Daily Archives: Tuesday, October 13, 2015

  • Love Like Poison

    Un poison violent

    Katell Quillévéré  (2010)

    Love Like Poison is about the tensions between religion and carnality.  Not a new theme but this first feature – Katell Quillévéré also wrote the screenplay, with Mariette Désert – combines emotional texture and detail with such skilful concentration that the material feels freshly realised.  The contest between moral obligation and sexual desire is focused chiefly on fourteen-year-old Anna (Clara Augarde), who’s home, from boarding school, in the Brittany village where her family lives and where Anna is preparing for her confirmation in the Catholic Church.  But the contest is taking place too in the lives of the most important adults in her world:  her churchgoing mother Jeanne (Lio); her non-believer father Paul (Thierry Neuvic), who’s having an affair and has recently moved out of the family home; his bedridden father Jean (Michel Galabru), who still lives there; the parish priest Père François (Stefano Cassetti).   Although he’s in the church choir, there isn’t much conflict of this kind in the mind of the fresh-faced Pierre (Youen Leboulanger-Gourvil):  a little younger than Anna, he’s increasingly curious about her body (as she, more self-consciously, is about his) but he’s blithely unspiritual.  Yet each of the other principal characters – although some of them share Pierre’s godlessness – is troubled by sexual needs of one kind or another.   When Anna is washing her grandfather, he says smilingly, ‘I feel handsome’:  she’s shocked to realise there’s an erection under his pyjama trousers, and he’s sorry he’s shocked her.  Her father is certainly debonair compared with Anna’s hyper-tense mother but Paul’s shadow movements and eyes give away his guilty conscience.  (A scene between father and daughter on the beach is perfectly played; it makes Paul’s brittle emotionality in later scenes all the more startling.)  As for Jeanne, it’s clear she’s attracted to Père François as more than a spiritual comforter.

    All the actors concerned are excellent and comparing the various pairs in this sextet is continuously interesting but it seemed to me that, apart from Anna, the most important, and certainly the most powerful, character was the priest.   Anna, developing physically and sexually, is already growing out of God.  Père François – an Italian by birth (Jeanne helped him learn French when he first came to Brittany) – is poised between two worlds.  In the early stages of the film, his religious vocation looks to be a fact of life:  it never ceases to be unignorable but François’s psychology is revealed to be more complicated.  You first sense that part of him would prefer to live entirely in the present when he’s persuaded to kick a football around with the local boys.  It’s typical of Katell Quillévéré’s attention to detail that she dresses François in increasingly casual clothes as the film progresses.  Like his clerical garb, his thick-lensed, steel-framed spectacles create a superficial impression of moral austerity, even humourlessness, but the vivid light blue eyes behind them impose themselves more and more.   Under Quillévéré’s sympathetic direction, Stefano Cassetti gives a superbly subtle performance.  His carefully affectionate gesture when he consoles Anna in one scene anticipates the much more difficult act of self-control required of him in a later one with Jeanne:  both are beautifully judged.  It’s when we see the skull-faced, desiccated bishop who conducts the confirmation service – using the words of St Paul to inveigh against sexuality, watched by the uncertain, sensually vital faces of the children being confirmed – that we fully realise the dual nature of Père François.

    Attending the funeral of Pierre’s grandmother early in the film, Anna faints as the coffin is lowered into the ground and Père François recites the hope of resurrection.  She does the same when confronted by the bishop, just as he’s about to confirm her.  These rare moments of melodrama are cleverly placed:  they make Love Like Poison more eventful; and they’re convincing because they may (or may not) be willed by the girl.  Anna is almost precociously well developed for her age: she already has largish breasts.  (In a conversation with her mother, Anna asks what sort of breasts her father likes and Jeanne replies, with a quietly bitter mixture of ruefulness and assertiveness, ‘Breasts like mine – or that’s what he said once’.)  Although she’s emotionally confused and vulnerable, Anna’s intellectual equipment is pretty advanced too (believably so).  As she starts to get some distance from her Catholic obligations, she behaves with growing, shrewd daring.   After the debacle of the confirmation service, she goes to her grandfather’s room in the middle of the night and lifts her nightdress.   He dies shortly afterwards – we assume a happy man, not just because of this but because he’s no longer parted from his late, beloved wife.  At his funeral, Anna reads a piece in his memory, a counterpoint to the bishop’s reading from Galatians.  It’s from the Song of Songs – erotic but, as Anna realises, irreproachable since it’s from the Bible.

    The film takes its (French) title from a Serge Gainsbourg song but the music for the most part, although this is an unusual and eclectic soundtrack, isn’t its most successful aspect.   A tenor (verging on countertenor) voice sings ‘Greensleeves’, etc.  Children perform songs in church choir arrangements (including a Radiohead number over the closing credits).    Of course, these pick up Quillévéré’s themes of innocence on the cusp of sexuality and denatured maleness but they do so too neatly and artfully.  This is a minor criticism, though – one that certainly doesn’t carry much weight beside Clara Augarde’s blend of radiance and truculence as Anna.  Katell Quillévéré directs her sensitively so that we’re always conscious of the fine balance between self-awareness and innocence in Anna – and in the young actress playing her.

    15 May 2011

     

  • Maleficent

    Robert Stromberg (2014)

    Although it’s been billed as a prequel to Sleeping Beauty, Maleficent deals relatively briefly with what happened before the birth of Princess Aurora – this isn’t much more than a prologue to a retelling of the familiar story.  There are hints from an early stage that this retelling will be mildly subversive:  the scene-setting voiceover introduces the audience to two countries, neighbours and enemies:  one, a human realm, is ruled by a vain, unkind king; the other, a magical land called the Moors, doesn’t need a head of state, monarch or otherwise – everyone there just gets along.  Once the rather long-winded narrator (voiced by Janet McTeer) has said her opening piece, we meet the protagonist Maleficent, a fairy child (Ella Purnell) with dark clothes and large, dark wings but whose eyes are bright and whose attitude towards the world around her is light-hearted and benign.  A somewhat older Maleficent (Isabelle Molloy) takes a shine to a young peasant boy, Stefan (Michael Higgins), but he tells her that he dreams of living in the royal palace on the hill and his extraordinary careerism soon takes him away from her.  When the dying king (Kenneth Cranham), who wants rid of Maleficent, announces that whoever kills her will become the next king, the ambitious Stefan renews his acquaintance with her.  Having drugged Maleficent, Stefan can’t bring himself to kill her but, while she’s unconscious, he burns off her wings and presents them to the old king as proof of her death.  Stefan duly accedes to the throne; his queen (Hannah New) gives birth to Aurora; the christening takes place and is gatecrashed by Maleficent.  Years pass but it’s slow going from this point onwards as the Sleeping Beauty story is padded out and qualified by Robert Stromberg and the screenwriter Linda Woolverton.  At the business end of the film, the kiss of true love to awaken Aurora from her sleep is administered not by a prince – although there is one, named Philip (Brenton Thwaites) – but by Maleficent, whom Aurora gets to know well before her fateful sixteenth birthday and whom she calls ‘fairy godmother’.  King Stefan is killed, and Aurora and Philip live happily ever after – with Maleficent, in the kingless realm of the Moors where the latter was once happy and is now happy (and winged) again.  The narrator eventually identifies herself as Aurora in later life.  ‘So you see’, she concludes, ‘the story is not quite what you were told’.  Maleficent was neither hero nor villain but a bit of both.

    Her name is therefore baffling.  Even if Maleficent is a catchier handle for a big-budget protagonist than Ambivalent, its plausibility cynically depends on the young target audience not understanding the meaning of the word.  Reading about the picture after seeing it, I was reminded that the bad fairy in the Disney animated film of Sleeping Beauty (1959) was also called Maleficent:  this live-action movie is a Disney production too and I assume that clinched the choice of name, in spite of the fact that the 1959 character was entirely malign.  It’s something of an irony, though, that Carabosse, which this character has been called in several versions of the story, including the Tchaikowsky ballet, captures well the Manichaean personality that’s crucial to Maleficent (the ‘cara’ has lovely connotations, ‘bosse’ brings to mind the French for ‘hunchbacked’ and the equation in fairy stories of moral evil and physical deformity).  According to Wikipedia, Linda Woolverton’s screenplay went through at least fifteen drafts but these weren’t enough:  the moral scheme of the film is muddled.  Why, when she’s a happy-go-lucky young fairy, does Maleficent dress in forbidding colours and boast menacing wings and the beginnings of devilish horns?  Both wings and horns keep growing even before their owner is cruelly wronged by Stefan and, embittered, turns nasty.  Her magical powers are extensive:  why, when Stefan has burned off her wings, doesn’t she (as a woman behind me in the cinema whispered) magic up a replacement pair?   The answer is evidently that her powers mustn’t get in the way of the film-makers doing things more traditionally when it suits, or staging big CGI battles.

    Early on, the old king confronts Maleficent and bellows at the massed ranks of his infantry to kill her: she still has her wings at this point so the royal command seems daft but Maleficent likes a good fight so she gets involved in the scrap.  Later on, she’s caught in a net by King Stefan’s men – she can’t metamorphose herself in order to escape from it yet she manages to transform her acolyte Driaval into a huge dragon to take out Stefan’s henchmen.   (Driaval is originally a raven whose shape Maleficent changes into Sam Riley and sundry other things along the way.)  Maleficent’s backstory describes how she was fucked-up-in-her-turn and the script momentarily psychologises King Stefan – the narrator suddenly, and jarringly, announces that he is becoming ‘more paranoid’ – but the film can’t work out how to reinterpret Stefan beyond this so he just reverts to the manic villain you’d expect in a fairy tale.  Perhaps Stromberg and Woolverton are offering a more coherent political take on the original than I’m giving them credit for.  Perhaps it’s part of a subtle and penetrating critique of monarchy that Stefan has a warped ambition to become king and Prince Philip is an ineffective kisser. But I doubt it somehow.  (You can only conclude that, since he fails to wake Aurora, Philip doesn’t truly love her, so it’s rather anti-climactic that he gets the girl in the end.)  I don’t know how bright children who know Sleeping Beauty well will take all this but their parents could be in for some difficult questions.

    Angelina Jolie in the title role is much the best thing about Maleficent.  She looks wonderful – her cheekbones are so great anyway they hardly need the exaggeration the make-up people have given them but the effect is to make her appearance amusingly alarming as well as beautiful.  Her acting is impressive too, especially as she’s playing such a confused character.  She’s particularly funny talking in a clipped, bitchy English accent, in the bits where Maleficent is a witty troublemaker-for-the-sake-of-it; but Jolie also brings off the moments where she’s meant to be feeling pain or depth of emotion – when Maleficent loses her wings or realises she cares for Aurora – without being a pain.  Elle Fanning is probably too real an actress to play Aurora but she’s nuanced and likeable.  (The baby Aurora is Vivienne Jolie-Pitt and Eleanor Worthington Cox plays her as a young girl before Fanning takes over.)  As a trio of klutzy, bickering fairies – miniature digitised entities at first, then human size as the ‘aunts’ who raise Aurora in a woodland cottage (supposedly out of harm’s way) – Imelda Staunton, Lesley Manville and, to a lesser extent, Juno Temple manage to be fairly amusing in spite of the dim comedy routines they’re put through.  Apart from Kenneth Cranham, the male actors are boring:  it probably sums things up to say that Sam Riley, although his casting is inexplicable, is the best of them.

    22 June 2014

     

Posts navigation