Review: Beauty and the Beast (2017) SPOILERS

Just because you can remake a movie, doesn’t mean you have to.

Disney takes a second shot at its own 1991 classic animated film by the same name.  It offers what you would expect: big lavish production values, an array of stars, and a sense that this live action version must achieve parity or surpass the first mega-hit.  As I read in another review, Disney seemed to “ask themselves in every scene whether it met the original and the answer was no.” So they added new songs and subplots which served both to lengthen the story and, I suppose, justify the additional material.  Considering that Disney intends to remake its other classics like Little Mermaid in live action films, the stakes are very high. 

Unless you have never been the original, it’s impossible not to make comparisons.  In fact, several scenes are replicated line for line, frame by frame.  But there’s an inherent problem with comparing live actors to their animated counterparts.  Does Emma Watson look like Belle?  (No.)  Can you overlook it? (It depends.)  Is her voice good enough?  (That’s debatable.)  This running dialogue ran through my head all during the movie.  However, some actors rose above the chatter.  Luke Evans as Gaston has a good voice and Josh Gad is a wonderful DeFou. The scenery is beautiful.  The production is spectacular. The movie delivers on the extravaganza.  It even has some magical moments towards the end that pulled me in.

But Emma Thompson singing the title song isn’t Angela Lansbury.  Kevin Kline is miscast as Belle’s father.  Dan Stevens’s Beast needs to learn from Richard Armitage’s Thorin and use his eyes to convey emotion under all that fur.  The added songs and subplot are unnecessary and unmemorable.  The story-line changes in odd ways.  Cogsworth, Lumiere, and Mrs. Potts lose their charming animated expressions of the original.  Even though the big razzle dazzle Big Our Guest seems to strain to be as Over the Top as OTP could ever be, there is something missing.  In sum despite all the lavishness, some essential charm has been lost. 

Audiences have apparently been coming in droves to see why Disney would want to risk remaking its own classic.  Well, it’s for the usual reason: to insure that these old classics continue to make money by retreading them every generation.  That’s not to say that this Beauty and the Beast is a waste of time.  I didn’t leave wanting my money back.  Those who have never seen the original should enjoy it.  It’s just that for old-timers like me, there is a reason why a film becomes a classic after all.

Review of RA and Thorin; or Oh Thorin, You Fine Bastard

Thorin12I’m not a Tolkien fan, having never read any of his books.  I saw all of the LotR trilogy  enjoyed them, then promptly forgot them, except for Gollum and his precious. I wouldn’t have been particularly interested in seeing The Hobbit were it not for Richard Armitage being cast as Thorin.    So my knowledge of the story is either forgotten or nonexistent.   As for RA, I’ve made no bones about not being an avid fangurl.  But I wanted  him to do well and was thrilled for him that he’d snagged this major role.  Also, I attended with a friend who didn’t know RA from Adam. Truth be told, I would have felt mortified had she turned to me and said, “So that was your boy? He sucked.”

So yes, I hoped he didn’t fall on his face.  That was the extent of my expectations of him.

That’s also the extent of my objective fan bona fides.  Okay, now for RA and Thorin.

Knowing next to nothing about Thorin, I was prepared to embrace this dispossessed king.  I knew he might have some issues over the situation, but this Thorin is a total prick.  He is prideful, ego-driven, stubborn, obsessed, bastard – the poster child for grudge carrying.  Even the flashbacks showing Smaug toasting Erebor, Thranduil the Elvenking turning his back, and Azog beheading his grandfather didn’t adequately explain his highly antagonistic attitude towards Bilbo and need to insult him every chance he got.  Aside from marveling his noble and commanding warrior badassery, I felt little reason to care, other than he is the good guy.  By the end, I wouldn’t have been surprised had Bilbo acknowledged Thorin’s thanks by telling him where he could go.  RA gives a solid performance as a solid asshole.  But wait, this is a children’s movie.  Other fan reviewers raved and cried.  Hmm.

Clearly I was missing something.  So, I went back for a second viewing in a closer seat.  All became clear. Literally.  I was too nearsighted to see RA’s eyes during the first showing.  This time, Thorin is still a bastard, but such a good-looking one.  That always helps, it really, really, really does. (But you know I’m shallow).  More importantly, seeing his eyes makes him more human dwarven; they signal more depth and emotion underneath the gruff exterior.  This makes Thorin more palatable to me, but he is still not admirable as a character.  The big scene in which he loses his mind and marches out of the burning tree to take on Azog AND his warg,  leaving his group to die, qualifies him for a major beatdown later.  Or at least a good right hook.  There’s also the strong indication that his quest is more motivated by personal vengeance and the need to redeem himself in his own eyes as an heir of Durin than an altruistic reclamation for his people.  As he tells Balin, “*I* have no choice.”  He’s hell-bound to proceed with the mission no matter what and feels no qualms about leading a paltry band of 14 to do what an entire army of dwarves could not.  Again, having never read Tolkien, I assume honor and vengeance is the dwarven creed, so maybe his behavior is understandable.  While Thorin is not a particularly likeable character, there’s an indication that might change as the journey continues.  However, considering that he’s already half unhinged, I’m not sure how he will avoid the dragon sickness and its greed.

[EDIT: Thanks to our Mujer Tropical, I have a better understanding of Thorin.  Facing his destiny and fears is certainly admirable, so I revise that part.  However, I still have difficulty with his likeability, mainly because it take a little more time to understand such a character without some outside source (the books, Mujer Tropical).  Unlike Sir Ian with Gandalf, RA was given precious little time to convey Thorin’s complexities.]

RA delivers a solid performance as Thorin, considering he was quite hampered by the prosthetic forehead.  He had to dispense with the repertoire of micro-expressions for which he’s known.  RA reported he had to overreact scenes with his eyes and jaw in order to signal emotions to the audience.  He managed successfully, giving Thorin more depth than he would have had ordinarily.  Instead of being a bastard on a quest, he’s an interesting bastard with potential on a quest.  RA uses his low- baritone effectively, lending a commanding voice to his fine visage.  His characterization is mostly Thorin, although I detected Thornton in two lines, and Guy of Gisborne in a few  eye and head movements.  His fight scenes are excellent with his dancer’s spins and graceful choreography.  He did well with the material he had.  I can find no fault with his acting.  Most of my issues concern problems with the script and overall editing.

More about that later.

 

Film Review: The Debt

As I stated yesterday, Elsa and I went to see The Debt starring Dame Helen Mirren.  Mirren is a fabulous actress;  she adds class to any project she does so I was keen to see it.

The_Debt_PosterThe film is about three Mossad operatives in East Berlin who conspire to kidnap notorious Nazi Dr. Dieter Vogel, the Surgeon of Birkenau and take him to Israel to face trial for war crimes in 1966.  This is a take on the kidnapping in Buenas Aires of real Nazi Adolph Eichmann who stood trial in 1961. The film is a remake of the 2007 Israeli film of the same name by Assaf Bernstein.  This version was directed by John Madden based on a screenplay written by Matthew Vaughn, Jane Goldman and Peter Straugha.  The operatives (Rachel, David and Stephan) are played by six people, three younger in 1966 (Jessica Chastain, Sam Worthington, and Marton Csokas), and three older (Helen Mirren, Ciaran Hinds, and Tom Wilkinson) in 1997. Vogel is played by Jesper Christensen.

The story begins in 1997 when Rachel’s daughter writes a book about her mother’s involvement in the mission, and jumps back and forth in time to show us events might not have been what they seemed. To avoid spoilers, I’ll say that things unravel from there.

Having not seen the original, I had no clue about this version.  It’s billed as a suspense thriller and doesn’t disappoint.  It’s more than just the intricate staging of a kidnapping however.  There’s a strong psychological component to it.  The operatives have to reconcile their feelings between the mission (all of them had relatives who died in the concentration camps) and getting Vogel to Israel unharmed.  There is a subplot with a sort of menage a trois between Rachel and her two colleagues which seems unnecessary but is a handy vehicle to showcase the hollow souls created by traumatic childhoods.  Vogel is not painted as a sympathetic character.  He is more of a scientific opportunist than a true believer; his deadly contempt for the Jews stems apparently from their unwillingness to save themselves.  Vogel’s monstrousness and those like him haunt the lives of the operatives over the course of the film.

Mirren of course does a marvelous job as the older Rachel in her usual cool understated style.  The rest of the cast turns in strong credible performances thanks to the even direction.  Even Sam Worthington, who I found wooden in Avatar, stretches himself and made me take a new look.  The pacing is even; most of the action suspense occurs in 1966 but the fallout happens in 1997 supplying the psychological suspense.

This film asks a lot questions besides the big one (SPOILER).  Elsa and I left the theater debating the purpose of continuing to have World World II trials in the 21 century.  Most recently German officials in 2009 brought to trial Nazi guard John Demjanjuk who has been granted US citizen and worked for 30 years as an auto worker in Ohio.  This man was 89 years old and had ailments so serious he didn’t know what was going on.  Many of the witnesses were either dead or could not identify him after all that time and there was no definite way to prove who he was. In 2011 at age 91 he was convicted of accessory to murder and sentenced to 5 years in prison with a suspended sentence.  Was justice being served by prosecuting a very low level Nazi functionary who no longer knew what was happening to him or is it pure revenge?  Should these criminals be pursued no matter what to prove the point that war crimes should never escape justice, disregarding the fact that higher level Nazi criminals were granted amnesty and asylum by the Allies in the late 1940s and early 1950s for the knowledge they possessed?  Elsa and I could not come to a consensus, although we both agreed the line between justice and patent revenge is almost indistinguishable.

If you’re looking for a mindless action thriller, this isn’t your cup of tea.  But if you want a suspenseful thriller about a grim period in history which gives you food for thought long after you’ve left the theater, then I highly recommend this film.

Rating: 4 stars

 

Much Ado about Nothing – A Fan’s Review

Much Ado Sign BlackAs you may already know, the whole purpose of the London saga was to see David Tennant in Much Ado about Nothing. I talked about the astonishing karma I experienced there but didn’t say much about the play itself.  Here is the review.

I’ll admit right off that I’m not a Shakespearean expert.  I didn’t study him in school, have not seen all his plays and cannot tell which quarto should have been included or not.  The intrinsic discovery of the Bard didn’t occur until my late 30s when my mind clicked with both the language and the plots and I acquired a better appreciation through live performance rather than dry text.  I vaguely remember the film version with Kenneth Branaugh so there’s no comparison being made in this review.

The action was set in 1980’s Gibraltar with Don Pedro (and his men stationed there including Benedick (David Tennant).  Beatrice (Catherine Tate) was the niece of Governor Don Leonato (Jonathon Coy).  The production solved the issue of how to get uber famous Tennant on the stage by having him drive on honking a golf cart festooned in Union Jacks.  The comedy was slapstick and wrung for the most laughs it could get including a fancy dress disco ball with Tennant dressed in black fishnet stockings and a mini skirt, and swinging Tate in the air from a harness. It also got surprisingly raunchy with a stag party blow up doll and stand up sex in an alley.

For those who don’t know Much Ado: Beatrice and Benedick, confirmed cynical bachelors, are duped into believing they are in love with each other.  Their story runs parallel to that of Claudio and Hero who have a more traditional courtship.  This is against the backdrop of political intrigue between brothers Don Pedro and Don Leonato.

Tennant was fantastically cynical, funny and smitten with Beatrice.  He was clearly at home with Shakespeare and during the scene where he’s tricked into thinking Beatrice was in love with him, he played directly to the audience for all it was worth.  There clearly were Doctor Who (Tennant played the 10 Doctor, aka the Lonely God) fans during the evening performance; when Tennant uttered the line “I’ll be like a god!”  the audience laughed and groaned.  He played that for all it was worth, breaking character for a moment, “Not that god!”   His scene contained much slapstick and tomfoolery but he smoothly pulled it off with panache, leaving the audience gasping with laughter.  Too bad his duping scene preceded Tate’s because by the time she’s dangling from the ceiling in a painter’s harness, it just wasn’t as funny.  Ironic for a woman whose profession is comedic acting.

david tennat and catherine tateTate was very humorous in her funny scenes but somehow missed the mark when poignancy and wistfulness were required.  She mostly appeared distant and sarcastic until she heard that Benedick was in love with her.  Tate also had difficulty during the scene where they acknowledged their love and she suddenly ordered Benedick to “Kill Claudio!”  This scene required an almost instant transitional moment between hilarity and deadly seriousness which Tate didn’t hit consistently during the two performances I saw.  That’s not to say Tate didn’t hold her own; it’s that it was apparent to me she was not the same acting caliber as Tennant.  I can honestly say this without bias.  Had Tennant turned in less than a stellar performance, I certainly would point it out.  I believe in saying the emperor has no clothes, if necessary, even about my crushes.

The rest of the cast was quite good with Claudio and Hero (newcomers Tom Bateman and Sarah Macrae).  Don John (Elliot Levey) was more of a cardboard villain than a flawed individual which might have been a mistake in characterization.  The cast breakout was Dogberry (John Ramm) played as a very funny bumbling Rambo type.

Overall, it was an excellent but flawed production staged by Josie Rourke. Since I can’t recall Branaugh’s version, I can’t say whether it favorably compared.  However, I can say that this adaption worked for me.  I enjoyed it and found the trip worth it.

 

RA and A Knight in Shining Armor

Once upon a time in far off internet history (last month), a smitten tweeter raised a question:  if you could cast Richard Armitage as a character in a book, who would that be?

There were the excellent but highbrow suggestions such as Heathcliffe in Wuthering Heights.  This would tickle me pink because the 1939 version starred my mother’s lifelong crush, the great Lord Laurence Olivier.  Somebody suggested he should be Mr. Darcy in yet a new Pride and Prejudice but personally I think Pride and Predjudice has been done to death.  It’s time for something more modern yet historical, just as romantic but raunchier.

knight in shining armor coverMy suggestion is the knight Sir Nicolas Stafford  in A Knight in Shining Armor by Jude Deveraux.  I read this book roughly 20 years ago at an age when bodice rippers appealed to my youthful sensibilities.  This is a bodice ripper of sorts but a charming twist.  It’s a romantic historical fantasy which our hapless heroine, Dougless Montgomery (how’s that for a British name) weeps atop of the tomb of the long dead Sir Nicolas and he comes to life before her.  The rest of the novel follows their adventure of sending him back to his time, 1564, and then in a twist, how to get Dougless back to her time in the 20th century.  There is much intrigue and skulduggery as Nicolas and Dougless figure out how to save each others’ destinies.

This book is romantic and a bit fantastic but it reads like the ultimate chick book.  What woman wouldn’t like this type of fantasy especially with a tall, dark, good looking blue eyed royal hunk challenging them?  When I first read this book many years ago, I wondered who could play this part.  No name readily came to mind until I beheld Richard Armitage as Guy of Gisborne.  Ladies, the description of Sir Nicolas is Season 3 Sir Guy when he returned from Prince John’s Red Door Resort and Spa.  Exactly.  Sir Nicolas has many opportunities to be bare chested, and well, – bare.  Aside from that, there is an intriguing plot, clever repartee and in the hands of RA and an actress with whom he had chemistry, the story would sizzle.

Dear Reader, RA was born to play this role.  I envision the book made by an independent studio and released as the sleeper of the season.  In the right hands, the adaption would be fabulous.  So, I strongly suggest you get a copy of this book and see for yourself.  Even if you normally dislike potboilers, bodice rippers, and sappy romances, I assure you this story is a cut above; you will enjoy this entertaining and engaging book.

Dougless is confused about who is her Mr. Right.   Take a look at newcomer’s Gratiana’s blog who asks: which one of RA’s characters would you consider Mr. Right?  It promises to be an interesting discussion.

Richard Armitage as Guy of Gisborne, series1-07

Can you picture Richard Armitage as a 16th century knight? I knew you could. Courtesy richardarmitagenet.com

 

 

On Kings and Speech

This weekend I finally saw The King’s Speech. It interested me for several reasons, the least of which is it’s an Oscar contender for Colin Firth as best actor and the film as best picture. It intrigued me that the premise was about King George VI’s severe stammering. (He nickname was Bertie in the movie). I wondered how it could be presented in both an entertaining and informative way, why dealing with a painful and uncomfortable subject. I was keen because I have a speech impediment too.

Mine isn’t stammering. Rather it is same as British actor Jeremy Brett’s, rhotacism, the difficulty in saying the letter “R.” I am hearing impaired (profound loss in one ear, mild-moderate in the other) caused by being given too much oxygen at birth (I was born premature). Since I couldn’t pronounce what I couldn’t hear, I had to be taught the location of sounds, like consonants at the end of words. Apparently if some sounds aren’t learned during early speech development, like the Western distinction between the letters “R” and “L” for the Japanese, the speaker has a very difficult time producing it. I learned to approximate the “R” sound through speech therapy as a child and home grown efforts as an adult. On good days, my speech sounds like an accent nobody can place. On bad days, my diction is mushy at best. Sometimes I’m just too mentally tired to enunciate clearly. Only rarely do I stammer but that occurs under great stress. However, no matter what day I’m having, speech is a conscious constant effort because I’m always aware it’s my primary visible means of communicating with other human beings and of how I’m perceived.

So I felt personally connected to Bertie’s plight. He was a public figure, born to be a ceremonial figurehead and boster the morale of his people, but speaking was the bane of his existence. Plus he had to endure the discomfort and embarrassment around him as he struggled to express the simplest thoughts. He was locked into a vicious circle of fear of others’ expectations, anxiety over his notion of duty, and reactions of listeners. However, Bertie was so determined to fulfill his duty that he was able to overcome his impediment with the help of speech therapist Lionel Logue played brilliantly by Geoffrey Rush. His stammering was never cured; he learned to compensate so that it wasn’t so apparent. Although the story took place in rarefied circles with people we commoners can never really understand, at heart it was a simple story of a man trying to overcome his personal demons, albeit on the public stage. I certainly could empathize and came away with the thought that no matter how history treats George VI, his effort in this regard was truly commendable.

Colin Firth did an exemplary job as Bertie. I can imagine how challenging it was for an actor with no speech impairment to portray a historical figure with such a severe one in an accurate and believable manner. Just as it’s difficult to enunciate proper in this context, it’s equally a linguistic effort to do the reverse. I was acutely aware of how much work Firth put into that role. I would love to ask him in an interview what techniques he used to accomplish his task. (Also, he had to use the royal accent with vowels so rounded and syllables so strangled, that it’s dialect of it’s own.)I listened to the real speech, which was also depicted at the end of the film. King George sounded as if he were employing mere pauses for dramatic effect. The movie showed the physical and mental gymastics used during those pregnant pauses. I’m sure that other people like me with speech impediments nodded along with each line, knowing our own exercises and things we do to compensate every time we open our mouths.

I’m pleased the film highlighted the difficulties of people with speech impairments. When I was a child, many tended to associate hearing/language problems with low IQ which doesn’t necessarily correlate at all. A counselor actually told my mother I should transfer to a “special school.” Until I learned to compensate, I was often treated impatiently and retreated into silence as a result. I hope that those who rooted for the Bertie at the end of the film remember that feeling when they encounter people with language difficulties, especially children. Don’t be uncomfortable or wonder where are we from, just wait and listen.By the way, after the movie I suddenly remembered a stumbling block I encounter when I listen too long to another with a speech impediment: it becomes infectious. Because proper enunciation isn’t hard wired for me but consists mostly of smoke and mirrors, my tricks slip away. This dawned on me when trying to talk about – wait for it – Richard Armitage. Bizarrely I could say his first name but could barely get out the surname, when normally I had the opposite problem. Then I noticed I dropped syllables and slurred whole words. Jeremy Brett once said he had to practice elocution daily. Very true, my man, very true.

So I shall restart my exercises by repeating “Richard Armitage.” That’s not too bad actually. And as a treat for getting this far, Dear Reader, here’s more shiney:

Guy finally gives a damn; Robin Hood S3.9; RichardArmitagenet.com