These grand and handsome stagings of Shakespeare made Olivier something of a predecessor to Kenneth Branagh towards the end of the century, and as with Branagh, I feel a little underwhelmed. It’s not that the acting is stodgy (there have been some patchy adaptations, but on the whole Richard III is well acted, without egregious hamminess), and it certainly doesn’t lack in visual splendour. In fact, the Technicolor Vistavision looks gorgeous, all saturated colours on beautifully theatrical sets (not quite the Brechtian level of, say, Rohmer’s Perceval, but still mightily stagy and unreal-seeming). I just find Olivier’s adaptations unengaging, with too many scenes that don’t really seem to grab much attention (Loncraine and McKellen’s adaptation seemed much stronger in that regard). I still think this is one of his better ones, and I prefer it to Henry V, so maybe I’m just being churlish.
FILM REVIEW: Criterion Collection Director/Writer Laurence Olivier (based on the play by William Shakespeare) | Cinematographer Otto Heller | Starring Laurence Olivier, John Gielgud, Claire Bloom, Ralph Richardson, Cedric Hardwicke | Length 161 minutes || Seen at a friend’s home (DVD), London, Monday 11 June 2018
I think it’s fair to say that W.E., which depicts the love affair between King Edward VIII (or “David” when he wasn’t the king) and Wallis Simpson, got a bit of a critical kicking when it came out. That’s not to say that certain elements of the film aren’t easy to deride — some of the scenes just seem misjudged or laughable (an elderly Wallis dancing for her ailing husband comes to mind), and the camera has a tendency to wander a bit loosely — but I imagine a lot of it comes down to its framing narrative, which uses historical objects as a means to enter the past. This fetishisation of material things is, indeed, an overriding element of the story — objects, clothes, set design, hairstyles and make-up, all of these things are fawned over by the camera and lavishly depicted — though it shouldn’t really come as a surprise given the film’s creator. But that needn’t be a drawback or a criticism — if anything it’s just making explicit the pitfalls of recreating historical events for the screen. In any case, the history is very much nested within a modern story of Wally (Abbie Cornish), who has grown up obsessed by the historical romance, and in communing with their personal effects at a Sotheby’s auction, via flashbacks starring Andrea Riseborough and James D’Arcy as the royal couple, comes to understand that their love affair wasn’t perfect. At the same time, her own marriage is foundering and she is falling for a security guard, Evgeni (Oscar Isaac), hence the “W.E.” of the title refers to both of these couples. The film isn’t perfect, but the actors are all excellent, and moments of absurdity aside, this is on the whole a handsomely-mounted period production.
FILM REVIEW Director Madonna | Writers Madonna and Alek Keshishian | Cinematographer Hagen Bogdanski | Starring Andrea Riseborough, Abbie Cornish, James D’Arcy, Oscar Isaac | Length 119 minutes || Seen at home (streaming), London, Saturday 9 January 2016
It’s a classic trope, the fantasy of royalty cutting loose and partying with the plebs, like normal people. I’m not even sure if this was the original iteration, but you can’t possibly help but watch it 60 years on and think of A Royal Night Out (2015) or The Princess Diaries (2001) or the hundred other films of that ilk which share the theme, including Notting Hill (1999) which updates the formula from royalty to celebrity. Still, this one has Audrey Hepburn being utterly delightful as Princess Ann from some unspecified Ruritanian country (she’s convincly regal too, although she did have an aristocratic background, after all), and Gregory Peck being all solid and leading-man-like as American reporter Joe. They have an easy rapport as they spend the day together, which begins when he finds her the night before, curled up in the street sleeping, having snuck out of her comfy palatial digs, then makes the royal connection from a photo in the paper. I feel like most people probably already know this film far better than I, but suffice to say there’s a simple enjoyment to the everyday activities they cram in, going sightseeing, going out dancing, getting a haircut, and flirting. It’s a comfortable classic, and works well with the easy charisma of its stars and the photogenic quality of the setting.
FILM REVIEW Director William Wyler | Writers Ian McLellan Hunter and John Dighton [and Dalton Trumbo, uncredited] | Cinematographers Henri Alekan and Franz Planer | Starring Audrey Hepburn, Gregory Peck | Length 118 minutes || Seen at home (DVD), London, Saturday 12 December 2015
I’m no royalist, and I’m pretty sure this film was never made with me in mind as audience, but that said, this is all very jolly and likeable in an entirely flimsy way. It charts a putative night out that the royal princesses Elizabeth and Margaret spent in London on VE Day in 1945, while their father King George VI (Rupert Everett) stayed home to deliver a speech — you may remember another recent film about his speechmaking. By his side is his wife Elizabeth (Emily Watson), and while these four central characters are based on real people, there’s little point beyond that in trying to link any of their character traits or stories to reality: this is all very much fiction. The heart of the film is a comedy romp and the two lead actors do brilliantly well in hitting the right tone for their performances, with Sarah Gadon just a little bit reserved as ‘Lilibet’, while Bel Powley is an irrepressible riot of energy as Margaret (and easily the film’s comic highlight). The challenge for the filmmakers is on the one hand making its aristocratic protagonists likeable (which it largely does, hence my caveat about setting aside any sense of historicity), and on the other in harnessing a light-hearted comedy to a respectful depiction of the gravity of the historical events and the tolls of war on the soldiers. This latter aspect is primarily represented by the cantankerous Jack Reynor as a (working-class) AWOL airman who falls for Elizabeth. Thus amongst the peripatetic tour of nighttime London circa 1945 (with, incidentally, a strange sense of geography for those who know it), there are some requisite sombre moments, but for the most part it’s all about the comedy. If you can get past the use of the royal personages and suspend your disbelief, it’s all quite charming really.
NEW RELEASE FILM REVIEW Director Julian Jarrold | Writers Trevor da Silva and Kevin Hood | Cinematographer Christophe Beaucarne | Starring Sarah Gadon, Bel Powley, Jack Reynor, Rupert Everett, Emily Watson | Length 97 minutes || Seen at Cineworld West India Quay, London, Thursday 21 May 2015
As this film is based on an over-400-year-old play (itself based on even older history), the events and characters of which are pretty much embedded into Western cultural history, I trust that the usual rules of ‘spoilers’ don’t really apply in the same way. However, if you remain concerned about this, then I shall sum up my review more pithily: track down this movie and watch it. It’s worth it, even if you think you don’t like Shakespeare.
FILM REVIEW || Director Richard Loncraine | Writers William Shakespeare, Ian McKellen and Richard Loncraine (based on the play by Shakespeare) | Cinematographer Peter Biziou | Starring Ian McKellen, Annette Bening, Kristin Scott Thomas, Jim Broadbent, Robert Downey Jr. | Length 104 minutes | Seen at Paramount, Wellington, February 1997 (also at home on DVD, Tuesday 7 May 2013) || My Rating excellent
I first saw this film on the big screen a few years after it was released, which is to say, 16 years ago now. My memory is generally terrible, and there are filmsI’ve seen that I have forgotten to such an extent that I’ve rewatched them and not even realised that I’d seen them already in my life. So it should say something that I still very clearly recalled the opening sequence of this adaptation of the Shakespeare play when I sat down to rewatch it recently at home.