The Princess of Montpensier (***1/2)

It took just under 350 years to make a film out of this tale by Marie de La Fayette, perhaps the first French novelist. De La Fayette wrote of a time still earlier, beginning her story in the midst of the religious wars that began in the late 1500s. Two prominent battle scenes, with swords and only the occasional gun, typify the attention to historical detail employed by director Bertrand Tavernier (A Sunday in the Country, Daddy Nostalgia). Perhaps even more noteworthy in that regard is the depiction of the wedding-night rituals apparently employed by the nobility. These are even less romantic than would befit the marriage of the princess, who has been pried away from her beloved in an arrangement economically suitable to her father.

The earliest part of the drama is slightly confusing—it took me a bit of time to figure to ascertain the allegiance (in the war) of the (more or less) male lead (Lambert Wilson), who is neither the princess’s beloved nor her husband, but the count who mentored her husband in the art of war and has now, disgusted by battle, laid down his sword. The princess (Mélanie Thierry) is a comely young woman with a keen mind, and the attention she draws, and her own thwarted desire, propel the action of the latter half of the film. This is more straightforward, but elegantly plotted. (Notwithstanding the setting, the course of action could easily be transplanted into a modern drama, or even a farce, though it’s not told that way here.) Of necessity, the philosophical elements of the novella are only present in small amounts, but the narrative and location filming make this adaptation a case of much better late than never.

IMDB link

viewed 4/28/11 at Ritz 5 and reviewed 4/29/11

Elizabeth: The Golden Age (**3/4)

Yet another sequel, but they couldn’t call it Elizabeth II, because it’s still about England’s Elizabeth I, who is still played by Cate Blanchett, who is still as excellent as in the original. It’s 1585; no longer the young girl consolidating power, the queen is the unquestioned ruler during a time of trouble. Well, almost unquestioned. Elizabeth’s imprisoned cousin Mary Queen of Scots (Samantha Morton) was a potential rival to her throne and an inspiration for England’s Catholics, some of whom might have liked to depose the Protestant Elizabeth. From the exterior, there was Spain’s Catholic King Philip, who threatened to expand his empire.

The movie doesn’t delve deeply into the politics of the religious war going on inside England, an admittedly complicated subject, but a large chunk is given over to the plotting against the throne. I found some of that confusing, filled with characters of whom I lost track. More successful, on the whole, is the recounting of Elizabeth and her friendship/flirtation with roguish, but loyal Sir Walter Raleigh (Clive Owen). Still, there was something disconcerting about watching the course of the first movie play in reverse. There, she becomes a woman. Here, she is already a queen, as Blanchett’s fierce voice and regal presence makes clear from her first scene, but reverts into girlish self-doubt in the presence of Raleigh. (Despite makeup, Blanchett does look a tad youthful for a woman who was in her fifties during the events portrayed.) I don’t know about the true relationship of these figures, but I preferred the more assertive, self-assured ruler of the start. Does even the Virgin Queen fall into a pitable state in the presence of overwhelming masculinity?

Only the threat of the Spanish Armada, it seems, can rouse Elizabeth to leadership. This is still worth seeing if you enjoy historical dramas. But despite the return of screenwriter Michael Hirst and director Shekhar Kapur, like most sequels it impresses less than its forebear.

IMDB link

reviewed 10/11/07

The Fountain (**)

? Darren Aronofsky (π, Requiem for a Dream) wrote and directed this ambitious film that centers around a doctor (Hugh Jackman) frantically trying to save his sick wife (Rachel Weisz) but also has segments set centuries in the past and future. Inspired by (according to news articles) the Matrix, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Mayan mythology, and his parents’ cancer diagnoses, Aronofsky has created a philosophical work about death and rebirth and the idea of the eternal.

+ What most unites Aronofsky’s three features is their distinct visual styles. Even people who hate this movie (and there will be some) will marvel at its stunning visuals, which look computer generated but mostly weren’t. Most prominent are the future segments, which, I learned from reading, are supposed to be in the 26th-century but could just as well be in Aronofsky’s vision of heaven, or some fantasy world. A unique chemical process is responsible for many of these images, many of which show a tree that looks like copper with swirling branches. Abandoning the quick editing style that was prominent in Requiem for a Dream, Aronofsky induces feelings of calmness here. The scenes in the 16th century are mostly dark and dirty, the ones in the present are insular and sedate, and the future ones are simply other-worldly. The actors are able to successfully tackle taking on very different personalities in the different parts, and also look different. Weisz is a regal queen in one part and a fragile writer in another. The scenes of her and Jackman together in the present-day setting are tender and intimate. (Weisz looks like she isn’t wearing makeup.)

- For me this didn’t quite work. I had the same feeling about it as π, which I admired for its heady mixture of science and philosophy but thought was too incoherent to warm to. I don’t necessarily want to be told what to think about a movie, but it’d be nice to know what the filmmaker was thinking. The idea of the movie could be that the actors are reincarnated, that they are metaphorically able to live forever, or something else, but there is too much that seems arbitrary about how the different parts of the movie fit together, and too much that seems extraneous. It’s hard to say why I didn’t like this movie more, but I think I just was not able to fit everything together in a satisfying way. There’s a lot of repeated motifs that also may make the movie seem slow for a lot of people.

= ** I heard a woman say, “I’m glad this was free,” as I walked out of the screening, and I think a lot of people will share her feeling. At the same time, I think a certain type of person will want to watch The Fountain again and theorize about what it means. Those who enjoyed the Matrix trilogy but thought it could have done without all of those action scenes, for example, may find much that’s intriguing. People of certain types of spiritual beliefs may find the movie a beautiful reflection of them. I’m a more literal-minded person and probably would have liked The Fountain better if it was a more straightforward science fiction film, set in the present day, about a guy trying to prevent aging.

IMDb link

viewed at PFS screening