A Late Quartet ****1/2
Short Take: A truly remarkable film about the members of a string quartet and the challenges they face after a member is diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.
Reel Take: The first of many pleasant surprises regarding A Late Quartet occurred right at the beginning when the film opened with the RKO Pictures logo. Not the old black and white logo but a brand new 21st century version that looks really neat (they’ve dropped the ‘Radio’ for obvious reasons). Things just got better from there.
I was initially wondering if this film was an updated, Americanized version of the 1984 Italian movie Basileus Quartet about a long time string quartet who must suddenly deal with the death of one of their members. It’s not. The outline of both movies is similar. A Late Quartet deals with the retirement of one of the members and the effect it has on the ensemble. Basileus goes in a much darker direction when the quartet hires a much younger player which negatively alters the lives of the others.
Late explores the lives of the various members, how they started, where they’ve gone, and what the future holds for them. Two of the members (Philip Seymour Hoffman, Catherine Keener) are a couple with marital problems whose daughter (Imogen Poots) is a budding musician. The first violinist (Mark Ivanir) is a note perfect automaton who thinks of nothing but the music until he falls in love with the daughter. The cellist (Christopher Walken) is the heart and soul of the quartet who’s just lost his wife (Anne Sofie von Otter) and has just been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.
The musical glue that holds all the diverse elements together is Beethoven’s String Quartet, Op. 13, a late work that was the maestro’s personal favorite. It is in 7 movements, takes 40 minutes to play, and is played without a break between movements. The problems with playing the quartet are interwoven by writer-director Yaron Zilberman with the problems each member of the quartet faces. How they try to overcome them and what finally occurs at the end makes for a deeply moving experience.
The performances from everyone involved even in the small parts (Wallace Shawn and Anne Sofie von Otter are especially noteworthy) are all that you can ask for. Yes the script is melodramatic at times but the story is a soap opera and that’s to be expected. While A Late Quartet is melodramatic, it is never maudlin and it had a powerful effect on me and the audience that I saw it with.
The film is getting mixed to negative reviews from most critics who point out clichés in the script and almost totally negative reviews from musicians who wanted more music and less personal drama. An understandable reaction perhaps but a misguided one for it cannot see the forest for the trees. This film was not made for critics or musicians, it was made for moviegoers and may do more to foster an understanding of and an appreciation for chamber music than any recording or music course. Easily one of my Top 10 films of the year.
Rated R for language and some sexuality.
Review by Chip Kaufmann
Anna Karenina ****
Short Take: Joe Wright’s stylish direction elevates another 19th century literary classic into a 21st century film masterpiece.
Reel Take: According to the Internet Movie Database, there have been 18 other film adaptations of Anna Karenina dating all the way back to 1910. The three best known versions were made as star vehicles for their leading actresses. Two of them starred Greta Garbo (the silent 1927 Love and the famous 1935 remake directed by Clarence Brown), the third was a British version (1948) with Vivien Leigh. The most authentic version is considered to be the 1967 Soviet adaptation which has been rarely seen outside of Russia.
I confess to having a soft spot for the silent version even with its shockingly altered ending (the exact opposite of the book and other film versions) and I have never seen the Russian film but this adaptation has been instantly catapulted to the top of the list by virtue of Wright’s typically stylish direction and by the memorable performances of its large ensemble cast.
While Keira Knightley’s Anna is beautiful to look at and she makes us feel the joy and later desperation of the character it is Jude Law, who really captured my imagination. He invests the character with a depth not found in other treatments of the story. The solid support of Matthew MacFayden, Emily Watson and especially Domhnall Gleeson (son of Brendan) in key character parts added to my enjoyment. Unfortunately Aaron Johnson (now Taylor-Johnson), as Anna’s love interest Count Vronsky, is ultimately little more than a momentarily sensitive upper class cad.
The most striking aspect of Anna Karenina is its blatant theatricality. This comes as no surprise considering the screenplay is by Tom Stoppard (Shakespeare in Love) who at 75 is now the grand old man among English playwrights. The film often resembles a cross between Ken Russell’s The Music Lovers (1970) and Terry Gilliam’s Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1989) but Wright’s rapidly emerging trademark visual style and Stoppard’s character dialogue elevate the film above all previous ones.
The film captures the world of 19th century Russian upper class society in a way that few others have. This is due to the fact that, like an opera, everything is stylized (two dimensional settings, colorful costumes on a grand scale, snow covered model trains) and larger than life. The staging of a fancy dress ball and a horse racing accident are but two of several memorable set pieces.
As much as I enjoyed the film and would readily see it again it should be pointed out that the film is somewhat slow in parts but that is more Tolstoy’s fault than it is Wright’s. Having a more sexually magnetic rather than just a really good looking Vronsky wouldn’t have hurt matters either.
If what you are looking for is another Masterpiece Theater costume drama then this version will probably disappoint you. However if you allow its wildly theatrical nature to transport you then there is much here to savor. I’ve never really cared for Anna Karenina before. The fact that Joe Wright and company have made me care is my ultimate critical assessment. That and the fact that I can’t wait for Joe Wright’s next film no matter what it may be.
Rated R for some sexuality and violence.
Review by Chip Kaufmann
Lincoln ****
Short Take: Steven Spielberg tackles history and Doris Kearns Goodwin’s definitive work Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln.
Reel Take: As a history major with a focus on American studies, my favorite semester of college was spent studying with a Lincoln biographer. It was as if the spirit of Lincoln sat upon our shoulders while we listened and learned and debated. As I entered the theatre to see Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln, I was excited but also a tad trepidatious. Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book from which it is sourced, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln is a masterpiece; would Spielberg do it justice?
The title itself implies that it will be a sweeping biopic. It most certainly is not, and it is perhaps therefore ill-titled. Goodwin’s book (aptly titled) is a rich tapestry that delves far more deeply into its subject matter than a film can possibly capture in 2 hours. That being the case Spielberg focused in on the passage of the 13th amendment and Lincoln’s all-consuming zeal to do what needed to be done to make that happen during a lame duck session of congress.
Spielberg is a master storyteller and prolific filmmaker, but even he can fall prey to his own devices. For Lincoln, he dialed back the melodrama – way back – creating a more academic, reverential portrait of the last 42 days of Lincoln’s life and administration. This works as both a positive and a negative.
The positive is that he creates a meticulous time capsule. The viewer feels like a fly on the wall in 1865 Washington D.C. The White House is house seemingly far less formal with people coming and going at all hours. The film also shows a most realistic depiction of congressional sessions, the intimacy and jocularity of which may surprise many. The negative is that an academic approach is not Spielberg’s strength.
At his best (i.e. Schindler’s List, Munich) Spielberg can tell a great story, an important story and still entertain. Here Spielberg seems to have made a conscious effort to avoid giving Lincoln the hero-worship treatment and instead, through restraint, show the very real, very human man behind the most iconic political figure in American history. Until the very end, he goes out of his way to avert sentiment. This is a commendable approach and the film succeeds brilliantly in parts, but Spielberg’s restraint over all results in a film that will simply be too dry to really engage the masses. It could have been a cinematic masterpiece and it’s not.
What undeniably works for the film are its actors. Daniel Day Lewis is mesmerizing as Lincoln. You find yourself leaning in to hear what yarn he’ll tell next. I couldn’t help but think the spirit of Lincoln sat on his shoulder too. Amazingly, while Lewis’ performance is truly commanding, he in no way over shadows his fellow actors. Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, James Spader, John Hawks, David Strathairn and others all turn in tremendous performances.
Even John Williams scaled it back for the score to the film. In this case, he hits all the right notes, providing a very appropriate backdrop for Lincoln. Ultimately seeing an incredibly important chapter in our history unfold is a wonder to behold even if the film isn’t quite. Bottom line, thought slightly disappointed over all, this history geek will be rooting for Daniel Day Lewis on Oscar night.
Rated PG-13 for an intense scene of war violence, some images of carnage and brief strong language.
Review by Michelle Keenan
Skyfall *****
Short Take: Daniel Craig returns for a 3rd and powerful tour of duty as 007 in the 23rd Bond film, Skyfall.
Reel Take: The life expectancy and relevancy of the Bond franchise was completely rejuvenated with Daniel Craig’s debut as 007 in 2007’s Casino Royale, only to be badly dented with the disappointing follow up Quantum of Solace. The latest Bond film, Skyfall, not only brings the franchise back full throttle, but also up fits it for several years to come.
The gist of Skyfall is fairly simple; Bond’s faith in M is tested when she gives an order that may or may not result in his death, and his power to protect her is stretched to the limit when her past comes back to haunt her. Daniel Craig and [the always wonderful] Dame Judi Dench once again share a terrific chemistry that, for my money, makes them one of the best teams in cinematic history and certainly in the Bond franchise.
It’s a sacrilege of sorts to say any Bond is better than Sean Connery, so let’s put it this way – Daniel Craig is clearly the most talented actor to play Bond. To me, he is the book Bond. His Bond is a man of many layers and more than a few vulnerabilities and flaws. Craig is also not afraid to look less than pretty. He deftly balances a brooding intensity, brutal physicality and levity.
Adding to the fun is the latest Bond villain, Silva (Javier Bardem).Silva is a former MI6 agent turned psychopathic bad guy. His mad-genius-with-a-vendetta persona gives Bardem just the right platform to play the villain to the hilt. Reveling in Silva with florid abandon, Bardem tows the fine line brilliantly between pushing the limits and going too far.
Skyfall also welcomes Ralph Fiennes and Ben Wishaw to this generation of Bond.. Fiennes is Gareth Mallory, an assistant to the prime minister who seem an adversary to M and Bond, but who, after proving his allegiance to MI6, will be part of the team henceforth. Wishaw is the new ‘Q’ and brings millennial generation computer geek and 21st century high tech smarts to the part.
The director of American Beauty and Revolutionary Road is not an obvious pick to direct a James Bond film, but Sam Mendes proves himself perhaps the best director of the franchise to date. The little boy who grew up watching Bond films on television at Christmastime has the love (and respect) for the classic Bond elements while imbuing the new film with contemporary smarts and elegance.
Skyfall is smart, ruthless and sexy, but not just because of its script and actors. The photography raises the bar for the franchise as well. Future Bond films will have to maintain this caliber of work, with its use of light and frame, to look as good and be as effective.
My only real criticism of the film is that it should have been (and could have been) at least ten minutes shorter. However, the audience in attendance the night I saw the film wasn’t bothered in the least and neither was I.
Rated PG-13 for intense violent sequences throughout, some sexuality, language and smoking.
Review by Michelle Keenan