Film Reviews by CV

This excellent documentary is the product of the unstinting and dedicated efforts of Phil Grabsky which celebrates the life of Mozart. Ten hours of material were cut down to two but it is astonishing how much music is discussed and heard as well as much biographical information is given. Highpoints for me were the demonstration of a short keyboard piece, composed when Mozart was five(?), where the last phrase of the piece had an insertion of two extra bars which fitted perfectly. Many a minor composer has written pleasing tunes and interesting harmony but it this preoccupation with and development of form that becomes the manifestation of Mozart's genius. Mozart's disclosing of the jealously-guarded music to Allegri's Miserere at the Sistine Chapel by writing it out from memory is mentioned but is explained by Mozart having a photocopy facility of memory as though he remembered all the notes in a sequence. It was his appreciation and perception of overall form (for the piece is quite repetitive) that enabled him to put the details of individual notes in later that enabled him to memorize the whole.

Another highpoint was the opening of the early symphony in A major where the first few bars explode with youthful genius of thematic invention and sonorous brilliance. His friendships and family relationships are well discussed but spare a thought for his sister Nannerl whose own genius was sacrificed for the advancement of the male sibling of the family! Jane Glover's book "Mozart's Women" is a very moving read about the lives of his sister, wife and other singers he wrote music for.

The interview as a Special Feature is also worth an extra star where the unpretentious director gives a very detailed and extremely interesting description of the process of making the film and what he learnt. He revises one or two given opinions as a result of his research such as his view that Leopold Mozart, the father, is not the slave-driver many biographers make him out to be.

Some of the greatest pleasures of watching films is the added bonus of the Special Features which are so often a great revelation in themselves. This is why I choose cinemaparadiso's DVD service as opposed to others that merely stream films where you don't get any added extras.

The acted part of the film focuses on Benjamin Britten as a pupil at Gresham's School where his friendships and influence of certain members of staff became formative influences on his own strong beliefs of pacifism which soon made outward expression in his composed music. The actor chosen to play young Britten captured excellently the shy and retiring but morally convicted young boy. I had wondered if the rest of the cast of young actors had been chosen from the present school for their own enrichment of the historical experience of portraying the questioning and reflecting of the inter-war years of the thirties contemporaneous with their most illustrious former pupil of genius. The film ends with a moving sequence of extracts from the War Requiem with images associated with World War II and of Coventry Cathedral. The whole is a moving, thought-provoking and revelatory view of the life of one of Britain's greatest composers of all time.

I had recently read a biography on Dietrich Bonhoeffer and was interested to see how his life and influence was depicted on screen. Bonhoeffer, a Lutheran pastor, was convinced that the church should stand against the blasphemy of Nazism often treading a dangerous line of compromise of conscience. He set up the Confessing Church seceding from the main church which absorbed concessions to and adoption of Nazism into the church service and practice. Of course this marked him out to be a traitor despite being “covered” as a spy. 

Unfortunately the film was not able to follow his career in detail and I felt the narrative was quite disjunct. Time passed quickly and we seem to jump from one moment to another with events missing or assumed. However, Bonhoeffer was played very sensitively and projected a very likeable and compassionate character but the part played by his fiancée stole each scene she appeared in and added poignancy to the grimness of the plot.

The theme of the film, that of the right to challenge Biblical fundamentalism with contemporary science in the school classroom, seemed to be undermined by gross caricature. This effect may have resulted from adapting a stage play to the screen. However, it revealed how close fundamental literalism is tied up with political power and the theme is as relevant to today as it was then.

Having watched other films on the subject of Van Gogh, and naturally his brother, Theo, I’m not sure that all these views from different angles has given a clearer survey of their lives and relationship. This film attempts to observe and record the decline of Van Gogh’s mental illness, a bipolar disorder, we would say today, paralleled by the very different troubles of his brother, Theo, who is financially supporting him and doing his best to promote his art as a dealer. The depiction is chaotic, messy and ultimately desolate and there is not enough concentration on their respective artistic achievements, only really appreciated posthumously, to redeem the sadness of their lives. A tragedy with no cathartic ending.

Nevertheless the visual picture is splendidly set and the portrayal of Van Gogh himself highly imaginative. There is a blend of English actors playing the main roles with French and Dutch actors speaking with strong accents. The social mores and culture of the age are colourfully depicted and the background music is also highly original. If you felt like I did at the end, watch “Loving Vincent” for a very different treatment. 

I’m afraid this 1963 series of Richard the Lionheart, in black and white, will not appeal to those interested in accurate and atmospheric accounts of history. The hairstyles and dialogue are sixties dated not to mention the background music which sounds as though it’s played on an old record player with sagging fan-belt. It is merely entertainment at the lightest level.

I’m afraid I haven’t read the book but from what I gather from other commentaries on the book I wonder whether or not the character of Julien Sorel has been properly projected in the film. It seemed to me watching the film that Sorel is passively and impulsively victim of his situations and escapades whereas I believe the book is about his decided ambition to attain to high class society from humble beginnings. It is quite late on in the film that we are told he has been a hypocrite all along which the film has not convincingly shown us. This is probably the problem of making a film about the main character of a novel where much of his thinking is discussed in the narrative and which the camera cannot accurately or reliably convey. Nevertheless the film is enjoyable, with location settings and pithy dialogue, particularly the counsel from the clerics who try to steer Sorel on the straight and narrow. 

The name of Franz Lehar is immediately linked with the perennial favourite operetta “The Merry Widow” and if you have a vocal score of this you will see a list of other works by him on the back cover which all seem very quaint and old-fashioned judging by their titles. This is one of them and I was intrigued enough to put it on my viewing list. The experience was sheer delight and what was listed as a Romantic opera had genuine heartfelt pathos and contained topical themes, primarily the issue of feminism in different cultures. The dialogue I imagine was updated and in places was genuinely witty and funny. Although I missed choral and ensemble singing, the principal quartet of singers sang and acted brilliantly and Sang Ho Choi (the Prince) well deserved his accolade at the end. This is an outdoor production and it’s great merits were the natural sound effect and the dazzlingly beautiful costumes of both the European and Oriental. The music is often redolent of the Far East sounds of Puccini’s “Madam Butterfly”. Well done Cinemaparadiso for including this gem!

I agree with the other reviewer mainly. The short up-rushing phrases of much of Rameau's music expressing a libretto that is virtually empty of any substance does make for some tedious viewing. However, to make up for this paucity of literary interest, at least, the choreography department have gone overboard with frenetic break-dancing that is completely at different tempos to the more stately music and seems quite divorced from it. The stage area is quite linear made up for by projections on one or two higher levels behind. These are also mostly pre-recorded film-strips and often show human figures metamorphosing into animals in comic-like chases, trampoline -bouncing and more frenetic dancing. There are much better productions of Rameau's operas so don't start with this one!

I must confess I have not read the book yet so I am not qualified to judge this film as an adaption of the book though Ian McEwan did write the screenplay. Some reviewers expected action but this was a satisfying psychological study in itself and was sensitively acted though I thought the parents' characterisation was a little overdone in order to give explanation to the problems of the central couple. I'm still trying to resolve the two seemingly conflicting endings. Maybe the book itself will provide me with the answer!

Specialist historians were chosen for each protagonist who spoke over action sequences. Some of the narrative was lost in slangy modernism, for instance, Robert Cecil was described as a "prick", by one commentator. This sort of thing needs explanation and the meaning is otherwise left vague. What was particularly interesting, I thought, was the showing of the continuity of the running of the state when the monarchy radically changed from Tudor to Stuart. The relationship between the two dynasties was very well explained. I thought there should have been more on John Walsingham and the betrayal of Mary Queen of Scots.

Writing a review concerning a crucial and heart-searching courtroom drama, which had ensuing profound moral and political implications, seems very strange while at the present moment leaders of the once national victors of WWII are riding roughshod over their own legal procedures. What on earth would those officers of law make of our travesty of government today?

Four former German judges practising under the Nazi regime are charged with complicity and knowledge of the mass extermination programme instigated under Hitler. The prosecution is naturally visceral and passionate including horrific images of the death camps being shown on film during the procedures. But the defence draws attention to the hypocrisy of the allied nations who one way or another have supported Hitler's regime before armed conflict and compares the atrocity of the devastation of the atom bombs with that of the concentration camps.

The case is conducted during the beginning of the Cold War(1949) and it is of paramount importance that the West can rely on German co-operation if things turn adverse in the East. Germany needs to regain self-respect and credibility in order to resist communism and so the verdict on the four once eminent German judges is a very sensitive issue.

The strength of the drama itself rests on a triumvirate of great American actors of the past: Spencer Tracy, Richard Widmark and Burt Lancaster as one of the German judges.

This is a very absorbing, love-interest notwithstanding, film that covers the months before the invasion of Poland at the beginning of WW II. Diplomatists and spies are trying to anticipate what move Germany is going to make to initiate a second European war and trying to decide what information they are receiving is reliable or convincing. There is a continuous thread of tension with minimal overtly violent scenes. It is also visually scenic in that there are a variety of locations and sunny settings despite the main setting being the streets of Warsaw. I wonder if viewers may find David Tennant maybe a little too self-assured in the role of the French army officer.

Incidentally, by coincidence, I happened to watch the day after the film 'The King's Choice' which is an account of how Norway was brought into the war in 1941 which involved an ultimatum put to the then king of Norway by a German envoy to co-operate with the Nazis on the pretext that Britain had plans to invade! If you are interested in this general War theme of diplomacy and espionage you could watch this next.

This is a very good survey of Beethoven the man and composer with many interviews with contemporary musicians and shots of his dwelling places. To criticise, though, there were topics which were not mentioned at all which I would have thought were indispensable. Also there were many amazing anecdotes that were not told, such as his confrontation with the British violinist Bridgewater. There is his achievement as an improviser and his triumph over his rival Stiebelt which was the stuff of legend. There is his career as a string quartet player as well and his sense of humour which is everywhere in his quartet composition. I wish there might have been more about his relationships with and influence on other composers particularly that of Haydn and his own pupils Ries and Czerny. His own respect for Cherubini and his later adoration for Handel were never mentioned. Also there was no mention of the Diabelli Variations which has another interesting anecdote attached. I think also for musicians for whom English is a second language they might not have conveyed their deepest and profoundest thoughts so well and I missed the comments of the older champion players of Beethoven such as Vladimir Ashkenazy.

Nevertheless it was very enjoyable and inspirational, not just musically, but in showing how adversity can be overcome, aspiring to a noble idealism and a vision for a perfect world. Hopefully that sums up Beethoven's music!

There are all the panoramic vistas and action of an old Biblical epic but the attention to visual detail is rather cancelled by other factors which try to make this drama "relevant" to a modern audience. Firstly we get an obviously multiracial-looking cast of disciple figures who are supposed to represent all peoples of the earth. There are also consciously feminist themes introduced, mainly expounded by the wives of Caiaphas and Pilate where they frequently challenge their husbands' ambitions and decisions. The dialogue is needless to say, modern to the extent that etiquette is stretched and there is a familiarity and informality between characters of different social standing which are not at all convincing for the historical period. There is emphasis too on the emotional in conversions rather than the immediate cultural and ethical re-orientation that new believers have to come to terms with: often it looked too much like the traditional altar call experience.

All the actors seemed to be British in this American directed epic: was the idea to give a more Shakespearean air of profundity? Some seemed to be too British for their roles,however, like the High Priest, though he delivered well and the minor roles were much more convincing, as a matter of fact. The role played by Caligula was especially well-done, in fact the roles of the more wicked characters were more successful as a rule. The character of Saul/Paul was played with a rich Irish brogue which made it difficult to be convinced that this character was "a Pharisee of Pharisees and a Jew of Jews"! I wondered if his conversion to Christianity was to be a reference to the Irish reconciliation in more recent history: the former militant IRA terrorist becoming a Protestant peace-loving believer. The multiracial idea would be more appropriate in the theatre with minimal scenery where the message there is more important than the outward form but it does not work in epic film-making.

I haven't done the research but it looks like the narrative of this film has taken real characters in the Acts account, such as the Centurian Cornelius and the Ethiopian Eunuch, and given them an imagined, if not contrived, context, that links all the incidents of the Acts story of the Bible together in a way that all their paths cross and the two themes: Kingdom (God's) and Empire (Pagan Roman) are quite tightly knitted together in a dramatic whole. As the historical accounts are sketchy this licence has been taken to make an entertaining and fluid drama if not wholly convincing.