Connect with us

Movie Reviews

‘Maria’ Review: Angelina Jolie’s Maria Callas Suffers at a Chilly Distance in Pablo Larraín’s Biopic

Published

on

‘Maria’ Review: Angelina Jolie’s Maria Callas Suffers at a Chilly Distance in Pablo Larraín’s Biopic

In Jackie and Spencer, Pablo Larraín removed any trace of starch from the historical bio-drama to examine, with penetrating intimacy, famous women in moments of extreme emotional distress played out in the glare of a global spotlight. Intimacy is the key factor lacking in the third part of the gifted Chilean director’s unofficial trilogy, Maria. Starring Angelina Jolie as revered operatic soprano Maria Callas over the final week of her life in Paris, the movie is like a glittering jewel in a glass showcase, inviting you to look but not touch.

That doesn’t mean it’s uninvolving or that Jolie’s technically precise interpretation isn’t impressive. But there’s a meta collision between a star whose celebrity has long eclipsed her acting achievements, making it all but impossible for her to disappear into a character, and a subject who constructed an imperious persona for herself, performing even when she wasn’t on a stage.

Maria

The Bottom Line

Sings but misses the high notes.

Advertisement

Venue: Venice Film Festival (Competition)
Cast: Angelina Jolie, Pierfrancesco Favino, Alba Rohrwacher, Valeria Golino, Haluk Bilginer, Stephen Ashfield, Valeria Golino, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Vincent Macaigne, Lydia Koniordou, Aggelina Papadopoulou
Director: Pablo Larraín
Screenwriter: Steven Knight

2 hours 3 minutes

Doubling down on icons brings a lot of weight for a role to bear. It results less in a kinship between actor and character than a twofold remove — an exercise in character study, a tad glacial and distancing, rather than a flesh-and-blood portrait.

The movie is beautifully crafted, of course, graced with sumptuous visuals from the great Ed Lachman. The cinematographer captures the City of Light in 1977 in soft autumnal shades highly evocative of the period and shifts into black-and-white or grainy color stock for Callas’ many retreats into memory. Lachman, who was Oscar-nominated for his breathtaking chiaroscuro work on Larraín’s last feature, El Conde, shot Maria using a textured mix of 35mm, 16mm and Super 8mm, along with vintage lenses.

Advertisement

The DP’s outstanding work enhances the refined contributions of production designer Guy Hendrix Dyas and costume designer Massimo Cantini Parrini. The latter’s stunning gowns include chic ensembles worn at public occasions and exquisite costumes for Callas’ famed stage roles, some of which the singer is seen burning as she separates herself from the past.

“I’m in the mood for adulation,” Callas tells a Paris waiter when he suggests she might be more comfortable inside than at an outdoor café table. “I come to restaurants to be adored.”

Larraín and screenwriter Steven Knight, who previously penned Spencer, comply to a degree. Their film is an act of mournful worship for a diva who seems almost too arch, too cloaked in affectation to read as a vulnerable human being — even as her body is shutting down and she’s racked with insecurities about her voice while planning to sing again, more than four years after she last performed. Often, it feels like the filmmakers are scrutinizing Callas with the disorienting effect of a magnifying glass.

The balance doesn’t seem quite right when you feel more for the loyal household staff who love and protect her than you do for the woman lying dead on the carpet by the grand piano. That image opens the movie, preceded only by a slow pan around Callas’ stately apartment.

Knight employs the pedestrian framing device of an interview, with a TV arts reporter and cameraman coming to Maria’s home. The journalist’s name, Mandrax (Kodi Smit-McPhee in a thankless role), is a tipoff that he’s a product of Maria’s mind given that it’s also the name of the medication on which she’s most dependent — more commonly sold as Quaaludes in the U.S.

Advertisement

In what seems a ritual maintained for some time, Maria’s hyper-vigilant butler, Ferruccio (Pierfrancesco Favino), removes the pills from her dressing table and later from the handbags and coat pockets where she has stashed handfuls of them around the room. She has also stopped eating for days at a time, feeding meals prepared by her housekeeper Bruna (Alba Rohrwacher) to her poodles.

She becomes peevish about the dire warnings of her medic, Dr. Fointainebleau (Vincent Macaigne), that her heart and liver are completely shot and that the stress of attempting to perform plus the meds she would need to get through it risk killing her.

The dominant thread becomes not that grim final week, punctuated by abortive rehearsals with a gently coaxing accompanist (Stephen Ashfield), but the singer’s mental forays into her past, from her unhappy childhood with an exploitative mother (Lydia Koniordou) through her love affair with Aristotle Onassis (Haluk Bilginer), whose aggressive charms instantly shoved her husband to the sidelines. Since the Greek shipping magnate eventually left her for Jackie Kennedy, there’s a satisfying full-circle completion with the subject of Larraín’s first film in the trilogy. But don’t expect a cameo from Jackie star Natalie Portman.

Maria’s memories are additionally crowded with her triumphs in the world’s most prestigious opera houses — Covent Garden, The Met, La Scala — flooding the movie with glorious music. The naked emotionality and piercing tragedy of the immortal operatic heroines is a poignant fit for Callas’ end-of-life story and a useful counterpoint to her studied poise and aloofness in this interpretation. The power of work by Verdi, Puccini, Bellini, Donizetti, Catalani and Cherubini goes a long way toward delivering the pathos that often seems muted by Larraín’s approach.

Passages from some of the most celebrated classical operas effectively supplant the role of a score. The soul-stirring choice of musical bookends for the film starts with Desdemona’s supplicant prayer, “Ave Maria,” from Otello, and closes with “Vissi d’Arte” from Tosca, in which a woman who lived for art and love feels abandoned by God. Opera enthusiasts will find much here to savor when the movie drops on Netflix at a date to be determined.

Advertisement

Commendably, Jolie undertook more than six months of rigorous vocal training for the part, also working on breathing and posture alongside specifics like accent. The singing we hear in Maria is a synthesized mix of star and subject. Arias from her prime are predominantly Callas recordings, but her voice in the 1977 scenes, older and rustier after years of vocal strain and a long absence from the stage, blends in a significant amount of Jolie. Neither lip-syncing nor karaoke, it’s a more intricate hybrid.

A number of striking moments use music to show memory and fantasy bleeding into Callas’ diminishing hold on reality. For instance, Maria strolling through the city with the Eiffel Tower in the background, in her mind marshaling a crowd of everyday Parisians singing the “Anvil Chorus” from Il Trovatore; or a full orchestra on the steps of one of the French capital’s grand historic buildings, playing in the rain while a throng of costumed geishas perform the “Humming Chorus” from Madama Butterfly. That ineffably moving passage of music, representing Butterfly’s calm vigil as she waits for Pinkerton’s return, adds emotional heft to the tragedy looming in Maria’s life.

Conflict surfaces when a music reporter for Le Figaro pulls a dirty trick and then confronts Maria outside the rehearsal auditorium with the view that her voice is irreparably ragged. But Knight’s script doesn’t capitalize on this as a moment of self-reckoning, instead limiting the scene to a distressing invasion of privacy.

The movie aims to depict a celebrated woman, whose life has been as much about sacrifice as reward, seeking to take control, to look back and see the truth as death approaches. But its moments of illumination are hazy. There’s little that comes close to the compassion and insight Larraín brought to his portraits of Jackie Kennedy and Princess Diana, even though it’s very much of a piece with those movies.

The tenderness of a scene in which Maria’s sister (Valeria Golino) urges her to put her troubled childhood behind her (“Close the door, little sister”) inadvertently points up how few opportunities we are given to get on comparably intimate terms with the protagonist.

Advertisement

In fact, the most heartbreaking moment for me came at the end, when the film returns to the day of Callas’ death from a heart attack, aged just 53. A high-pitched shriek that at first sounds like some strangled note from an aria is revealed to have come from one of her poodles, the dog’s cry of anguish becoming a loud expression of the hushed sorrow shown by Ferruccio and Bruna (Favino and Rohrwacher are both wonderful) as they reach for each other’s hand for comfort.

Still, Maria is a far more daring and unconventional take on the final chapter of the legendary soprano’s life than Franco Zeffirelli’s boilerplate 2002 biopic, Callas Forever, starring Fanny Ardant. And Larraín’s film becomes retroactively more affecting when the lovely archival images of Callas over the end credits, full of vitality at the peak of her career, widen the perspective on her sad, accelerated decline.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice: Tim Burton revives his fantasy comedy

Published

on

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice: Tim Burton revives his fantasy comedy

Lydia, a psychic mediator with her own ghost-hunting TV show, must return to Winter River to bury him. The quaint town where she grew up, it’s also the place where she encountered Michael Keaton’s afterlife spook Beetlejuice as a teenager.

Now she senses the quip-heavy ghoul is back and out to cause trouble. Joining her in Winter River is her oily manager-boyfriend Rory (Justin Theroux), her distraught mother (Catherine O’Hara) and her daughter Astrid (Jenna Ortega), a grouchy teen who refuses to believe in ghosts.

Meanwhile, Beetlejuice is terrified: his vampish, soul-sucking ex-wife Delores (Monica Bellucci, excellent) is on the warpath, having stapled her dismembered body parts back together.

With Halloween approaching, Beetlejuice is desperate to cross over into the real world – although the rules dictate that for that to happen, someone must say his name three times. The film doesn’t truly get going until he appears and Burton whisks us into the colourful afterlife.

Monica Bellucci in a still from Beetlejuice Beetlejuice. Photo: Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

There we will even encounter Charles, or at least the bottom half of him, fresh from his shark attack (presumably Burton is alluding to the fact that Jeffrey Jones, who played the role in the original, is persona non grata in Hollywood after being charged with soliciting a minor to pose for nude photographs back in 2003).

Advertisement

Led by an enthusiastic Keaton, who slips effortlessly back into his character’s dusty black-and-white striped suit, Beetlejuice Beetlejuice is more a film of moments than a coherent whole.

There is some lovely animation, giant Sandworms no less, integrated into the action, although it is not that clear why. There is a funky, 1970s-style Soul Train that takes people to the Great Beyond. And there is a whole lot of lip-synching going on, including “MacArthur Park”, the song made famous by Richard Harris.

(From left) Catherine O’ Hara, Jenna Ortega, Winona Ryder and Justin Theroux in a still from Beetlejuice Beetlejuice. Photo: Parisa Taghizadeh/Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc.

It’s all a bit of a grab bag, with a plot nearly derailed by duff characters (like Willem Dafoe’s undead actor-detective) and pointless plot lines (Delores’ pursuit of Beetlejuice amounts to very little).

Still, Burton, who hasn’t made a feature film since 2019’s live-action Dumbo, feels like he is excited to be back on familiar terrain. While there is fun to be had, this ghoulish frolic is likely to have evaporated from your memory the moment you step out into the sunshine.
Want more articles like this? Follow SCMP Film on Facebook
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Saripodhaa Sanivaaram Movie Review Rating

Published

on

Saripodhaa Sanivaaram Movie Review Rating

Saripodhaa Sanivaaram Movie Review

Telugu360 Rating: 3/5

Story:

As a teenager, Surya (Nani) was known for his violent reactions to injustice. Before she passed away, he promised his dying mother that he would control his anger, allowing himself to explode only one day a week—on Saturdays. Dayanand (SJ Surya) is a notorious CI in the city, and Koormanand (Murali Sharma) is his brother. Surya, disturbed by Dayanand’s atrocities, decides to take him on. Meanwhile, Surya’s childhood love Charulatha ( Priyanka Mohan) and Dayanand’s brother enter the story. The ensuing tangle between Surya, Dayanand, and Koormanand forms an intriguing triangular race.

Analysis:

Vivek Athreya, known for directing class films like Mental Madhilo, Brochevarevarura, and Ante Sundaraniki, has made his mass film debut with Saripodhaa Sanivaaram. Nani, typically known for his family-oriented roles, stars as the lead. The collaboration of these two filmmakers, both rooted in family-oriented cinema, has created unique expectations for this out-and-out mass entertainer. Nani’s introductory scenes are well-executed, though the pacing slows a bit before the antagonist, Dayanand, enters to pick up the momentum. Up until the interval, the film remains a decent watch. The post-interval block, lasting about 45 minutes, is racy and smart. However, the pre-climax episodes drag a bit, though the film wraps up on a satisfactory note with a strong climax.

Notably, the makers avoided including unnecessary songs, item numbers, or romantic tracks. There is only one montage song . The film is a 160-minute action drama without any duets.

Advertisement

Vivek Athreya cleverly used Murali Sharma’s habit of misjudgment to both entertain the audience and drive the story forward. The chapter titles representing key script elements— “Introduction,” “Twist,” “Conflict,” “Interval,” “Post Interval,” and “Ending” – add an interesting layer to the narrative.  His wit cannot go unnoticed in certain scenes.

The casting is one of the film’s highlights, with everyone excelling in their roles. Nani, SJ Surya, Murali Sharma, Saikumar, and Priyanka Mohan all appear comfortable and seem to have thoroughly enjoyed performing in the key scenes. S.J. Surya might have received a bit more screen time.

Jakes Bejoy background score is trendy.  Murali’s photography is Good.

On the downside, the film has a few dull moments in the first half, some predictable elements, and could benefit from trimming about 15 minutes, especially around the pre-climax.

Positives:

Advertisement
  • Unique storyline
  • Nani’s mass avatar and strong performance
  • SJ Surya’s outstanding performance
  • Vivek’s direction and clever screenplay
  • Impressive background score
  • Well-developed key characters

Negatives:

  • Lengthy runtime
  • First half has predictable scenes
  • Flat narration in the first half and drag in pre-climax
  • Sokulapalem sequences

Verdict:

‘Saripodaa Sanivaram’ is an action film but not your typical one..It has an average first half but a gripping second half with a unique storyline. Nani and SJ Surya shine with standout performances in this face-off themed film. Vivek Athreya delivers a smart screenplay with adequate wit and action,though the film suffers from a lengthy runtime that occasionally results in flat storytelling.  Overall, it’s a watchable action drama. Give it a try !

Telugu360 Rating: 3/5

 

Director:Vivek Athreya
Cinematography: Murali G.
Music: Jakes Bejoy
Producer:D. V. V. Danayya
Production:DVV Entertainment

Telugu360 is always open for the best and bright journalists. If you are interested in full-time or freelance, email us at Krishna@telugu360.com.

Advertisement

Summary

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

1992 movie review & film summary (2024) | Roger Ebert

Published

on

1992 movie review & film summary (2024) | Roger Ebert

Count “1992” as one of those films with its heart in the right place but its execution in the wrong space. Set on April 29, 1992, the day of the Rodney King verdict, this is a surprisingly uncomplicated film, one that attempts to balance its heist-thriller elements with its combustible racial milieu. It features Tyrese Gibson as a single father named Mercer, working to protect his teenage son Antoine (Christopher Ammanuel) from the surrounding violence only to upset an ensuing robbery led by Lowell (the late Ray Liotta) and his crew. There are shootouts, a car chase, some heroics and some hard life lessons—but this film isn’t breaking new ground on either the action or socio-political front.   

Director Ariel Vromen’s “1992” often plays like a significantly lesser mishmash of Kathryn Bigelow’s “Detroit” and John Carpenter’s “Assault on Precinct 13.” It poses a one-night structure that puts to test the resolve of its Black protagonist to simply survive the night whether through brunt force or through pained civility. And while certain thrills can be had from its nuts and bolts construction, you’re left wanting this film to lessen its well-worn genre elements in deference to the difficult father-son dynamics it initially sells.   

Those dynamics, in an on-the-nose script written by Vromen and Sascha Penn, come in two forms. The first arises between Mercer and Antoine. The former was recently released from prison six months ago, and now he’s working on not going back by staying away from the gang he once ran with and by plying his trade as a maintenance worker in a plant. Mercer, of course, doesn’t want Antoine to follow in his footsteps. So he has the teen, despite Antoine’s charge that he’s being locked in a proverbial cage by his dad, to return directly home from school. The film’s other strained father-son relationship is Riggin Bigby (Scott Eastwood) and his father Lowell. It’s Riggin who thinks up a get-rich-quick scheme, proposing that Lowell’s gang rob Mercer’s plant where there happens to be $10 million worth of platinum—with the uprising associated with the Rodney King verdict providing the perfect cover for their plan. 

Of the two threads, it’s clear that Mercer and Antoine have a far more potent relationship. Through their eyes we are transported back to the hood films of the 1990s, where the potential for danger seems to rise higher around every corner. It’s here Mercer is still a local legend for his violent ways. In the film’s first half, Gibson remains stoic, as though he is afraid that any show of emotion will lead to trouble. The same could be said of his hunched posture, the way his body is swallowed up by the oversized jumpsuit he wears to work. This is a man attempting to change himself from the inside out. When Mercer’s acquiescence is thrown against Antoine’s fervent desire for revenge following the verdict, an enthralling explosiveness develops between the two. Unfortunately that energy is often undone by the film’s frank dialogue and blunt scenarios, such as a police barricaded roadblock that nearly goes wrong. 

That father-son relationship only leaves the other more wanting. We know that Riggin is tired of working for his dad and his band of petty criminals. He also wants to take his younger, sensitive brother away from Lowell. Beyond that the writing just sorta stops. There are very few scenes between Liotta and Eastwood, which admittedly, might have been out of Vromen’s hands. We’re not sure why Riggin hates Lowell and vise-versa. Nor do we get a sense of Lowell. Liotta is delivering his lines with confidence, but they don’t string together into a complete character. He is merely violent and heartless, and not much else. 

Advertisement

Fascinatingly, these two families do not immediately meet. In fact, Lowell and his crew are halfway done with their robbery, over halfway through the film, before Antoine and Mercer stumble onto their criminality. The film then becomes a fight for survival as Mercer and Antoine attempt to avoid Lowell’s wrath. Though the majority of the action happens in these scenes, the film, mysteriously, appears to slow down. There is no suspense to Mercer brawling with Lowell’s men. Maybe that’s because it’s all been thrown together at the last minute, casting away the pleasures of seeing rivalries and vendettas that have naturally been developed over the course of the picture? Or maybe it’s because the shooting of these sequences is fairly rudimentary?

In any case, “1992” doesn’t wear its genre elements well. It can also struggle in the edit too, such as the clumsy integration of archival footage from the Los Angeles uprising. Vromen can’t decide whether to show us those images via the television, whose broadcasts of the news often occupy the back of the composition or to show it as a documentary. The score also feels mismatched, opting for syncopated jazz music in a film that plays as far too sweaty and far too grimy for such precise percussion. 

And yet, it’s difficult to wholly disavow this film. There is an albeit obvious tension in two Black men avoiding these white criminals while in the film’s outer world white folks are steering clear of Black protestors. There is also a palpable anger felt by Mercer and Antoine that the film understands. And Liotta, in his final completed film, is a plus presence. You just wish all of those elements came together in a movie that had the ability to lean on its human components and find drama in their relationships rather than pushing them aside for lackluster set pieces in a conventional social picture.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending