Entertainment
Commentary: What Netflix's 'Maria' gets so wrong about Maria Callas
Here we go again.
In Hollywood’s ongoing cheerless attempts to contest the joy of music by cutting stellar classical musicians down to size, “Maria” joins the curt parade of “Tár” and “Maestro.” The new biopic of Maria Callas follows the takedowns of fictional conductor Lydia Tár and larger-than-life Leonard Bernstein with a dramatization of the most compelling singer I’ve ever encountered — live, on recording, on video anywhere. (I’m hardly alone in this estimation.) All three films have this in common: Over-the-top musicians are tragically brought down by their own hubris and turn monstrous. Each is a victim of her or his celebrity — something celebrity-incubating Hollywood happens to be pretty good at.
“Maria,” which began streaming on Netflix this week, focuses on Callas’ reclusive last years when she was, if you care to believe this account, pitifully self-destructive. She had lost her voice and her lover, and she had nothing to live for. She could not recapture the mythic La Callas nor make peace with the woman, Maria. It’s an ignominious tale of woe and quixotic temperament.
The gloomy film begins and ends with Callas’ solitary death. In typical flashback fashion, we witness her decline and delusions as she tries to recapture her voice, the attentions of Aristotle Onassis and the adoration of the public. Flashbacks mix in bits and pieces of documentary footage, glimpsing a few highlights of her life.
Throughout, the improbable Angelina Jolie captures Callas’ style in her dress, her public manner and her movements. She sports to glossy perfection sensational ‘50s and ‘60s hairdos. She’d make a great plastic doll of Callas.
The real Callas was striking in a different way. Her face didn’t have Jolie’s spectacularly exact proportions. In fact, Callas made herself out of what she considered to be an ugly duckling. When she first appeared onstage in the late 1940s, she immediately demonstrated a voice to be reckoned with and a fervent vocal theatricality. But she was a large woman and said to be somewhat awkward onstage. Director Franco Zeffirelli described her as big in every way — big eyes, big nose, big mouth, big body — and compared her to the Statue of Liberty.
Seeing the 1953 film “Roman Holiday” made Callas determined to look like its diminutive star, Audrey Hepburn. Callas lost 80 pounds in a single year. She had already been working with great directors, especially Luchino Visconti, but now she had the physical means to go much further and invent the modern concept of opera as drama. Her voice had lost some of its sheen, and those who disliked her blamed the weight loss, which wasn’t the case. It was, instead, her compulsion to put all of her being into a raging theatrical intensity.
On the surface, Callas had become an icon of elegance, but now she could make her big eyes, big mouth and big voice penetrate like nothing anyone in opera had ever experienced. She transformed not just herself but the art form.
Callas’ career in opera lasted less than two decades and was over by 1965. She was only 42 when she sang her last staged opera performance, a production of “Tosca” at Covent Garden in London. People came up with all kinds of reasons why her voice went so early. Only after her death 12 years later did we learn that she suffered from dermatomyositis, which causes muscle weakness that can affect the vocal chords and likely also led to her heart failure at age 53.
Jolie’s voice has been slightly mixed with Callas’ in such a way that it ever so slightly sanitizes Callas’. Joile’s speaking voice sounds almost like Callas’ but without the hint of Callas’ New York accent. She lacks, crucially, Callas’ disarming smile. None of this might matter so much had director Pablo Larrain concentrated less on supplying glamour shots of Jolie.
The film is called “Maria” for a reason. Callas’ was, indeed, a life of conflicts between the artist who grandly became La Callas and the woman who was Maria. But you need to understand both. She undoubtedly stopped singing because of her physical condition. Still, her greatness gave her a remarkable capacity for transcending biology. Yet her need to become more of the woman she wanted to be drove her obsession with the ultimately toxic Onassis.
I saw just how exceptional the transcendent part of this complex equation could be in her 1974 ill-fated comeback tour with tenor Giuseppe di Stefano. A graduate student at the time, I had a top balcony seat at War Memorial Opera House in San Francisco. The acoustics are best up there, and I bought a pair of opera glasses just to see her.
She sounded pretty bad. The voice was gone. But not the intensity, not the presence. This became, in fact, some of the greatest singing I’ve ever encountered. She seemed at the same time superhuman and a super-suffering human. You cannot possibly experience the wizardry of Callas and the music becoming one on the awful underground recordings of the concert found on YouTube and elsewhere.
Better to watch Pier Paolo Pasolini’s 1969 film “Medea,” in which Callas stars in a purely acting role. Like Larrain with Jolie, Pasolini was fascinated by Callas’ face, particularly her nose. He scrutinizes her expressivity, its extraordinary power. She no longer needs opera, it’s inside her. Pasolini uses music as though he were filming a Noh play but with masks off. The fact that this film has so little regard in the opera world and even among Callas fanciers demonstrates how, if you pay close enough attention, she remains ahead of her time.
Her radical sophistication and courage were in further evidence in 1974 when she addressed a Verdi musicology conference in Chicago. She appeared dignified, eloquent, unsentimental and downright revolutionary. She had no need to waste her time with musicologists and their talk of neglected early Verdi masterpieces. Knowing what mattered and what didn’t, she suggested that they take the best bits from those operas and make something modern and meaningful. She also blamed Puccini for making singers and audiences lazy, because he wasn’t challenging enough.
A year later, Onassis died, which it is said to have caused Callas to lose interest in life. He had left Callas, whom he never married, to wed Jacqueline Kennedy, but the flame burned in Callas to the end. Her last two years were obviously very difficult, what with drugs, depression and dermatomyositis, all of which come across as tawdry in “Maria.” I wonder whether she became a recluse in part because patients suffering from dermatomyositis are supposed to stay out of sunlight. Her body was failing her.
A more affectionate and fanciful portrait of Callas in those years is the basis of Zeffirelli’s 2002 biopic, “Callas Forever,” starring Fanny Ardant and Jeremy Irons as her agent. Zeffirelli had worked with Callas and knew her well. To best understand Callas, turn to Tony Palmer’s 2007 documentary “Callas,” in which Zeffirelli is particularly illuminating.
All the adoration, the glamour, the high life was, for Callas, a purposeful life of bread and roses. Rather, her art had always been the way she boldly filled such emptiness with incredible meaning. “Maria,” on the other hand, offers little more than pathos and poses.
Movie Reviews
‘Filipiñana’ Review: Rafael Manuel’s Riveting Feature Debut Knows Where the Bodies Are Buried
Both everything and nothing happens in “Filipiñana,” the cutting, confident, and ultimately formally captivating feature debut from writer-director Rafael Manuel. The everything in question is the way structures of power are both maintained and reintrenched at a golf and country club outside Manila, Philippines, that serves as a synecdoche for the country itself. The nothing is the way everyone else just keeps going through the motions despite the continual sense that something is profoundly out of balance.
One feeds the other as collective inaction allows for the inertia of a quietly sinister status quo to continue unrestrained in each beautiful yet haunting visual the film brings to life. This ensures that when action against this status quo is taken, no matter how small it may be, the ripple effects shake you out of the reverie in which it seems most of the other characters remain trapped.
Playing out almost as one grim extended fever dream over the course of a single stiflingly hot day, the film accompanies the 17-year-old girl Isabel (Jorrybell Agoto) on a seemingly insignificant journey to return a golf club. She’s meant to give it to the president of the club where she works, but her journey takes on a far more slippery significance just as she realizes she can’t continue down the same path she has been on until now.
There are some other characters making their way through the purgatory-esque golf course, such as a rich industrialist and his niece, who is returning from America, as well as Isabel’s fellow workers who serve as effective contrasts to the absurdly wealthy club members. They all embody the contradictions and cruelties of their little world, with the visiting young expat proving to be most critical to revealing how easily supposed values can be compromised on. However, the film primarily hinges on the actions of Isabel as she begins to subtly disrupt the natural order of the club.
She’s a character of few words whose actions are no less critical as she increasingly takes more and more quietly radical action. She seems driven by an unspoken yet powerful desire for something more for herself than merely setting up the tees for wealthy men. There is a grounding, deeply emotional care to how Manuel observes Isabel as she attempts to make sense of what exactly is going on in her world and how she can make it a better one.
Beautifully shot by cinematographer Xenia Patricia, who also worked on last year’s spectacular “Zodiac Killer Project,” “Filipiñana” frequently consists of largely static tableaus that are so perfectly, poetically rendered that they almost resemble paintings. Be it when a figure is standing alone in the tall grass looking down at the world with a slightly tormented expression, or the fantastic final shot that lingers for several unbroken minutes, Manuel takes his time in letting everything unfold before you. Life moves at a different, more intentionally laborious pace in his film just as the specter of death seems to increasingly be lurking just out of frame.
Though the film has drawn comparisons to Michael Haneke and David Lynch, Manuel also cites the late, great Jacques Tati, and it’d be easy to make the case for “Filipiñana” as the more reserved, mirror image of Tati’s classic “Playtime” in how it holds the rhythms of modern life up to the light. One other comparison that felt most relevant was the sublime recent “Universal Language,” both in the similarly wonderful way it was shot and in how it shifted into being a reflection on home and memory in his final act.
“Filipiñana” ends up being much more about displacement where the ongoing yet unseen violence has become just another part of the operations of the club. In one unexpectedly affecting monologue near the end, it makes explicit that the workers keeping things moving at the club are those who have been removed from their lives and histories. Just like the uprooted pine trees that keep getting brought in after the one before them died, life seems perpetually out of reach in this place.
It’s all part of the artificiality of the club that makes it feel like a simulacrum of life. We only begin to see reality for ourselves closer to the end, with Manuel pointedly holding us at a distance just as Isabel begins to get closer to seeing the cracks forming in this faux, oddly frightening world. That she is not always certain about what exactly is amiss only makes it that much more disquieting.

The way this unfolds will likely test the patience of those not accustomed to what can be broadly called “slow cinema,” but it was on a second watch that I found myself utterly and completely riveted by the deliberate, devastating way “Filipiñana” unfolded. It’s a film of restrained, yet no less shattering, unease that, for all the artificial beauty that exists in the club, also invites you to look closer and ponder what ugliness lies beneath that all have grown accustomed to.
It holds a potent, petrifying and poetic power that culminates in a breaking of the poisonous spell that, until this moment, had held the entire film in its grasp. In these flooring final moments, it movingly ponders what it means to take a leap of courage and swim upstream against the casually cruel waters everyone else is swimming in. Everything and nothing has changed in the world of the film, though it remains a work of art that may change those watching it just as Isabel herself does in the end.
Check out all our Sundance coverage here
Entertainment
Bruce Springsteen’s anti-ICE protest song decries Minneapolis killings and ‘King Trump’
Bruce Springsteen released a new protest song Wednesday condemning “King Trump” and the violence perpetrated by his “federal thugs” — referring to immigration officers — in Minnesota.
“I wrote this song on Saturday, recorded it yesterday and released it to you today in response to the state terror being visited on the city of Minneapolis,” Springsteen wrote on his social media platforms, sharing his new song, “Streets of Minneapolis.” “It’s dedicated to the people of Minneapolis, our innocent immigrant neighbors and in memory of Alex Pretti and Renee Good.”
Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, was shot multiple times and killed by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer during an immigration raid on Jan. 7. Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse at a VA hospital who had protested President Trump’s immigration crackdown and Good’s killing, was shot and killed by ICE agents on Jan. 24.
Both Minnesotans are memorialized by name in Springsteen’s new rock song, which describes the immigration crackdowns and the protests by those who live there. His scathing lyrics also denounce Trump advisor Stephen Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem for their statements following the killings, which were contradicted by eyewitness accounts and video.
“Their claim was self-defense, sir / Just don’t believe your eyes,” Springsteen sings with his familiar rasp. “It’s our blood and bones / And these whistles and phones / Against Miller and Noem’s dirty lies.”
Both Miller and Noem justified the shootings in the immediate aftermath. Miller called Pretti “a would-be assassin,” and Noem accused Good of committing “an act of domestic terrorism.” Videos later surfaced contradicting their statements.
Springsteen, who has long been an outspoken critic of President Trump, also calls out immigration officials for their racism and for claiming “they’re here to uphold the law” yet “trample on our rights” in his new song.
In a statement to the New York Times, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said that “the Trump administration is focused on encouraging state and local Democrats to work with federal law enforcement officers on removing dangerous criminal illegal aliens from their communities — not random songs with irrelevant opinions and inaccurate information.”
Multiple celebrities, including Olivia Rodrigo, Pedro Pascal, Billie Eilish and Hannah Einbinder, have also spoken out against ICE and the immigration crackdowns in Minneapolis.
Movie Reviews
Is This Thing On? review – funny is as funny does in Bradley Cooper’s John Bishop-inspired tale
Comic actor Will Arnett finally gets a straight dramatic role and he’s playing … a comedian. Well, a would-be comedian. But he’s not an outrageously awful or failing one; the point of this film is not the delicious ironic cringe of delusional loserdom, as it is with Arnett’s small-screen roles such as the hopeless magician Gob Bluth in Arrested Development, or the washed-up equine star in the animation BoJack Horseman, or even his scheming figure skater Stranz Van Waldenberg in the movie Blades of Glory.
Arnett plays Alex, a regular guy with a regular job, married with two young kids but unhappily heading for divorce. He discovers standup comedy by performing in an open mic slot one night on a weed-fuelled whim, and finds that audiences love his unfunny but sweetly honest confessional ramblings. And then he kind of improves – but are we supposed to think by the end that he is, in fact, genuinely funny? It’s not entirely clear. And the film, though likable and spirited and nicely acted, isn’t completely convincing on its own terms. It is, after all, intended to be funny on its own account.
Are we required to believe, for example, that Alex is talented at and committed to comedy in the way his wife Tess (Laura Dern) is supposed to have a vocation for coaching volleyball? Or is standup just a cathartic, meaningful episode through which he might pass before returning to his day-job in finance, with which he might honourably support his children but which is never shown and which apparently never supplies any material?
This is a kind of remarriage comedy, directed and co-written by Bradley Cooper who also appears, interestingly awarding himself a classic Arnett-type role: an annoying and grinningly conceited unemployed actor called Balls (is that a first name? Surname? Nickname?).
The film was inspired by an autobiographical anecdote by the British comic John Bishop, who says he semi-accidentally stumbled into comedy one night in the midst of divorce depression. Of course, that anecdote could be like the stories told by tough-guy actors about how they didn’t mean to get into acting, they just went along with their mate to the audition. But in this business it doesn’t have to be 100% true – just entertaining.
It is clear that Alex and Tess’s marriage is dying. It is a slow, agonising implosion due to Tess’s discontent at having given up her thriving sports career to be a stay-at-home mom to the two kids they had via IVF, and Alex’s lack of support for her incipient depression. Their married friend group are not especially helpful: Stephen and Geoffrey (played by real-life marrieds Sean Hayes and Scott Icenogle) are secure but the appallingly immature Balls and his smart, sharp-tongued wife Christine (Andra Day) have difficulties of their own.
What all these people have in common is that they can’t really help Alex. Like a standup comic who semi-ironically suspects his microphone isn’t working, lonely Alex feels he isn’t being heard. But then he chances upon a comedy club and, to get in without paying the $15 cover charge, impulsively signs up to do five minutes. Finally, he winds up performing regular gigs without telling his wife, cheating on her with comedy itself, and doing material about their grisly sex life. Tess’s discovery of all this is spectacularly embarrassing.
And her reaction? Well, it’s not really believable, but Dern and Arnett are such good performers and work so sympathetically together that it comes off perfectly well in the moment. What might have been more plausible is that Alex, so far from being inspired by comedy to renew his relationship, sees the comedy value in its uproarious breakdown and creates more and more real-life opportunities to generate material, and Tess senses that she is becoming the butt of a joke of whose existence she has not yet uncovered.
Arnett has such a gentle face: handsome yet sensitive and wounded, the kind of face that you want to stroke sympathetically. He’s a good actor, and never anything other than committed, and it’s a relief in some ways to see a drama about comedians who aren’t supposed to be dark or malign. But I’d like to see a film about a comedian who, like Bishop, really does flower into being funny.
-
Illinois1 week agoIllinois school closings tomorrow: How to check if your school is closed due to extreme cold
-
Pennsylvania4 days agoRare ‘avalanche’ blocks Pennsylvania road during major snowstorm
-
Sports1 week agoMiami star throws punch at Indiana player after national championship loss
-
Science1 week agoContributor: New food pyramid is a recipe for health disasters
-
Technology1 week agoRing claims it’s not giving ICE access to its cameras
-
Science1 week agoFed up with perimenopause or menopause? The We Do Not Care Club is here for you
-
Movie Reviews1 week ago
Movie Review: In ‘Mercy,’ Chris Pratt is on trial with an artificial intelligence judge
-
Politics1 week agoSupreme Court appears ready to keep Lisa Cook on Federal Reserve board despite Trump efforts to fire her