "types" but so were the American Pie kids, but I still got them confused.