Monthly Archives: September 2015

  • Marriage Italian Style

    Matrimonio all’italiana

    Vittorio De Sica (1964)

    Pietro Germi’s 1961 comedy Divorce Italian Style (Divorzio all’italiana), starring Marcello Mastroianni, tells the story of an impoverished Sicilian aristocrat and the lengths to which he goes in order to extricate himself from marriage to a plain and loyal wife and tie the knot instead with a younger and beautiful cousin.   The film was an international hit and, in 1963, won the Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay; Germi and Mastroianni were both nominated for Oscars too.   In December 1964, Marriage Italian Style was released in Italy and America.   Mastroianni was again the leading man but Vittorio De Sica’s film isn’t a companion piece to Germi’s:  the later film’s title is rather a blatant attempt to suggest an affinity with the earlier one, and to cash in on Divorce Italian Style‘s success.  I’m guessing that this was the idea of the producer, Carlo Ponti, rather than De Sica’s, and that Marriage Italian Style was developed by Ponti as a vehicle for his wife, Sophia Loren.  In this sense, the film was an unarguable success:  it made money abroad and earned Loren a second Oscar nomination, just three years after she’d won for her performance in De Sica’s Two Women.

    The source material for Marriage Italian Style is Eduardo De Filippo’s 1946 stage play Filumena Marturano, which has proved durable in the English-speaking theatre as well as in Italy.  In the adapted screenplay – by Renato Castellani, Tonino Guerra, Leonardo Benvenuti and Pierro De Bernardi – the story extends over a period of some twenty years, beginning during World War II.   Domenico Soriano (Mastroianni), a wealthy businessman, meets Filumena Marturano (Loren), a young country girl, in the brothel where he’s a punter and she’s a prostitute.  In the years that follow, Domenico returns to Filumena each time he visits the brothel; he eventually sets her up in his house – officially to take care of his elderly invalid mother, in fact as his mistress.  The mother dies; the mistress ages; Domenico finds a younger woman and plans to marry her.  Filumena, by feigning mortal illness, tricks him into marrying her instead.  Once they’re husband and wife, she explains the motive for her cunning deception:  unbeknown to Domenico, Filumena has three illegitimate sons, one of whom he fathered.  Domenico manages to get the marriage annulled but he’s nagged by curiosity.  He urges Filumena to tell him which of her three sons he sired but she refuses to do so, insisting that he must be a father to all three.  Filumena’s resourcefulness and tenacity eventually make an honest man of Domenico and they remarry – with all three of the candidates for sonship in attendance at the ceremony.  (Is this scenario what sort-of inspired the inverted set-up in Mamma Mia! decades later?)

    Eduardo De Filippo’s play was written as a tribute to, and with a starring role for, Titina, his elder sister.  (She died shortly before Marriage Italian Style reached the screen and the film is dedicated to her.)  In the late 1970s, an English translation of the play by Keith Waterhouse and Willis Hall, called simply Filumena, was produced on the London stage.  Directed by Franco Zeffirelli and starring Joan Plowright and Colin Blakely, the production transferred to Broadway in 1980, where it was directed by Plowright’s husband, Laurence Olivier.  The play was revived nearly twenty years later in London by Peter Hall, with Judi Dench and Michael Pennington in the main roles.   A noticeable feature of the casting of Marriage Italian Style and of these two English-language productions of De Filippo’s play is the various ages of the actresses concerned.   Judi Dench was in her mid-sixties; Joan Plowright was pushing fifty; Sophia Loren was barely thirty.  The same pattern obtains in the casting of the male lead although the age range is nothing like so pronounced:  Mastroianni was forty, Blakely in his mid-forties and Pennington in his mid-fifties.  In the play, Filumena is nearly the same age as Domenico and they conduct their arguments as a middle-aged ‘couple’, referring to the past.  The very different narrative structure of the film moves through the many years of their relationship to the present day.

    I didn’t admire or enjoy Marriage Italian Style.  It felt like an attempt to package ‘typical’ Italian behaviour for an international audience, with an implication that such behaviour – excessively demonstrative, in a supposedly comic register for the most part – is inherently entertaining and harmless.  Marcello Mastroianni’s dry expressions of impatience are sometimes agreeably restful amid the prevailing emotionality but his innate believability makes Domenico’s exploitation of Filumena more offensive than it might have been with a shallower, more histrionic performer in the role.  Sophia Loren doesn’t seem to age much in the course of the film; as in Two Women, her natural authority tends to contradict the vulnerable aspects of her character but she plays Filumena as if she believes in what she’s doing.  In the circumstances, that’s a real accomplishment.  Loren invests Filumena’s big outburst at Domenico, for how he’s treated her over the years, with what comes across as a genuine sense of outrage.  There’s no sense of a community life going on around the central story – just overacting.  Filumena’s three sons (Gianni Rodolfi, Genoroso Cortini and Vito Moricone) are pretty dull but this comes almost as a relief from the hyperactive characterisation going on around them, although Aldo Puglisi is amusing and likeable as a loyal retainer who carries a torch for Filumena.   The stage origins of the material are increasingly evident:  each of the exchanges that lead up to the eventual reconciliation and marriage of Filumena and Domenico takes place, but for no evident good reason, in a different external location.

    29 August 2015

  • What Maisie Knew

    Scott McGehee and David Siegel (2012)

    The first, most obvious thing that strikes you about an updating of Henry James’s novel to the twenty-first century is that the circumstances of Maisie Beale, whose parents have broken up, are much less unusual than they were at the time What Maisie Knew first appeared in print (1897).   (It’s amusing, though, that the child’s name hasn’t had to be changed:  Maisie is fashionable again within the social group that the movie describes.)  The first question in your mind is whether the co-directors Scott McGehee and David Siegel, working from a screenplay by Nancy Doyne and Carroll Cartwright, will try to replicate James’s narrative:  I’ve not read the novel but it’s famous for telling the story from the point of view of the young title character.  In the early scenes, Maisie’s situation – being moved to and fro between rampantly self-centred parents competing for sole custody of the child – seems uniquely unenviable.  This is most striking (and hard to believe) in the sequences set at Maisie’s school.  You feel she must have classmates from broken marriages or partnerships:  there’s a rather perfunctory recognition of this midway through the film – when Maisie introduces ‘my new stepfather’ to her class and a little boy puts up his hand to say that he has ‘two stepfathers … but one of them’s nearly dead’.   As for the narrative structure, the viewer doesn’t really experience events through, or even with, Maisie – beautifully though Onata Aprile (who was seven when the film was shot) plays her.  You observe and you know what’s happening without Maisie telling you – in fact, you’re likely to be at least one step ahead of her.

    Yet What Maisie Knew is entertaining and has strengths which, although they may be to some extent happy accidents, are undeniable.   In the novel both parents remarry but Maisie (by now an adolescent) chooses eventually to live instead with her former governess, the frumpish but devoted Mrs Wix.  This character is a fleeting cameo (from Paddy Croft) in the film and Mrs Wix’s aged, forbidding appearance make her an improbable choice for a duenna in present day New York, even allowing for the fact that Maisie’s mother Susanna (Julianne Moore) has recently discovered that the child’s attractive young former nanny, Margo (Joanna Vanderham), is having an affair with Maisie’s father, Beale (Steve Coogan), and is about to become his wife.  At the end of the film, Maisie is living (although for how long isn’t made clear) with Margo and Lincoln (Alexander Skarsgård), the bartender whom Susanna marries tit-for-tat.  The continuing negligence of Susanna and Beale – whose careers as, respectively, a superannuated rock singer and a purely mercenary art dealer take precedence in their lives – means that their new spouses meet up more than they expected.  Maisie’s parents are never there to collect or hand over the little girl when they should – Margo and Lincoln have to sort things out and, as their relationships with Susanna and Beale quickly fall apart, they realise that they like each other.  In one sense, Maisie’s ending up with Margo and Lincoln seems implausibly sentimental.  The outcome makes sense on a satirical level, though:  because Margo and Lincoln have become part of domestic arrangements, why wouldn’t self-serving Susanna make use of them to allow her declining career to struggle on for a bit longer as she tours the country?  (Beale, by this point, has already headed back to England and pretty well out of his daughter’s life.).   The happy ending also works thanks to the impact of the actors playing Margo and Lincoln: Joanna Vanderham and Alexander Skarsgard are not just blonde-haired – they come to seem golden and to embody ideal parents.  The characterisation of Susanna and Beale is crude but it makes them parents from hell:  the movie thus suggests almost a reversal of fairy-tale conventions.  The biological parents are the villains and the step-parents are the heroine’s redeemers.

    Susanna is played by Julianne Moore of whom I’ve rarely been a fan, Beale by Steve Coogan, whom I can hardly bear to watch on screen.  I wondered at the end how different What Maisie Knew would be to someone better disposed to these two – their admirers will, I guess, relish the crucifying gusto of their portraits of enraging shits.  I expect too that plenty of people will like this film because it allows them self-righteously to deplore the behaviour of Maisie’s parents, even though Nancy Doyne and Carroll Cartwright load the dice against them by giving the pair egomaniacal ways of earning a living, and the means to shower their child with presents instead of real affection.  To be fair to Julianne Moore, she gives more depth to Susanna’s neurotic self-centredness than the script supplies and makes this cartoon egocentric less garish than it might otherwise be.  (Moore’s inherent lack of vitality, which has made some of her most admired performances draggy – in The End of the Affair, Far from Heaven and The Hours – probably helps here.)  Steve Coogan is a different matter.  I was all ready for him to draw on his (own?) nasty, smart-aleck quality to make Beale convincing but he’s such a vain performer that he still manages to be inauthentic.   There’s a moment – just a couple of lines in a conversation between Beale and Maisie – when Coogan seems to be listening to the other actor in the scene instead of playing to the camera.   Otherwise, he’s so thoroughly false it’s unnerving.   Onata Aprile is already an experienced child actress but McGehee and Siegel have directed her very skilfully so that her playing is both natural and precise.   She has a sober quality that makes Maisie seem older than her years (and her mother); Aprile’s slenderness increases Maisie’s vulnerability and contrasts with an unstressed resilience of spirit.  Maisie has got used to a horrible home life:  when a schoolfriend, Zoe (Sadie Rae Lee), comes for a sleepover, she’s traumatised by the bewildering crowd and noise of the party that Susanna’s throwing.  Maisie dutifully reports to her mother that ‘Zoe’s crying’ but you see that she’s inured to this herself.

    It’s during this sequence that we first and briefly see Alexander Skarsgård’s Lincoln.  The next time he appears, it’s to collect Maisie from school because Susanna has to be somewhere else:  Lincoln explains that he’s now married to Susanna, although he’s never seen Maisie since the party.  It’s a cliché but Alexander Skarsgård lights up the screen throughout this film; he radiates warmth and humour and you completely understand how he transforms the child’s life.   (‘You really like him, don’t you?’ asks Margo at one point.  ‘I love him!’ replies Maisie.)   Skarsgård’s prominent front teeth give him a hint of goofiness, his good looks a dash of humour.  His scenes with Onata Aprile are delightfully easy and funny:  Lincoln is both a dream father and a big brother to Maisie.  Skarsgård’s American accent sounded good to me – there are just a couple of moments when you can hear the rhythms of Scandinavian English (and at one point Lincoln says to Maisie ‘What are you making?’ and you think the line in the script was probably ‘What are you drawing?’).  When Maisie has to spend the evening with Lincoln at the chi-chi bar where he works (and where Susanna presumably picked him up), Skarsgård achieves a beautiful blend of embarrassment and solicitude – while the child is entranced.  (The scene is a vivd illustration of something that’s always fascinated me:  how a waiter is both subservient and in charge.  This is the only scene in which Lincoln, nearly always seen in a T-shirt and jeans, is, relatively, dressed up.)  There’s an unhappy counterpoint to this appealing sequence when, later on, Maisie arrives at the bar on an evening Lincoln isn’t working there.  I didn’t care for Joanna Vanderham in Stephen Poliakoff’s Dancing on the Edge on television earlier this year but she’s lovely as Margo:  uneasy and tentative in her interactions with Maisie at first but blooming as their mutual trust, and Margo’s feelings for Lincoln, grow.  Vanderham speaks in what I assume to be her native Scottish accent and more expressively than in Dancing on the Edge.  Her gradually increasing charm complements the immediate impact of Skarsgård’s; it’s wonderfully sustained in both cases.   The film’s unobtrusively pleasant score is by Nick Urata.

    25 August 2013

Posts navigation