Occasionally I find that some films are screened at the cinemas specifically for the purpose of being nominated for Oscars and other awards. For example, back when I reviewed The Queen, I noted how it seemed that the production was originally going to air on TV before Mirren's performance started to look Oscar-worthy.
The same could definitely be said for Philomena, which is based on Martin Sixsmith's book about his assistance in the search for the forcibly adopted son of an old Irish lady. Just like The Queen, Philomena is directed by Stephen Frears and to further my suspicions it has been produced by BBC Films. Meanwhile, Sixsmith's book has been adapted here by veteran TV screenwriter Jeff Pope alongside Steve Coogan; who portrays the former journalist in the film. Although Pope and Coogan's script received a nomination at the Oscars, it was Judi Dench's central turn as Philomena herself that was main draw for the Academy. Philomena saw Dench play against type, as her character is a rather vulnerable old lady who is full of regret about an event in her life that she's kept secret for fifty years. Dench so often portrays strong older women, such as M. in James Bond, that it was odd to see her play such a different character. As the film progresses, Philomena and Martin learn that her son was sold to an American couple by the nuns at the Irish convent in which the baby was born. The scenes in America are perfectly written as Philomena learns that her son had died years earlier and that Martin had actually briefly met him. The final discoveries the pair make are that Anthony, who was renamed Michael, was gay and that he'd actually visited Ireland with the purpose of trying to find his birth mother. This heartbreaking revelation leaves Martin feeling angry but at the same time demonstrates the strength of Philomena's character by allowing her the chance to forgive the nuns who wronged her.
I'm actually quite surprised that Philomena did as well in America as it did seeing as it attacks two of its favourite institutions; The Republican Party and The Catholic Church. Indeed, there had been accusations that the film was simply a ninety-minute attack of the Catholic Church but I didn't feel this was true. For example Philomena's faith is completely unwavering and in fact it allows her to forgive those who have wronged her. The trade of journalism doesn't come off too well either especially when Martin's editor forces him to stay in America just after he and Philomena had discovered that Michael had passed away. There were also criticisms of the dramatic license that Pope and Coogan took with their script even though almost every biopic does the same thing. The biggest change between the book and the film is that Philomena never went to America with Martin but I personally don't think the film would've worked if she'd have stayed in the UK. In fact one of Philomena's best qualities was the odd couple relationship between the wise Irish woman and the cynical former spin doctor. Judi Dench is fantastic in the role of a woman who isn't as stupid as everyone believes she is whilst Steve Coogan plays to his strengths utilising a mixture of comedy and drama as the sneering Sixsmith. My biggest shock about Philomena is the amount of controversy that it caused as; at the end of the day it's an enjoyable run-of-the-mill biographical drama that I found to be an easy watch. Though I didn't get as emotional watching Philomena as I did the first time, it's still a thought-provoking film to sit through even if I don't believe it would've made it on to the big screen had it not been for Dench's Oscar-nominated central turn.
Next time we concentrate on the career of an actor we previously looked in on during the first decade of the 21st century.
Showing posts with label Stephen Frears. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stephen Frears. Show all posts
Monday, 4 May 2015
Tuesday, 24 March 2015
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Days 402-403: Michael and Peter's True-Life Tales
In 2003; actor Michael Sheen, director Stephen Frears and screenwriter Peter Morgan all worked together on a TV film called The Deal. Sheen starred as Tony Blair in the story of the future Prime Minister's infamous deal with his eventual deputy Gordon Brown. Three years later Sheen reprised his role as Blair for another film, this time on the big screen, which again was directed by Frears and written by Morgan.
That film was The Queen; a dramatic account of the royal family's reaction to the death of Princess Diana on the 31st August 1997. Although a lot of films I've watched so far have touched on modern history I can't really relate to them as I have no recollection of the events. This isn't true of most of what happened in The Queen as at the time I had a paper round and had to deliver the updated papers that carried the news of Diana's death. Morgan's script looks specifically at how the Royals wanted a private funeral whilst the general public instead wanted to mourn the woman that they'd taken to their hearts. In the middle was the newly elected Tony Blair who appreciated The Queen's wishes but at the same time was keen to offer a sympathetic message himself. The famous 'People's Princess' line is one of the many moments in the film that I remember seeing on TV at the time. Although at the same time I can't remember the reaction to the royal silence being so bad that there were calls to abolish the monarchy all together. What I liked about Morgan's script was the fact that neither Blair nor The Queen were portrayed as the villain of the piece. Both were doing what they thought was best and Blair in particular was eager to stick up for a woman who he had great respect for. Instead the evil forces were instead the members of the press who used the public grief to stir up outrage among the general public. The film's finale is the hint that one day the same thing that happened to Queen Elizabeth in this film would happen to Blair himself. This was obviously a knowing line as Blair was suffering press scrutiny at the time of the film's release and stepping down as Prime Minister soon after The Queen was released.
The fact that The Queen was co-produced by ITV studios suggests to me that the original plan was for it to be screened on the TV. There is in fact very little about The Queen that is particularly cinematic save a couple of nice shots of the Scottish countryside and an iconic shot of the monarch and a deer. My theory about why the film was eventually put on the big screen can be summed up in two words; Helen Mirren. Mirren's performance as Queen Elizabeth was so fantastic that I'm sure someone quickly noticed that it would garner a multitude of awards if it was screened in cinemas. This notion is completely understandable as Mirren's turn is one of the best Best Actress performances of all time and one that was destined to earn the star as many gongs as possible. Mirren's skill is to totally convince us the audience that she is Queen Elizabeth and I think she pulls it off expertly. Not for one moment did I feel like I was watching Mirren on screen and felt she delivered a brave portrayal of a woman during a week in which she'd felt she'd lost everything. I wasn't so convinced by the actors who were playing her other family members, most notably American star James Cromwell who appeared to be an odd casting choice as Prince Philip. Luckily Michael Sheen was on hand to deliver a similarly stellar performance as the ambitious yet thoughtful Prime Minister who was forced to make his first monumental decision. Just like Mirren, Sheen never lets his performance as Blair slip into caricature and as a result turns the Prime Minister into a three-dimensional character. The combination of Mirren and Sheen's performances, Morgan's measured script and Frears' assured direction turns The Queen into an enjoyable factual drama. At the same time there was nothing particularly remarkable about it perhaps aside from the tour de force performance given by its lead actress.
Four years later, Sheen and Morgan would team up again for the final part in the informal Blair trilogy, 'The Special Relationship' which explored the Prime Minister's friendship with Bill Clinton. However, Morgan and Sheen would also team up for Frost/Nixon; initially a play exploring David Frost's infamous set of interviews with disgraced President Richard Nixon. The play was so successful on both sides of the Atlantic that it was eventually made into a film which starred Sheen and the play's other lead actor Frank Langella. Unlike with the events in The Queen, I knew little about the basis of Frost/Nixon so had to take Morgan's words as fact. The way Morgan presented the interviews they seemed more like a set of sporting fixtures or boxing matches that would be the breaking point for one of their participants. Having funded the interviews almost single-handedly, Frost would lose his reputation and go bankrupt if the broadcasts didn't go his way. Meanwhile Nixon, who never formally apologised for his actions during the Watergate Scandal, was conscious that Frost would try to go for the jugular. Both surrounded themselves with crack teams however Frost's big mistake was in underestimating Nixon who run rings round him in the first couple of interviews. The film's turning point is a very odd late night call about cheeseburgers which is quite evidently a work of fiction but is a nice narrative move by Morgan as it changes the whole tone of the film. Obviously with a film that has quite a dry subject matter, Morgan has had to be quite liberal with the facts and reading round the subject it appears that he has done just that. It's certainly clear to see that, aside from Frost and Nixon; all of the other characters are quite broadly drawn and wear their political leanings firmly on their sleeve. Thankfully Morgan's crafting of the titular characters and the performances by the leading actors save the film being too clichéd.
I found Sheen to be even better as David Frost than he was as Tony Blair as he delivered another barnstorming performance. He played Frost as a jovial sort of chap who didn't take anything at all seriously but was secretly harbouring a fair amount of insecurities. Sheen conveyed Frost's fears perfectly as for the most part he let his character be as animated as possible but every now and then the smile slipped. However, just like with The Queen, it was his co-star that was given all the plaudits whereas Sheen was left without a nomination. I think in terms of both films the Academy struggled to know where to place Sheen especially with Frost/Nixon where he shared equal billing with Langella. I personally wouldn't have minded if both men had been nominated for Best Actor as they deserved it more than Brad Pitt for his make-up aided turn in Benjamin Button. However it was Langella who gave the flashier turn albeit one that showed a more sensitive side to the once great president. It was quite easy to tell that Frost/Nixon had started life as a stage play as at times it did feel as if Howard had just brought a camera to the theatre. The majority of the film, especially the portion of it that focuses specifically on the interviews, was very dry and was only slightly spiced up by the actors. Therein lies my major problem with Frost/Nixon as I don't believe that it should ever have been turned into a film in the first place as the story really doesn't suit the cinema screen. Whilst I feel it's an interesting story, it doesn't make for a particularly entertaining film and Howard certainly doesn't utilise the cinema screen to its fullest potential. However, due to the fact that it covers a major event in U.S. history, it's still easy to see why the Academy heaped five nominations upon Frost/Nixon. While it's not necessarily a bad film it's not one that ever drew me into its story and the only really compelling elements of it were the performances given by both Langella and the sadly overlooked Sheen.
Next time we travel back to Britain where an array of famous faces are suspected of murder.
That film was The Queen; a dramatic account of the royal family's reaction to the death of Princess Diana on the 31st August 1997. Although a lot of films I've watched so far have touched on modern history I can't really relate to them as I have no recollection of the events. This isn't true of most of what happened in The Queen as at the time I had a paper round and had to deliver the updated papers that carried the news of Diana's death. Morgan's script looks specifically at how the Royals wanted a private funeral whilst the general public instead wanted to mourn the woman that they'd taken to their hearts. In the middle was the newly elected Tony Blair who appreciated The Queen's wishes but at the same time was keen to offer a sympathetic message himself. The famous 'People's Princess' line is one of the many moments in the film that I remember seeing on TV at the time. Although at the same time I can't remember the reaction to the royal silence being so bad that there were calls to abolish the monarchy all together. What I liked about Morgan's script was the fact that neither Blair nor The Queen were portrayed as the villain of the piece. Both were doing what they thought was best and Blair in particular was eager to stick up for a woman who he had great respect for. Instead the evil forces were instead the members of the press who used the public grief to stir up outrage among the general public. The film's finale is the hint that one day the same thing that happened to Queen Elizabeth in this film would happen to Blair himself. This was obviously a knowing line as Blair was suffering press scrutiny at the time of the film's release and stepping down as Prime Minister soon after The Queen was released.
The fact that The Queen was co-produced by ITV studios suggests to me that the original plan was for it to be screened on the TV. There is in fact very little about The Queen that is particularly cinematic save a couple of nice shots of the Scottish countryside and an iconic shot of the monarch and a deer. My theory about why the film was eventually put on the big screen can be summed up in two words; Helen Mirren. Mirren's performance as Queen Elizabeth was so fantastic that I'm sure someone quickly noticed that it would garner a multitude of awards if it was screened in cinemas. This notion is completely understandable as Mirren's turn is one of the best Best Actress performances of all time and one that was destined to earn the star as many gongs as possible. Mirren's skill is to totally convince us the audience that she is Queen Elizabeth and I think she pulls it off expertly. Not for one moment did I feel like I was watching Mirren on screen and felt she delivered a brave portrayal of a woman during a week in which she'd felt she'd lost everything. I wasn't so convinced by the actors who were playing her other family members, most notably American star James Cromwell who appeared to be an odd casting choice as Prince Philip. Luckily Michael Sheen was on hand to deliver a similarly stellar performance as the ambitious yet thoughtful Prime Minister who was forced to make his first monumental decision. Just like Mirren, Sheen never lets his performance as Blair slip into caricature and as a result turns the Prime Minister into a three-dimensional character. The combination of Mirren and Sheen's performances, Morgan's measured script and Frears' assured direction turns The Queen into an enjoyable factual drama. At the same time there was nothing particularly remarkable about it perhaps aside from the tour de force performance given by its lead actress.
Four years later, Sheen and Morgan would team up again for the final part in the informal Blair trilogy, 'The Special Relationship' which explored the Prime Minister's friendship with Bill Clinton. However, Morgan and Sheen would also team up for Frost/Nixon; initially a play exploring David Frost's infamous set of interviews with disgraced President Richard Nixon. The play was so successful on both sides of the Atlantic that it was eventually made into a film which starred Sheen and the play's other lead actor Frank Langella. Unlike with the events in The Queen, I knew little about the basis of Frost/Nixon so had to take Morgan's words as fact. The way Morgan presented the interviews they seemed more like a set of sporting fixtures or boxing matches that would be the breaking point for one of their participants. Having funded the interviews almost single-handedly, Frost would lose his reputation and go bankrupt if the broadcasts didn't go his way. Meanwhile Nixon, who never formally apologised for his actions during the Watergate Scandal, was conscious that Frost would try to go for the jugular. Both surrounded themselves with crack teams however Frost's big mistake was in underestimating Nixon who run rings round him in the first couple of interviews. The film's turning point is a very odd late night call about cheeseburgers which is quite evidently a work of fiction but is a nice narrative move by Morgan as it changes the whole tone of the film. Obviously with a film that has quite a dry subject matter, Morgan has had to be quite liberal with the facts and reading round the subject it appears that he has done just that. It's certainly clear to see that, aside from Frost and Nixon; all of the other characters are quite broadly drawn and wear their political leanings firmly on their sleeve. Thankfully Morgan's crafting of the titular characters and the performances by the leading actors save the film being too clichéd.
I found Sheen to be even better as David Frost than he was as Tony Blair as he delivered another barnstorming performance. He played Frost as a jovial sort of chap who didn't take anything at all seriously but was secretly harbouring a fair amount of insecurities. Sheen conveyed Frost's fears perfectly as for the most part he let his character be as animated as possible but every now and then the smile slipped. However, just like with The Queen, it was his co-star that was given all the plaudits whereas Sheen was left without a nomination. I think in terms of both films the Academy struggled to know where to place Sheen especially with Frost/Nixon where he shared equal billing with Langella. I personally wouldn't have minded if both men had been nominated for Best Actor as they deserved it more than Brad Pitt for his make-up aided turn in Benjamin Button. However it was Langella who gave the flashier turn albeit one that showed a more sensitive side to the once great president. It was quite easy to tell that Frost/Nixon had started life as a stage play as at times it did feel as if Howard had just brought a camera to the theatre. The majority of the film, especially the portion of it that focuses specifically on the interviews, was very dry and was only slightly spiced up by the actors. Therein lies my major problem with Frost/Nixon as I don't believe that it should ever have been turned into a film in the first place as the story really doesn't suit the cinema screen. Whilst I feel it's an interesting story, it doesn't make for a particularly entertaining film and Howard certainly doesn't utilise the cinema screen to its fullest potential. However, due to the fact that it covers a major event in U.S. history, it's still easy to see why the Academy heaped five nominations upon Frost/Nixon. While it's not necessarily a bad film it's not one that ever drew me into its story and the only really compelling elements of it were the performances given by both Langella and the sadly overlooked Sheen.
Next time we travel back to Britain where an array of famous faces are suspected of murder.
Monday, 31 March 2014
Matt's Big Oscar Challenge Day 286-287: Don't Stand So Close to Me
During my assessment of her work in the 1950s, I constantly wondered why Deborah Kerr never won an Oscar despite being nominated a mind-boggling six times. There's another lady who has now tied Kerr for being the actress with the most unsuccessful Oscar nominated performances. The actress in question is Glenn Close who in the 1980s lost out in the acting categories a total of five times whilst her most recent loss came a couple of years ago. We've already witnessed one of Close's Oscar-nominated roles, in The Big Chill where she played a well-meaning and friendly Doctor. However, in the tail-end of the decade, Close would demonstrate that she was much better at playing manipulative and at times downright scary female protagonists.
The great thing about Close's performance in Fatal Attraction is that her character initially seems fairly normal. Whilst it's clear that her character Alex Forrest is attracted to Michael Douglas' lawyer Dan Gallagher when they meet at a party there doesn't seem to be anything amiss about her. The audience remain similarly unsurprised when the couple begin an affair while Dan's wife and daughter are out in the country visiting family. The affair between Dan and Alex lasts for one whole weekend during which the latter starts to demonstrate signs that she may not be as normal as we first expected. However, as Alex realises Dan's intentions towards her were only fleeting, she stuns him by slitting her wrists when he attempts to leave. His compassion towards her is misread as something more and soon she's bombarding both his work and home phone with plenty of messages. Dan attempts to evade Alex by changing his phone number but once again she outsmarts him by turning up at his apartment as a potential buyer. Alex eventually admits to Dan that she's pregnant and he's the father but he claims that he wants nothing to do with her. From there Alex's behaviour becomes dangerous as she commits numerous crimes, including one incredibly iconic sequence involving an innocent pet and a pan of scorching water. Eventually Dan admits his affair to his wife and they agree to work together to bring down the psychopathic Alex.
After watching Fatal Attraction my first thought was the shock that a psychological thriller like this was ever nominated for Best Picture. While Fatal Attraction isn't a bad film by any stretch of the imagination it's not a movie that I would associate with the Oscars. Indeed, if Fatal Attraction was released in 2014 it would be instantly seen as a slightly creepy erotic film and may garner a cult audience but nothing more. What I personally enjoyed about Adrian Lyne's film is how the shocking moments are interspersed with plenty of mundane scenes involving Dan and his family. I believe that a thriller only works if the thrills are well built up and Fatal Attraction was a film that certainly was aware of how to do this. I do feel that I possibly would've enjoyed the film more had I not known the basic outline of the plot before sitting down to watch it. That being said I was still incredibly shocked by the final scenes which saw Alex's revenge thwarted by the Gallaghers. One of the reason the film works so well is the performance from Close who is believable as the unhinged Alex who would go to any lengths to ensnare the man she feels she should be with. Close excels both in the early scenes as the flirty, confident businesswoman and later as the psychopathic ex-lover with revenge firmly in her sights. Michael Douglas was the go-to sleazeball of the 1980s and here he takes to his role as the philandering family man with ease. My main issue with the film was the fact that the career woman Alex would be completely willing to sacrifice everything just because of her obsession with one man. This did spoil my enjoyment of the film slightly but then I don't think Fatal Attraction is a film that is based firmly in reality. Overall I found Fatal Attraction to be a gripping thriller with a satisfying ending that proved that Close was the perfect choice to play a manipulative character in the 1980s.
I'm sure that's partly why that, a year later, Close was called upon to play the Marquise de Merteuil in Dangerous Liaisons. The film, an adaptation of Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos, portrays Merteuil as a strong woman who attempts to play games with men to avenge the way her sex is treated. Her latest scheme involves getting one over on a former lover by attempting to break in his new fiancée, the virginal Cécile de Volanges, and therefore making a mockery of him in society. To do so she enlists the help of the similarly despicable Vicomte de Valmont who refuses to take part in her plot to deflower Cécile. His primary reason for this refusal is that he's already attempting to seduce another virtuous soul in Madame de Tourvel, a married woman who is currently staying with aunt. Merteuil believes that Valmont doesn't have a chance with Tourvel and makes a wager to this affect making herself the prize. From there the games really start to begin as Valmont manipulates his way around society, professing his love for Tourvel and staging charitable deeds in the hope that she'll see him as a decent man. Eventually, after making a discovery, Valmont agrees to seduce Cécile, an act that proves a lot easier than he first suspected. With a lot of double crossing and sexual encounters along the way, the ending of Dangerous Liaisons is fairly touching. I have to say that I wasn't expecting the sort of conclusion that the film offered and for that reason alone it really surprised me.
Having watched a lot of costume dramas throughout the decades, I can't say without a doubt that Dangerous Liaisons heralded in a new era for the genre. While the Oscar-winning production design and costumes remained fairly traditional the tone of the film was anything just. The tone can be attributed to Christopher Hampton, whose adapted screenplay was incredibly well-placed and was a worthy winner of an Oscar itself. Hampton's mischievous script was full of sexually charged conversations and manipulative characters who generally would have been secondary characters in other costume dramas. Neither Merteuil nor Valmont are particularly likeable characters but it's their hedonistic lifestyle and manipulation of others that makes them so intriguing. Hampton makes sure that neither are considered caricatures and includes scenes in which both explain their motivations for behaving as they do. The supporting characters add different elements to the plot whether it be the piety displayed by Tourvel or the wide-eyed innocence of the ditzy Cécile. Of her two roles in this post, Close is definitely more comfortable playing Merteuil primarily as her vengeance is portrayed as a way of getting back at all the men that have wronged her. Close is great both in her character's scenes with Valmont and those in which she is forced to act as an upstanding pillar of society. Close also shares a brilliant chemistry with John Malkovich who delivers a scenery-chewing performance as the dastardly Valmont. Malkovich controls every scene he's in and I believe its an absolute travesty that he wasn't nominated for his role in the film. Instead, the other nomination went to Michelle Pfieffer who was great at playing the pure Tourvel and in particular portraying her eventual love for Valmont. While I personally enjoyed Uma Thurman's turn as Cécile I felt that Keanu Reeves was miscast as her lover and music teacher Danceny. In fact, as Danency plays a vital part in the closing stages of the film, I would've thought that somebody with a bit mroe experience would've been cast. But that's a minor quibble of a lavishly exotic film that played with the boundaries of the costume drama genre and had fun doing it. Once again it demonstrated that Close was great at playing strong, slightly unhinged female characters.
Ironically, Close's most recent nomination saw her play a woman who was much more at home in her regular guise as a man. I really do hope that Close one day gets her day in the sun and wins an Oscar because, judging from what I've seen in the 1980s alone, she more than deserves it.
Next time a focus on another actress who, unlike Close, successfully won the Best Actress Oscar during the 1980s.
The great thing about Close's performance in Fatal Attraction is that her character initially seems fairly normal. Whilst it's clear that her character Alex Forrest is attracted to Michael Douglas' lawyer Dan Gallagher when they meet at a party there doesn't seem to be anything amiss about her. The audience remain similarly unsurprised when the couple begin an affair while Dan's wife and daughter are out in the country visiting family. The affair between Dan and Alex lasts for one whole weekend during which the latter starts to demonstrate signs that she may not be as normal as we first expected. However, as Alex realises Dan's intentions towards her were only fleeting, she stuns him by slitting her wrists when he attempts to leave. His compassion towards her is misread as something more and soon she's bombarding both his work and home phone with plenty of messages. Dan attempts to evade Alex by changing his phone number but once again she outsmarts him by turning up at his apartment as a potential buyer. Alex eventually admits to Dan that she's pregnant and he's the father but he claims that he wants nothing to do with her. From there Alex's behaviour becomes dangerous as she commits numerous crimes, including one incredibly iconic sequence involving an innocent pet and a pan of scorching water. Eventually Dan admits his affair to his wife and they agree to work together to bring down the psychopathic Alex.
After watching Fatal Attraction my first thought was the shock that a psychological thriller like this was ever nominated for Best Picture. While Fatal Attraction isn't a bad film by any stretch of the imagination it's not a movie that I would associate with the Oscars. Indeed, if Fatal Attraction was released in 2014 it would be instantly seen as a slightly creepy erotic film and may garner a cult audience but nothing more. What I personally enjoyed about Adrian Lyne's film is how the shocking moments are interspersed with plenty of mundane scenes involving Dan and his family. I believe that a thriller only works if the thrills are well built up and Fatal Attraction was a film that certainly was aware of how to do this. I do feel that I possibly would've enjoyed the film more had I not known the basic outline of the plot before sitting down to watch it. That being said I was still incredibly shocked by the final scenes which saw Alex's revenge thwarted by the Gallaghers. One of the reason the film works so well is the performance from Close who is believable as the unhinged Alex who would go to any lengths to ensnare the man she feels she should be with. Close excels both in the early scenes as the flirty, confident businesswoman and later as the psychopathic ex-lover with revenge firmly in her sights. Michael Douglas was the go-to sleazeball of the 1980s and here he takes to his role as the philandering family man with ease. My main issue with the film was the fact that the career woman Alex would be completely willing to sacrifice everything just because of her obsession with one man. This did spoil my enjoyment of the film slightly but then I don't think Fatal Attraction is a film that is based firmly in reality. Overall I found Fatal Attraction to be a gripping thriller with a satisfying ending that proved that Close was the perfect choice to play a manipulative character in the 1980s.
I'm sure that's partly why that, a year later, Close was called upon to play the Marquise de Merteuil in Dangerous Liaisons. The film, an adaptation of Les Liaisons Dangereuses by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos, portrays Merteuil as a strong woman who attempts to play games with men to avenge the way her sex is treated. Her latest scheme involves getting one over on a former lover by attempting to break in his new fiancée, the virginal Cécile de Volanges, and therefore making a mockery of him in society. To do so she enlists the help of the similarly despicable Vicomte de Valmont who refuses to take part in her plot to deflower Cécile. His primary reason for this refusal is that he's already attempting to seduce another virtuous soul in Madame de Tourvel, a married woman who is currently staying with aunt. Merteuil believes that Valmont doesn't have a chance with Tourvel and makes a wager to this affect making herself the prize. From there the games really start to begin as Valmont manipulates his way around society, professing his love for Tourvel and staging charitable deeds in the hope that she'll see him as a decent man. Eventually, after making a discovery, Valmont agrees to seduce Cécile, an act that proves a lot easier than he first suspected. With a lot of double crossing and sexual encounters along the way, the ending of Dangerous Liaisons is fairly touching. I have to say that I wasn't expecting the sort of conclusion that the film offered and for that reason alone it really surprised me.
Having watched a lot of costume dramas throughout the decades, I can't say without a doubt that Dangerous Liaisons heralded in a new era for the genre. While the Oscar-winning production design and costumes remained fairly traditional the tone of the film was anything just. The tone can be attributed to Christopher Hampton, whose adapted screenplay was incredibly well-placed and was a worthy winner of an Oscar itself. Hampton's mischievous script was full of sexually charged conversations and manipulative characters who generally would have been secondary characters in other costume dramas. Neither Merteuil nor Valmont are particularly likeable characters but it's their hedonistic lifestyle and manipulation of others that makes them so intriguing. Hampton makes sure that neither are considered caricatures and includes scenes in which both explain their motivations for behaving as they do. The supporting characters add different elements to the plot whether it be the piety displayed by Tourvel or the wide-eyed innocence of the ditzy Cécile. Of her two roles in this post, Close is definitely more comfortable playing Merteuil primarily as her vengeance is portrayed as a way of getting back at all the men that have wronged her. Close is great both in her character's scenes with Valmont and those in which she is forced to act as an upstanding pillar of society. Close also shares a brilliant chemistry with John Malkovich who delivers a scenery-chewing performance as the dastardly Valmont. Malkovich controls every scene he's in and I believe its an absolute travesty that he wasn't nominated for his role in the film. Instead, the other nomination went to Michelle Pfieffer who was great at playing the pure Tourvel and in particular portraying her eventual love for Valmont. While I personally enjoyed Uma Thurman's turn as Cécile I felt that Keanu Reeves was miscast as her lover and music teacher Danceny. In fact, as Danency plays a vital part in the closing stages of the film, I would've thought that somebody with a bit mroe experience would've been cast. But that's a minor quibble of a lavishly exotic film that played with the boundaries of the costume drama genre and had fun doing it. Once again it demonstrated that Close was great at playing strong, slightly unhinged female characters.
Ironically, Close's most recent nomination saw her play a woman who was much more at home in her regular guise as a man. I really do hope that Close one day gets her day in the sun and wins an Oscar because, judging from what I've seen in the 1980s alone, she more than deserves it.
Next time a focus on another actress who, unlike Close, successfully won the Best Actress Oscar during the 1980s.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)