Reviews written by registered user
|312 reviews in total|
Julie Christie's combination of talent, beauty and brains has
enthralled me over four decades. Nearly a decade ago, her Oscar
nominated performance in "Afterglow" established that she was not a
spent force while playing a gracefully aging wife of a handyman in the
US. One thought that would be her best turn at geriatric
Less than a decade later, Christie comes up with an even better performance of a woman coping with Alzheimer's disease in a debut directorial effort "Away from Her" of Canadian actress Sarah Polley. I saw the film today at the ongoing International Film Festival of Kerala, India, where Ms Christie, serving on the jury for the competition section, introduced her film thus: "It is immaterial whether you are rich or poor--we cannot predict what can happen to us. Enjoy the film with this thought." Ms Christie probably put in her best effort because the young director considers Ms Christie to be her "adoptive" mother, having worked together on three significant movie projects in five years. The film's subject brings memories of two similar films: Pierre Granier-Deferre' film "Le Chat" that won a Silver Bear at the Berlin Film Festival for both Jean Gabin and Simone Signoret in 1971 and Paul Mazursky's "Harry and Tonto" which won an Oscar for the lead actor Art Carney in 1974. This performance of Julie Christie ranks alongside those winners.
Today geriatric care is a growing problem. This film is a sensitive look at parting of married couples when one of them needs institutional care. Ms Polley's choice of the actor Gordon Pinsent is an intelligent one as the film relies on his narration and Mr Pinsent's deep voice provides the right measure of gravitas. Olympia Dukakis is another fine actor playing a lady who has "quit quitting". So is Michael Murphy doing a lengthy role without saying a word.
The strengths of the film are the subject, the direction, the performances and the seamless editing by the director's spouse. It is not a film that will attract young audiences who are insensitive. Yet the film has a evocative scene where a young teenager with several parts of her body pierced by rings is totally amazed by the devotion of the aging husband for his wife. So in a way the film reaches out to different age groups. Though it talks about sex, it can be safe family viewing material.
Chances are that most viewers will love the film if they are interested in films that are different from "the American films that get shown in multiplexes" to quote a character in the film. More importantly this film advertises the problem of Alzheimer's disease eloquently and artistically. It prepares you for future shocks.
This is a major work of cinema. It might not be well known but this
film ranks with Fellini's "La Strada", De Sica's "The Bicycle Thief,"
or Mrinal Sen's "Oka Oori Katha" based on Premchand's story--"Coffin."
Why is it a major work? A UCLA graduate makes a film far removed from
Hollywood approaches to cinema in Iran during the Shah's regime. The
film was made 10 years before Shah quit Iran and was promptly banned.
It was smuggled out of Iran to be shown at the Venice Film Festival to
win an award, even without subtitles.
The film does not require subtitles. It's visual. It's simple. The story is set in a remote Iranian village, where owning a cow for subsistence is a sign of prosperity. The barren landscape (true of a large part of Iran) reminds you of Grigory Kozintsev's film landscapes as in "Korol Lir" (the Russian King Lear) where the landscape becomes a character of the story.
The sudden unnatural death of the cow unsettles the village. Hassan, the owner of the cow, who nursed it as his own child, is away and would be shocked on his return. Eslam, the smartest among the villagers, devise a plan to bury the cow and not tell the poor man the truth. Hassan returns home and is soon so shocked that he loses his senses. He first imagines that the cow is still there and ultimately his sickness deteriorates as he imagines himself to be the cow, eats hay, and says "Hassan" his master will protect him from marauding Bolouris (bandits from another village). Eslam realizes that Hassan needs medical attention and decides to take him to the nearest hospital. He is dragged out like a cow. "Hassan" is beaten as an animal as he is not cooperative to the shock of some humanistic villagers. The demented Hassan, with the force of an animal breaks free, to seek his only freedom from reality--death.
The film stuns you. Forget Iran, forget the cow. Replace the scenario with any person close to his earthly possessions and what happens when that person is suddenly deprived of them and you will get inside the characters as Fellini, De Sica or Sen demonstrated in their cinema.
Every frame of the film is carefully chosen. The realism afforded by the story will grip any sensitive viewer. There is a visually arresting use of a small window in the wall of the cowshed through which the villagers watch the goings on within the cowshed. The directors use of the window serves two purposes--it gives the villagers a perspective of the cowshed and the viewer a perspective of the cowshed watchers.
The film is also a great essay on the effects of hiding truth from society and the cascading fallouts of such actions.
But there is more. Director Mehrjui affords layers of meaning to his "simplistic" cinema. There is veiled criticism of blind aspects religious rituals (Shia Islam), a critical look of stupid villagers dealing with their village idiots, the jealous neighbors, the indifferent neighbors, the village thief--all elements of life around us, not limited to a village in Iran. The political layering is not merely limited to the poverty but the politics of hiding truth and the long term effect it has on society. Ironically, there are values among the poorest of the poor--the hide of a "poisoned?" animal cannot be sold!
I was lucky to catch up with the rare screening of this film at the on-going International Film Festival of Kerala, India, that devoted a retrospective section of early Iranian cinema.
This is a film that should make Iran proud. It is truly a gift to world cinema.
Director Krzyzstof Zanussi has made 75 distinguished films and is
possibly the third best filmmaker from Poland--next only to Wajda and
Kieslowski(the latter peaked towards the end of his career). I consider
"Persona non grata" to be Zanussi's second best effort--the first being
his German TV film "Wege in der Nacht" ("Ways in the night" or
"Nightwatch") made in 1979. Interestingly both films featured the
brilliant music of Wojciech Kilar, the actor Zbigniew Zapasiewicz, and
script of physicist turned philosophy student Krzyzstof Zanussi.
At the elementary level, the film is about diplomats and their lives. At a more complex level, Zanussi explores the relationship between Poland and post-Glasnost Russia and the denizens of both nations. At an even more complex level, Zanussi introduces the subtle differences between the orthodox Christians and Catholics--a facet that I suspect interested both Zanussi and the late Kieslowski, both close associates. There are more Catholics in Poland while Orthodox Christians dominate Russia. Zanussi differentiates the spirituality of the two in the rich verbal sparring that the film unfolds between a Polish and a Soviet diplomat. Finally, Zanussi teases the film viewer by leading the audience to suspend disbelief in the main character. For a long while, even an astute viewer is led astray. The viewer is reduced to the level of a "persona non grata" believing initially that the film is all about a diplomat about to lose his diplomatic powers at the embassy and become a "persona non grata." This is superb cinema, supported by Kilar's "music of the spheres." The film offers rich humor and at times a biblical sermon on a New Testament passage from 2 Corinthians 1:17 "Do I say yes, when I mean no." But taking the context of diplomacy, around which the film revolves, the discussion takes on a different hue. But the clever Zanussi throws light and shadows on the subjects in the film (the opening credits plays with light and shadows, too).
It is a story of love, suspicion, and principles--that go beyond mere individuals. It is a story of reconciliation. It is a film that a filmmaker can make in the evening of his career. It reminds you works like Kurosawa's "Dersu Uzala" or Ermanno Olmi's "Tree of Wooden Clogs." It is a work of maturity. Savor it like fine cognac!
Just as it is major work of Zanussi, I believe this to be a milestone for the music composer Kilar. Poland should be proud of Zanussi and Kilar.
The film is a veritable feast for an intelligent viewer. Great performances from three great Polish actors--Zbigniew Zapasiewicz (Zanussi's favorite), Jerzy Stuhr (Kieslowski's favorite), and Daniel Olbryschsky (Wajda's favorite) adorn the film but the most striking is the acting performance of Russian actor-director Nikita Mikhalkov, who can do a great turn as a restrained comic (for example his performance in his half-brother Mikhalkov Konchalovsky's "Siberiade").
But in this film a dog plays a major actor's role within a web of friendship and distrust. So does a torn photograph--Zanussi does not seem to believe that photographs can lie.
"Persona non grata" could easily have been named "Suspicion". The film is an ode to friendships--friends who remain loyal, friends who are not recognized as friends at best of times but are recognized as friends when tragedy strikes, and friends who dislike being insulted even by mistake. The film was screened during the on-going 11th International Film Festival of Kerala, India.
What this film proves is that Polish cinema is alive and well! It also proves Zanussi is back at his best form.
Louis Malle became an American citizen before he made this film in the
US. As an emigrant, he naturally finds it interesting to document the
views of first generation emigrants and the views of older generation
of emigrants on the newer generation. This film was shown as part of
the Malle retrospective at the ongoing 11th International Film Festival
of Kerala, India.
Malle needs to be complimented on truthful recordings even if the boom gets into the camera's vision at times. But his choice of individuals is suspect--Derek Walcott (an intellectual); a good, well-meaning US emigration official at the Mexico border (providing transparent propaganda footage); Latin American dictator General Somoza's kin; and a Cuban lady who teaches her pet dog English just as the hundreds of specialized schools in the US teach English to new emigrants earlier in the film. It makes you wonder if Malle has his tongue firmly in his cheek. If so, it is interesting. If not, the film is at best an average effort by a great filmmaker.
This documentary is an interesting look at the people who work on the
assembly lines of French automobile factories.
To the credit of cinematographer Etienne Becker and director Louis Malle, several details of the assembly line, the input of each worker, the body movements (lilt of a heel or the pouting of lips) are captured honestly and seemingly unobtrusively. To Malle's credit, the sound is limited to production sound--the workers seem to be mute. Voices invade the film once during the segment on the sale of the cars to customers at a car show.
Malle's film, screened as part of a Malle retrospective at the 11th International Film Festival of Kerala, is a veiled comment on automation and its effects on people. The film ends with a frozen shot of a woman worker absorbed in the life within the factory. The life outside seems to be deliberately snipped off--but we know it exists. Malle was probably stating that human beings are getting to be dehumanized and living the life of "an assembly line." That said, the film could have said the same things in a third of the total run-time. Compare Malle's film to Bert Hanstra's documentary on glass blowers called "Glas" (1958). Made 16 years before "Humain, trop humain", Bert Haanstra's work, which uses music, is far superior to this one on a somewhat similar subject.
Seeing the movie for the second time after a break of some twenty plus
years, I realized that I was watching a film that deserved more
attention than it has received over the decades. Apart from the fact
that it contains one of the finest lines in cinema "You know what woke
you up? You just had your throat cut!" most reviewers have logically
zoomed in on the obviousthe swaggering performance of Marlon Brando at
the peak of his career and an overshadowed but endearing performance of
Jack Nicholson. Yet the film belongs not to these two worthies but to
Arthur Penn, the director.
Penn seems to be constantly attracted by characters that are out of the ordinarythose who are constrained either physically or mentally ("The Miracle Worker," "The Chase" "The Little, Big Man," "Night Moves" etc.). He loves anti-heroes. In "The Missouri Breaks" there are three anti-heroesa rustler, a cross-dressing bounty hunter, and a gay rancher who reads "Tristam Shandy" but serves as judge and jury as he metes out death sentences to make his little world better to live in.
One would assume in a film studded with such unlikable characters that Penn would paint them black. Penn does the oppositehe manipulates the viewer to sympathize with the bad guys. Nicholson's horse rustler is smarthe knows the circumstances when a gun would have a bullet in it. He knows how to court a woman by brewing Chinese tea in the Wild West. Brando's bounty hunter is equally eruditehe carries a book on ornithology while horseback as he watches eagles seek its prey through binoculars, just as he follows desperadoes before he moves in to his kill. The ranch owner, with a gay lover on the ranch, is a good father and well read with 3500 works of English literature in his library. What a weird set of anti-heroes! One would have expected good women to balance the bad guys. The women of Penn have shades of gray"Missouri Breaks" is no exception. The leading lady seems to be fascinated by the bad guys and "demands" sex. Another rancher's wife has illicit sex with a guest.
The final sequence of two important characters leaving for different destinations after checking out where they would be 6 months hence leaves the viewer guessing of what would happen. Penn's films tend to end with a perspective of a detached outsider, making the characters quixotic and the end open to several viewpoints.
Brando was a treat to watchonly his "Quiemada" (Burn) appealed to me more among all his films. Interestingly, in both films Brando had problems with the director and took matters in his own hands.
The music and screenplay are in many ways a tribute to the rising fame of the spaghetti Western and therefore quite stunningalso because of the very interesting and intelligent use of sound editing. The opening fifteen minutes of the film underline this argument, although this is a Penn film and not a Sergio Leone film.
All in all this film is a major western as it has elements that never surfaced in most otherswomen who were not mere attractions, the effect of carbines on those shot by them, and of course the slow death by hanging, in contrast to the lovely countryside (stated by the leading lady). This western entertains in a way most others do not. (Exceptions are William Fraker's "Monte Walsh", "Will Penny," and Altman's "McCabe and Mrs. Miller"). Thank you, Mr. Penn and all those that contributed to making this deceptively interesting film so enjoyable.
This is a remarkable film. First, because it was made at least two
years before the "Gospel of Judas" was unearthed in Egypt a few years
ago and before the National Geographic scientifically authenticated
that the document was indeed written in 300 AD or earlier, by the
Gnostics and or the Orthodox Christians of Egypt. It is also well
established and historically accepted now that the Four Gospels of the
New Testament are not the only Gospels and that King Constantine
several centuries later ruled that all other Gospels other than the
four in the Bible are not acceptable because he sought the path of
least controversy for the propagation and consolidation of
What is remarkable about the film is its attempt to re-evaluate the known facts surrounding a chosen disciple of Christ-who evidently needed a Judas to betray him so that he would be crucified and thus die on the cross to leave his mortal body. Christ picked Judas; Judas did not pick Jesus. What is equally remarkable is that the film reiterates that Jesus was very close to Judas as the intellectual among the 12 apostles. He is dejected when the Keys of Heaven are given to Peter and not to him. Some of the apostles are equally surprised at Jesus' decision to bypass the apostle who was entrusted with the financial affairs of the peripatetic group.
Further, the deaths of Jesus and Judas are interlinked chronologically as the film suggests. I applaud the scriptwriters' and the directors' decision to include the shot in the film of three apostles (?) lifting the body of the dead Judas for burialwhich is in line with Christian ideology that God forgives those who repent.
Finally, if the true Christian believes Christ knew how he was going to be betrayed and by whom and even commanded Judas to go and do what he had to do, the independent decision-making capability of the greatest traitor in Christendom needs considerable reassessment. According to the "Gospel of Judas," Judas was told by Jesus that he would be reviled for ages and rehabilitated and venerated later. The film also suggests a linked promise made by Jesus to Judas before the betrayal of being with him after death. The film also suggests the reason for accepting the 30 pieces of silver was related to his mothers' buriala debatable detail never mentioned in the official Gospels.
The fact that the film was not released for 2 years after it was made shows the reluctance of the producers anticipating the reaction of Christians indoctrinated by the contents of the accepted gospels. I also noticed in the credits that the film was dedicated to a Christian priest.
Not only was the subject interesting but portrayal of Jesus and his disciples came very close to Pier Paolo Pasolini's film "Gospel According to St Mathew" (which received acceptance of the Catholic Church some five decades ago) both in spirit and in the obvious lack of theatrical emotions by the actors. Jonathan Scarfe's Jesus was different from the conventional but not a bad one by any count. Here was a portrayal of Jesus as a Man who spoke like any one of us and yet commanded respect. Unlike Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" that concentrates on the pain and suffering of Christ, this film reaches out intellectually to explore the politics of the day and the dynamics among the twelve apostles and Mary Magdalane. It offers food for thought. This film is strictly for those who can accept another point of view in Christianity than the accepted one. For them alone, this is recommended viewing. And for those who love the power of cinema.
It would be far too simplistic to feel that the film merely presents an
optimist's commitment to live and enjoy life in an imperfect world.
"Nights of Cabiria" has always intrigued me among the many Fellini
films that I have seen-it is great cinema that asks more questions
than it provides answers.
Question onewho is the altruist who provides alms in the night to the wretched of the earth? The only reason for the addition of this character seems to be that Fellini wants a contrasting figure who works in the nightone who gives sustenance to others in a commendable waya way Cabiria would have preferred to live her life if she had an option. It was amusing for me to find out that this entire sequence was deleted in earlier released versions of the film. My guess is that this sequence was an addition of screenplay writer Pasolini, as it would fit into his style of Christian Marxism, more than the neorealism of Fellini. Interestingly, this is one of the three males in the film (others being the actor who invites Cabiria home, and Brother Giovanni) who seem to have a pure heart and good intentionsall the others seem to have a predominant evil streak.
Question two-Brother Giovanni leaves a profound effect on Cabiria. Confessing to him (she thinks he is a full fledged priest) and having Mass celebrated by him was Cabiria's wish but the cold response she receives from Giovanni's colleague, who is apparently a full-fledged priest, seems to be Fellini's/Pasolini's comment on the Churchotherwise why have the scene?
Question three-Cabiria's eyebrows change their shape as she contemplates a married life. This is not in line with Fellini's Cabiria, who would think about the effect eyebrows will make as she switches gears in her personal life. Or is Fellini suggesting that as Cabiria steps on the threshold of marriage, the personality of Cabiria changes to a more calculating woman, in contract to the earlier simple, waif like personality.
Apart from questions such as these, it is unquestionably one of Fellini's finest films. I preferred "La Strada," another Fellini film with his wife Guilietta Massina in the lead role, and his later less talked about "Orchestra Rehearsal," made some 20 years later, in which social commentary takes center stage and storyline the backstage.
I am surprised that most Fellini viewers are taken up with performances and the story each Fellini film offers. The more poignant world of Fellini revolves around the commentary on the divide between the rich and the poor, the honest and the dishonest, the religious and the agnostic. The allure of Fellini to me remains his social commentary-he underlines this with Cabiria, in the final shot looking at you the viewer, bringing up the nexus between the character and the viewer. In fact, this final shot ought to wake up the sensibilities of the laid-back cinema viewer.
"It all depends on how you look at it we are either halfway to heaven
or halfway to hell," says the priest Rev. Harlan in "Northfork." The
Polish brothers' film is an ambitious one that will make any
intelligent viewer to sit up, provided he or she has patience and basic
knowledge of Christianity. The layers of entertainment the film provide
takes a viewer beyond the surreal and absurd imagery that is obvious to
a less obvious socio-political and theological commentary that ought to
provoke a laid-back American to reflect on current social values. The
film's adoption of the surreal (coffins that emerge from the depths of
man-made lakes to float and disturb the living, homesteaders who nearly
"crucify" their feet to wooden floor of their homes, angels who need
multiple glasses to read, etc.) and absurd images (of half animals,
half toys that are alive, of door bells that make most delicate of
musical outputs of a harp, a blind angel who keeps writing unreadable
tracts, etc.) could make a viewer unfamiliar with the surreal and
absurdist traditions in literature and the arts to wonder what the
movie is un-spooling as entertainment. Though European cinema has
better credentials in this field, Hollywood has indeed made such films
in the past in "Cat Ballou", Lee Marvin and his horse leaned against
the wall to take a nap, several decades ago. "Northfork," in one scene
of the citizens leaving the town in cars, seemed to pay homage to the
row of cars in "Citizen Kane" taking Kane and his wife out of Xanadu
for a picnic.
The film is difficult for the uninitiated or the impatient film-goerthe most interesting epilogue (one of the finest I can recall) can be heard as a voice over towards the end of the credits. The directors seem to leave the finest moments to those who can stay with film to the end. If you have the patience you will savor the layers of the filmif you gulp or swallow what the Polish bothers dish out, you will miss out on its many flavors.
What is the film all about? At the most obvious layer, a town is being vacated to make way for a dam and hydroelectric-project. Even cemeteries are being dug up so that the mortal remains of the dead can be moved to higher burial grounds. Real estate promoters are hawking the lakeside properties to 6 people who can evict the townsfolk. Of the 6, only one seems to have a conscience and therefore is able to order chicken broth soup, while others cannot get anything served to them.
At the next layer, you have Christianity and its interaction on the townsfolk. Most are devout Christians, but in many lurk the instinct to survive at the expense of true Christian principles, exemplified in the priest. Many want to adopt children without accepting the responsibilities associated with such actions.
At the next layer, you have the world of angels interacting with near angelic humans and with each other. You realize that the world of the unknown angel who keeps a comic book on Hercules and dreams of a mother, finds one in an androgynous angel called "Flower Hercules." While the filmmaker does give clues that Flower is an extension of the young angel's delirious imagination, subsequent actions of Flower belie this option. You are indeed in the world of angels--not gods but the pure in spiritand therefore not in the world of the living. The softer focus of the camera is in evidence in these shots.
At another layer the toy plane of Irwin becomes a real plane carrying him and his angels to heaven 1000 miles away from Norfolk.
The final layer is the social commentary"The country is divided into two types of people. Fords people and Chevy people." Is there a difference? They think they are different but both are consumerist.
To the religious, the film says "Pray and you shall receive" (words of Fr Harlan, quoted by Angel Flower Hercules). To the consumerist, the film says "its what we do with our wings that separate us" (each of the 6 evictors also have wings-one duck/goose feather tucked into their hat bands but their actions are different often far from angelic as suggested by the different reactions to a scratch on a car).
The film is certainly not the finest American film but it is definitely a notable path-breaking work--superb visuals, striking performances (especially Nick Nolte), and a loaded script offering several levels of entertainment for mature audiences.
Why did I like the film? I applaud any director making his or her
initial film who chooses to film a complex subject like Shakespeare's
least known tragedy, probably the mother of all his well- known tragic
plays "King Lear," "Othello," "Macbeth," "Hamlet," and "Julius Caesar"
that literature critics have dubbed a "problem play." It is true that
each of the later Shakespeare tragedies borrowed strands from "Titus
Andronicus." Shakespeare staging "Titus Andronicus" was in a way
similar to Julie Taymor's effort to film the play. Shakespeare wanted
to establish his name. Some even suggest that Shakespeare did not write
it but borrowed the source material. Yet no one can dispute that even
in Elizabethan times, the play went down well with audiences. And
Shakespeare went on to write and stage more plays. But for years the
play was a problem to put on stage and it is well-known that few
directors chose to stage or film it, due to its gory and dark contents.
I applaud Julie Taymor's decision to pick up the play to film. Titus, the play, is relevant today even more than it was in Elizabethan days. Titus is replayed almost each day in the Middle East, in Darfur, and till recently in former Yugoslavia, in Rwanda, and in Ireland. I am delighted that Taymor chose to rework the play mixing the past Roman glory with those of Mussolini's Italy, which underlines the relevance of the play todayirrespective of whether the conquering heroes ride horses or Rolls Royces.
I congratulate Taymor's decision to create a modern "chorus" distilled in the personality of a young boy, who plays like an adult but is "shaken and stirred" by events outside, who seems to realize as the play unfolds the importance of forgiveness, tolerance and love for all. For the Greeks and even for Shakespeare, the chorus had to be old and blind (as in Macbeth) but for Taymor it's the young who have eyes to see the dawn after the dark night.
There are more facets to the film that make the film extraordinary. Jessica Lange's Tamora presents a range of emotionscrying for pity, yelling for revenge, smiling to seduce and aroused by a kiss of her mortal foe Titus. The short kiss of the aging Titus and Tamora is a highlight of the film, the kiss between conqueror and former slave, a kiss between a queen and a demented subjectall highlighted by the facial expression of Ms Lange choreographed by Taymor. This brief shot cries for our attention, as throughout the film (and play) Titus seems to be celibate. (There is no mention of Titus's wife or lover). I thought Taymor brought out the best in Ms Lange, even exceeding her range of emotion in "Frances." While Anthony Hopkins might not have enjoyed making this film, Taymor brought out his finest performance to date here in this film. It was almost like watching a mellow Richard Burton rendering the lines of the Bard. Taymor and cinematographer Luciano Tavoli, who is often arresting, is able to get a shot of Titus crying on the stony paths, with his face and eyes inches from the stones, signifying the lowest of the low the character has been hewn down to the terra firma.
A third commanding performance was that of Alan Cumming as Saturinus, second only to his mesmerizing role in "Eyes Wide Shut" as a gay front office clerk. If you reflect on the film, the casting was superb.
The only flaw in the "absurdist" treatment was the introduction of the Royal Bengal tigerwhich could have been replaced by a leopard or a lioness. This I thought was taking the theater of the "absurd" too far. Perhaps Taymor wanted to glamorize Tamara to be more attractive as the tiger than any other great cat. That was one decision I thought did not work well in the movie.
The film's strengths are not restricted to the screenplay, the direction and acting. The film grips you with the music and choreographed title sequence and the overall production design. You want more. You get more, if the viewer is able to think while watching the film and think laterally. This is not "Gladiator" or "Spartacus." It challenges the senses, beyond the gore and sex. Why do people behave as they do? Is the bias of many of us limited to race and color? These are questions that Terence Mallick asked in "The Thin Red Line." To appreciate Taymor's "Titus" multiple viewings will help, preferably with a thinking cap. I rate this film as third best Shakespeare film ever madethe first two being the Russian black and white films "Korol Lir" (King Lear) and "Gamlet" (Hamlet) directed by Grigory Kozintsev, some 40 years ago.
Finally, like Orson Welles and Terrence Mallick, Julie Taymor appears to be little appreciated within the US but more lauded elsewhere. But that should not dampen the brilliance of this talented lady and her spouse the music composer Elliot Goldenthal.
|Page 6 of 32:||               |