The 2011 HBO miniseries Mildred Pierce recently afforded my wife and me over five hours of melodramatic entertainment.Sundays will now feature a movie review. The column's title is a play on the title of Jules Dassin's 1960 film, "Never on Sunday," starring Melina Mercouri (1920-1994). According to Wikipedia,
It won the Academy Award for Best Song (Manos Hadjidakis for "Never on Sunday"). It was nominated for the Academy Awards for, respectively, Best Actress in a Leading Role (Melina Mercouri), Best Costume Design, Black-and-White, Best Director (Jules Dassin), and Best Writing, Story, and Screenplay as Written Directly for the Screen (Dassin). Mercouri won the award for Best Actress at the 1960 Cannes Film Festival.
I said to my wife that a number of scenes seemed poorly directed, especially those of Melissa Leo, who played Mildred's friend Lucy Gessler. They seemed more theatrical to me than cinematic. Not the Melissa Leo I became accustomed to as Detective Kay Howard in Homicide: Life on the Street.Mildred Pierce (HBO 2011: Todd Haynes) [Based on James M. Cain's 1941 hardboiled novel, which was also made into an Oscar-winning 1945 film starring Joan Crawford. Divorced single mom Mildred Pierce (Kate Winslet) decides to open a restaurant business, which tears at the already-strained relationship with her ambitious elder daughter, Veda (Morgan Turner, in Parts I-III, and Evan Rachel Wood, in Parts IV & V).] [VG] 7-6&7-2012
But my wife thought the effect was probably intentional, a throwback to the tempo and style of any number of films about the Depression era that she said she could remember watching as a child.
Perhaps, in general, for I seemed to have a similar memory. But too many scenes with Miss Leo (and a few with Evan Rachel Wood in the role of Mildred's elder daughter, Veda) stuck out as in need of a re-take.
I told my wife, "But the Jack Nicholson, Jessica Lange movie of Cain's novel The Postman Always Rings Twice was set in that period, and it wasn't like that."
"It was brought up-to-date, made contemporary," she said. You wouldn't pursue this any further with your wife either, would you?
Miss Winslet's performance is fine, as you'd expect. Mildred is a sympathetic character, so incautious of danger on occasion as to make me feel uncomfortable and nearly lose patience with her. That is, I just couldn't identify with her, couldn't overcome my aversion to her naiveté.
But Guy Pearce is superb in the sharply drawn character of Mildred's exploitive lover Monty Beragon. For my money, Pearce always pleases. My favorite of his roles (until Monty) has been that of Adam Whitely/Felicia Jollygoodfellow in The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert.
I forgot to study the credits carefully to try to find out whether a real coloratura soprano had dubbed Miss Wood's singing. Maybe Miss Wood was the real coloratura—she's a highly accomplished young actress (born in Raleigh, fifty miles east of Mebane). No mention of coloratura in her detailed IMDb bio.
Maybe my wife was right.* Director Todd Haynes was quoted in New York Times movie critic Dennis Lim's March 18 review, "Mildred Pierce: A Mother’s House of Love and Hurt," as saying:
I wanted to see if [the open, searching quality that defined the American cinema of my youth] could work again. The idea was to use old movies, old genres, and old subject matter to trick people into thinking about their world today.______________
* She always is.
Moristotle, are you interested in your readers suggesting movies for you to review, with the idea that perhaps you could then suggest them in your "Always on Sunday" feature if you find them worthy? The reason I ask is the diversity of readership and commentary is, to me at least, one of the greatest benefits of Moristotle, and I wonder if your on-line virtual "melting pot" might be a great way for your readers to hear of movies they might otherwise overlook.
ReplyDeleteAlso, are you going to be reviewing and/or suggesting current releases, or will you be delving into the archive to review some of what you, and possibly others, consider "must-see" classics?
Motomynd, It had already occurred to me that it's a short-coming in a self-styled movie reviewer that he rarely watches a feature film before weeks (or years) have passed since its release. I don't like watching in a theater, and I don't like the price of admission. I'm afraid this practice isn't going to change, and this particular short-coming will persist.
DeleteI'm still open to suggestions what to review, but only on condition I'm permitted to decline to watch a film that I've concluded from other feedback I couldn't enjoy. I'd of course summarize the other feedback and pass it along.
I've saved in a side file a list of films I've seen for several years, a good number of which I've rated Excellent or ExtraOrdinary, and I could (and probably would anyway) sometimes dip into the file for the "Always on Sunday" feature, which need not be limited to a single film either, of course. (In fact, I mentioned I think three films the other day other than Mildred Pierce.) I do see the value in letting my readers know of films they may have overlooked.
I despair of ever being complete and comprehensive, however.
Since movies seem to be churned out about one a minute, how could anyone hope to be complete and comprehensive? If you can merely steer us toward movies actually worth watching, that would be a great service. Especially for those of us who only bother to watch a movie every few weeks, and only go to a theater every few years.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this very practical comment, Motomynd.
DeleteI'm confident that I can steer infrequent viewers to laudable movies. Except for the fact that, until recently, my "Last 100 Movies Watched" was stuffed with TV episodes, consulting it could serve such viewers well.
My philosophy is that if my readers have seen a few of the films I've seen and agree with my ratings of those films, then they will probably like other films that I've rated at least VG or higher (E or EO).
Two comments received (from Tom Lowe) on Facebook (and answered there):
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that the films you mention were all better in their time than the remakes. This is a problem, but then, nostalgia ain't what it usta be.
Tom, it's really hard for me to compare original films from, say, before the sixties, with remakes made more recently, for I generally find the older films hard to watch and enjoy. I've probably been too thoroughly conditioned to contemporary cinematic "values" (editing, pacing, acting techniques, etc.). I did, however, like the original "Postman Always Rings Twice" (1946, with Lana Turner and John Garfield) , but I enjoyed the Nicholson/Lange remake more. I don't believe I've seen the original "Mildred Pierce." Now I think I ought to make the effort.
It comes back to what the screenwriter William Goldman said: no one knows what works. So in conservative era the remaking of a "hit" is the safe choice. Except that the "success" usually came from taking a risk, and "conservative" means avoiding risk- especially when big money is involved. So the remake lacks what made the original work- originality.
Tom, your conjecture about remaking a "hit" sounds plausible, and I'm sure it's true in many if not most cases. Also your inference about why remakes often don't work as well as their originals. Good thinking.