Change Your Image
mckeldin
Reviews
Long Day's Journey Into Night (1987)
See it for Bethel Leslie
This production is worth viewing for Bethel Leslie. I really dislike director Jonathan Miller's domestication of the Tyrones. I understand what he was after... and he did succeed; but for me this play shouldn't be brought down to earth. It's not a television "dramedy." When I saw this production live, I overheard one audience member at intermission jocularly tell her companion, "They're just like my family!" And at the play's climax (Mary Tyrone's descent down the staircase) when Jamie (Kevin Spacey) uttered his line, "The mad scene: enter Ophelia" the audience roared with laughter. To me, that's a little like urging an audience to laugh when Lear brings in the lifeless body of his youngest daughter Cordelia.
Jack Lemmon was a fine actor, but he always brought himself to the roles he played and in this case it was hard for me to forget that he was not Ens. Pulver, C.C. Baxter or Felix Unger. I did like Peter Gallagher as Edmund, but not Kevin Spacey's take on Jamie (oddly after being unimpressed with Spacey in this and THE ICEMAN COMETH, I *loved* his interpretation of Jim Tyrone in his revival of A MOON FOR THE MISBEGOTTEN... essentially an older version of the same role he plays here).
But then there's Bethel Leslie who makes this whole production worthwhile. I won't say she's the best Mary Tyrone I've ever seen, but only because saying so really makes no sense since many great actresses have played this role in many different ways. She is a less sympathetic Mary than usual -- that the character is an emotional vampire has never been more evident -- but it's a valid interpretation and a very disturbing one.
I know some fans of the play love this production, so I actually urge people to see it and decide for themselves. I think this is a well executed production of a flawed interpretation of the play.
A Streetcar Named Desire (1984)
Misguided Remake
Many loved this remake of the 1951 film based on Tennessee Williams 1947 play; while others, like me, were appalled. Ann-Margaret as Blanche DuBois seemed wrong from the get-go, but I suppose the director was correct in letting A-M play the role to her strengths rather than attempting to have her use characteristics she can't project (i.e., fragility, delicacy, vulnerability). Ann-Margaret's Blanche not only doesn't project the faded southern aristocracy that is the backbone of the role; but she's entirely too formidable a match for Treat Williams' Stanley. I suspect those who sympathized with A-M's Blanche more than Vivien Leigh's in the original, are responding negatively to Leigh's sense of hauteur -- snobbery -- that's anathema for post-60's audiences. Nevertheless, Leigh's Blanche *is* Blanche... love her or hate her. Ann-Margaret gives an excellent performance in an entirely misconceived interpretation which ruined the play for me.
Exorcist II: The Heretic (1977)
Deeply Flawed, But Underrated
One of the most famous misfires of all time, EXORCIST II: THE HERETIC nevertheless has much to recommend it (once you get past the terrible dialog). Looked at as the stylized antithesis of the first film, The Heretic... is just that--heretical: a subversive take down of the cruel cinéma vérité style of William Freidkin's movie. John Boorman apparently was appalled by THE EXORCIST and had no interest in making a sequel until he got the idea of taking the material in the opposite direction. Instead of a cold documentary look at the suffering of a young girl and those around her (Boorman, and many others, felt that the suffering was exploited by the first film for entertainment value), Boorman decided on an outlandish mix of pseudo-religious philosophy and striking imagery that confused and angered audiences at the time. While it's certainly fair to say that this movie never "gels," it's a fascinating failure by a very talented director.
Great Performances: Company: A Musical Comedy (2007)
Video is better than the stage production it documents
I saw this production on Broadway in 2006 and was underwhelmed despite loving Raul Esparza in the lead and really connecting with the original material (via the cast album and previous stagings). I was a little disappointed then when I heard that this production was going to be filmed/taped as I didn't want this to be the "Company" of record. However, I thoroughly enjoyed the television version. Kudos to Lonny Price (whose stage work I haven't always admired) for bringing clarity to the action as well as to the relationships among the characters in his camera direction (the stage direction is by John Doyle). What was unintelligible on stage is now clear thanks to the use of close-ups and montage. This will never be my favorite Company (not nearly "New York" enough -- and I still maintain that the show works best set in its original time frame -- 1970), but what disappointed on stage has become a very entertaining and interesting production of a great "problem" musical.
Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari (1920)
Lives up to its reputation
It's always a little scary to approach a movie with a historic reputation for the first time. It's all the more difficult when it's a silent film and the surviving elements are, to put it kindly, not in the greatest shape. THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI, however, lives up to its reputation. Not only is it a fascinating piece of film history, it's a creepily effective psychological horror movie with a twist I didn't see coming.
This may be heresy--but I watched it through twice (on the Kino DVD): once with the original color tinting, and once with the color on my set turned off. I preferred it in its non-original black and white. With or without tinting/toning, it's a genuinely great movie.
The Bad Seed (1956)
A Guilty Pleasure
This is one of the most peculiar movies ever made. I'm tempted to say it's a great film in spite of itself, but really it's just a happy train wreck. Of course there's the camp value--but somehow the movie transcends even that. It actually works on its own terms--even if those terms are blatantly uncinematic and embarrassingly dated. The overripe dialogue is acted out with such gusto (if you've ever wondered what it means when an actor is said to "indicate," just watch this movie--you'll understand in an instant) that it goes beyond "heightened," beyond "stylized," even beyond "camp." While it was opened up to a degree from its stage source, many of the scenes play as if the stage script (with it series of arbitrary entrances and exits) were being strictly adhered to; and damn it if it doesn't work... after a fashion. Ultimately though, it's the fascination with the story that's the hook.
I first encountered the work via a TV movie remake in 1985. Having read WINTERSET in high school, I couldn't comprehend the "based on a play by Maxwell Anderson" credit for the TV film, so it prompted me to do a little digging. Not too long after that I had an opportunity to see the original movie and I was stunned: stunned by the broad acting; stunned by the stilted dialogue; stunned by the changed ending (which I realized even as I was watching it, must have been demanded by the Hays Code); and finally dumbfounded by the "curtain call" (if you've already seen the movie you know what I mean). Oddly though, in spite of the artifice of the acting and dialogue; in spite of the embarrassing naiveté in presenting its thesis; in spite of living in a post-Columbine age when children who commit horrible acts now seems commonplace; and, even in spite of the ludicrous ending--or maybe because of all of these things--the movie is still effectively unsettling. For better or worse, it's not a movie that you're likely to forget anytime soon.