VIDDY WELL HAS A NEW HOME

Dear readers,

Viddy Well will no longer be using Blogger.
You can now find us on the French website, Slate.fr, though we will continue writing both in English and French.
Here is our new address
http://blog.slate.fr/viddywell/
Hope you'll continue to read us :)
Viddy Well!
E.C & E.D

Note to the reader

Dear Viddy Well readers,

Please excuse the lack of posts for these past few days and for the few days to come. It's not that we are lazy... but the blog is going through some changes, which you will soon be able to see online!

Viddy Well,

E.C. and E.D.

Spotlight on photographer JASON BELL

Photography is truth. The cinema is truth twenty-four times per second.

- Jean-Luc Godard

I don’t know if we can take that as a truth universally acknowledged, Jean-Luc’s God being the art of cinema, but we would like to pay homage to the special bond that has always linked both arts together with a series of posts dedicated to photographers who have collaborated with actors and directors, thus contributing to their immortalization as movie stars. 

Spotlight on Jason Bell

British photographer Jason Bell graduated from Oxford in Politics, Philosophy and Economy and has, since then, worked with publications such as Vanity Fair, Vogue UK and Vogue US with series of portraits and fashion photographs. He is also the eye behind several film posters such as those of Billy Elliot, About a Boy and Love Actually.

His most recent work features pictures for Warner Bros with photographs of the cast of Tim Burton’s Dark Shadows, and of the cast of the British hit period drama Downton Abbey.

His photographs can be found at the National Portrait Gallery in London as part of the permanent collection. Among his published books we count Gold Rush (2000), Hats off (2002), Giveget (2004), and An Englishman in New York (2010).

Despite a lot of commercial shots, some are quite visually striking as open windows on the world of cinema. Here is a selection of 11 photographs presenting his work.

For more photographs of his work including landscapes, check out his website: www.jasonbellphoto.com

Viddy Well, 

E.D.

Kristin Scott Thomas

Kate Winslet

Scarlett Johansson

Eva Green - Dark Shadows for Warner Bros

Stephen Fry

Susan Sarandon

Kelly MacDonald

Ethan Hawke

John Malkovitch

John Malkovitch

The cast of Downton Abbey for Dec 2011 issue of Vanity Fair

This Week's News !!!

This week was filled with very very good news!

Jean Dujardin and Martin Scorsese (gasp)!
Our very own Jean Dujardin has been cast in Martin Scorsese's next pic, The Wolf of Wall Street. Dujardin will play a Swiss banker in the film which already stars Leonardo DiCaprio and Jonah Hill. This is certainly the most shocking (in an awesome way) news of the week.








Penelope Cruz is back!

And what a crazy return it is for the actress. Cruz was confirmed for Ridley Scott's The Counselor (thus making up for the weird choice of Cameron Diaz) AND will star in Pedro Almodovar's next film. Cruz is never better than when she acts in her own language so we are excited!

Arnaud Desplechin goes abroad
Benicio del Toro and Mathieu Amalric will star in the French director's next film, Jimmy Picard. Based on Psychotherapy of a Plains Indian by Georges Devereux, the film tells the story of a Native American and his friendship and long analysis with the French psychoanalyst.

 

Tarantino still chained to Django
You may have seen the trailer already, but it looks like Django Unchained is far from being done. Tarantino just added Jonah Hill to his already star-filled cast.

Rumor has it....
...that the cult TV show Bored to Death is getting the chance to come back as a 90 min film on HBO!

Lehane adapted, again.
This time, the author has adapted his own story for the screen. "Animal Rescue" is now a script and it looks like Neil Burger (Limitless) will be the one directing. I'm not sure if I like this, especially since Lehane's last book that was adapted was the magnificent Shutter Island turned into a masterpiece by Martin Scorsese.

In other news: Anton Yelchin has joined Jim Jarmusch's latest film, Only Lovers Left Alive. Ray Winstone will be Noah's enemy in Aronofsky's Noah.

Viddy Well!

E.C

THE MUSICAL POST - MY FAVOURITE THINGS

"When the dog bites, when the bee stings", I simply remember that Julie Andrews song in The Sound of Music, and then I don’t feel so bad. Because this grim weather has lasted far too long over the Parisian sky from under which where we are dropping these few lines, we thought a little musical tune might cheer you movie fans out there as well. 

This musical post is dedicated to two Oscar winners and prolific composers: Oscar Hammerstein II and Richard Rodgers. The lyrics for "My Favourite things" which first appeared in the 1965 musical were written by Oscar Hammerstein II. The music was composed by Richard Rodgers, to whom we owe more than 500 titles among which the soundtrack of L.A. Confidential. Both composers have since then worked together on many soundtracks including that of American Beauty, Moulin Rouge, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. 

And now the bummer version of the song, (because the weather forecast is not looking any better), by the self-proclaimed best director of all times: Lars Von Trier. His talent of turning anything joyful into the most depressing theme is remarkably rendered here in a scene from the very traumatizing musical drama Dancer in the Dark. 

Blind Björk is waiting in her cell for a dooming death sentence, the only comforting thing to her being the sound of music she hears through the wall...

Viddy Well, 

E.D.

GREAT GATSBY - Trailer review

When I first hit the Play button to watch the trailer of the new Baz Luhrmann film, I thought I had made some mistake and that I was in fact watching the first seconds of a r’n’b videoclip. But no, this was indeed the trailer for the adapation of Fitzgerald’s novel The Great Gasby, starring the talented Leonardo Di Caprio, Carey Mulligan and Tobey Maguire.

For those who are fond of Baz luhrmann’s style, you might rejoice in this «bling bling» version of the classic and look forward to the opening of the film on January 11th.
The director seems quite faithful to his usual aesthetics and photography and to what made the success of his previous films.

For others, more conventional perhaps, you might watch in sheer horror the vulgar spectacle portrayed in these few minutes of film - heavy make-up, hard partying scenes, the excessive use of crane shots, zoom in and zoom outs that make you sea-sick... Is this to be Moulin Rouge revisited? And more importantly, have we read the same book? 

Because I like being shocked and surprised I WILL go to the theater to be proven wrong and hope that what appears to be yet another exemple of bad taste, will transform into a refreshing, up-to-date adaptation of an all-time classic. However if that is not the case, I am glad Leo has other releases to fall back on this year.

Viddy Well, 

E.D.

WHY I STOPPED LOVING MAD MEN

BEWARE, SPOILERS AHEAD

I have always been one of Mad Men’s strongest fans. I watched the show immediately when it started airing and it was love at first sight. For once, here was a show that did not care what the audience wished or expected. The pace was slow and analytical, the dialogues rich and subtle, the characters deep and complex, and the acting reached perfection. The first four seasons I adored, and watched them at least four times each. After the fourth season, I started to get worried. The announcement that season 5 would be delayed seemed ominous: how can a show survive such a long break? I was also worried at some signs that I saw in season 4 that some of the characters were becoming more and more Manichean, and thus more caricatural. Of course, I mean Betty here. Throughout season 4, Betty became increasingly mean, and even more of a bad mother than she was before. Gone was the emotional complexity that had been exposed during the first three seasons. The subtlety of Betty’s character started slowly to fade away when she was one of the most complex characters on the show.

This phenomenon did not stop there, unfortunately. When season 5 began, I was at first shocked to see that in the two-hour premiere, there was no Betty. But still, the two episodes were nice and entertaining. Some themes though, treated with a lot of delicacy in the previous seasons, seemed a bit more heavy-handed. The script insisted a tad too much on the fact that Don was now getting old and that the age discrepancy between him and his very young new wife was going to be a problem. I was not very enthusiastic but still kept my faith in Matthew Weiner. The discovery of “fat” Betty, then gave me quite a shock, and I believed that it was the way for Weiner to bring back the many layers that Betty once had. How wrong was I. As the season progressed, I became increasingly displeased with the show. I used to believe that Weiner knew where he was headed with his numerous characters, but that belief diminished episode after episode.

                       Running in circles

It’s always the same old song. Don still has the same frown, it’s hard to tell whether or not he’s happy with his new life. He stopped cheating, that seems to be the main change in him. However, from his various fights with Megan and his disappointed look when she emancipates herself from him, you can tell that it’s only a matter of time before he starts sleeping around again. It seems a bit thin for a character the size of Don Draper. Now that we know his whole story, now that he stopped lying to the people he loved, Weiner has trouble giving his main character something to do other than drink and look depressed. There’s nothing that we haven’t seen before: his running away and abandoning Megan on the stop during their brief getaway, his anger towards Peggy as his little protégé starts to become more and more independent, his harshness towards those he believes are like him when they are not, his refusal to deal with his guilt issues. To me, this is the greatest problem of all. For the past four years, we have seen the character evolve into this man constantly caught up by his guilt and his dark secrets. Don never liked himself, not as Dick and not as Don either. So each time he builds a new life, hoping that it will cover up for his shame and self-hatred. But apart from the resurgence of Adam, the brother he led to suicide, Don seems pretty fine with himself. He even starts to trash Betty when he is the one who lied to her for years and years. And Weiner asks us to sympathize with the liar more than with the cheated wife. In one episode, Don says that he doesn’t want Betty to put “her fat nose” into one of his matters, and wishes that Megan “won’t end up like Betty”.  This contempt for his ex-wife seems to be coming more from Weiner than it would from the character. Don would know that he led Betty to what she became: an unhappy housewife. 

On the other hand, Weiner, like Don, has fallen in love again, much to the viewer’s dismay. Though Jessica Paré is a fine actress, and Megan appears to be very nice and very proper, I find nothing fascinating at all about this character. At first, I thought she was a very ambitious girl who had married Don to get ahead. But that thought was invalidated when Megan decided to leave the company. So in the end, we are left with a nice girl, who treats Sally as a friend, who loves her husband in spite of his many flaws, and who wants to be an actress. In the last episode, there was one interesting sentence that shed some light on Megan. Her mother tells Don that her daughter’s problem is that she has an artistic temperament but that she is not an artist. That is an interesting theme, but I failed to see it in the many scenes Megan was in. All I saw was a girl just trying to get a job in the acting business. And from her good performance in Zou Bisou, I hardly see why she would not be talented. Weiner’s fascination is hard for me to understand: Megan’s screen test in the last episode did not bring any emotion in me the way “Carousel” did, when Don watched images of Betty and their children. Weiner centers most of his episodes on Megan and Don, leaving the others with cheap and soapy plot lines. I am really getting tired of Pete, for example, he too treads water. Always whiny, always dissatisfied, always the same sad little boy who never gets what he wants. I thought that gaining power inside the company would change him a bit, make him progress (whether that progress is good or bad). I found his affair with Beth horribly irritating. And what about those electroshocks? Has Weiner been watching a little too much of Homeland before writing that one? The other absurd extra-marital affair of the show was Harry and the girl from Hare Krishna. That scene was a climax in ridicule.

                       “Getting tired of this dynamic”

In season 5, Betty has obviously become the Wicked Witch of the West. She continues to be horrid to Sally (apart from their final and nice scene together) and still sulks in another unhappy marriage. I have always loved the way January Jones handled her character. The actress, it is obvious, has absolute faith in Weiner’s decisions. And boy, did she have to handle some nasty stuff this season. Weiner is decided in humiliating the character (or the actress?) over and over again. She has to swallow some cream right out of the can, stuff herself with ice cream (hers AND Sally’s). And then, confronted to Megan’s thin young body, she decides to wreck havoc in Don’s marriage. But fails, because she is a nasty woman, whereas Megan is the nice, perky, never-tired-of-having-sex wife. Mad Men has become a soap, where they are good guys and bad guys. The Evil Betty versus Marvelous Megan dynamic started to tire me after the first four episodes. Perhaps the main problem is that the dynamic of the show hasn’t changed at all. All the plot twist are far too predictable. Lane’s fate, for example, is far from being shocking, and we are not really concerned by his departure, nor moved. The end of the season is also far too easy. From the first episode I thought the season would end on Don’s relapse. I hoped he would relapse in an unexpected way, but it’s the usual boring way that won. Weiner seems to give in to easy tricks. The elevator scene, Sally’s “dirty” line, Glen’s supposedly philosophical thoughts… All seemed fake and cheap and unworthy of a show that used to deal in subtlety and finesse. Gone too Weiner’s taste for detail. Julia Ormond as Megan’s French Canadian mother is painful to watch. Why hire a real French Canadian for the father and not the mother? The discrepancy in accents is quite unsettling. Furthermore, I doubt that divorce was so common in the 60’s. Now, most of the characters are divorced, or have been, and do so quick as a flash. Roger (twice now), Joan, Don…

There were some good things in this season too. The episode that reunited Dawn and Peggy, for example, was one of the best episodes of the season. Michael Ginsberg is an interesting character and I hope he will be more developed next year. I am harsh only because Mad Men used to be a passion of mine and I am sad to see it decline. What has happened to Matthew Weiner for him to drift away from the essence of his show? Is it because his focus is now on the production of his first feature? Or has the long break killed his creativity?

I do not really care for the answer. All I wish for is that next year, when I’ll watch the premiere of season 6, I’ll find the Mad Men I used to love. 


Viddy Well. 


E.C

TOP 10: Scenes that traumatized my childhood

BEWARE, THIS ARTICLE CONTAINS SPOILERS (shocking scenes often happening towards the end of films)...

I think that everyone has been traumatized by a scene in a film when they were kids, at least once. I've been traumatized many times, images getting stuck in my mind and leaving a permanent imprint. These ten films have traumatized me in a good way, turning me into the movie fan I am today. Some scenes were just so visually striking that I was shocked, while others were really tragic and sad and had to impress the mind of a child. So here is my Top 10 of the most traumatizing scenes of my childhood. 

1. Dumbo's mother cradling him with her trunk while she's in a prison cell in Dumbo (1941)

2. Dave murdering HAL in 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, 1968)

3. John Merrick crying "I am not an elephant! I am not an animal! I am a human being!", in The Elephant Man (David Lynch, 1980) - the film is my number 1 in the most traumatizing films EVER.

4. Edward destroying his hands while his creator is dying of a heart attack in Edward Scissorhands (Tim Burton, 1990)

`

5. The death of Victoria Page in The Red Shoes (Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger, 1948)

6. The black mask and costume of Wolfgang's father, later worn by Salieri in Amadeus (Milos Forman, 1984)

7. Myra's suicide in Waterloo Bridge (Mervyn LeRoy, 1940)

8. The transformation of Sarah into a vampire at the end of The Fearless Vampire Killers (Roman Polanski, 1967)

9. Maleficient's raven turning into stone in Sleeping Beauty (1959).

10. E.T leaving Earth in E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Steven Spielberg, 1982)

How about you? What scenes traumatized you as a kid?

Viddy Well!

E.C

NEWS OF THE WEEK

Eastern Promises 2!
Apparently, David Cronenberg's project of making a follow-up to Eastern Promises is much more advanced than we knew! Viggo Mortensen will return as Nikolai and Vincent Cassel is in talks to return. No word however on Naomi Watts. But we really hope she'll be on board as well!

Abbie Cornish and Robocop....Really?
Abbie Cornish is sadly not making a great career. Since her astonishing performance in Jane Campion's Bright Star, we haven't seen much of the actress. And now, there are talks that she'll play the wife in the remake of Robocop... The film will certainly help putting her on the map but still... It's Robocop.

Twelve Years a Slave
Now here's a film we're really excited about. Steve McQueen's next film has an amazing cast: Chiwitel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender, Brad Pitt, Paul Dano, Taran Killam, Garrett Dillahunt, Benedict Cumberbatch, Paul Giamatti and Sarah Paulson. Ejiofor is starring as a free man captured and forced into slavery in New Orleans. Fassbender will play Edwin Epps (the "evil" character in the book), a plantation owner, who cheats on his wife (Paulson) with one of his slaves. Giamatti will be Freeman, the man who takes possession of the slaves when they arrive in New Orleans, and Cumberbatch will play another plantation owner.

         

               


It's a Scandal!
Henry Ian Cusick (oh, dear Desmond) is leaving Scandal, Shonda Rhimes' latest TV show, after one season. Too bad really, he was the only reason I was watching the show.


Zombies are the worst.
That's clearly what the producers of World War Z are thinking right now. They have just hired Damon Lindelof to rewrite the third act of the film. Reshoots will then follow. The film, in which Bard Pitt stars, was supposed to come out in December and has now been pushed back to June 2013.

Noah's Ark has a lot of people on board. 
Emma Watson is the latest actress to have joined Darren Aronofsky's Noah. Russell Crowe is playing the title character, with Logan Lerman and Douglas Booth cast as his sons. Watson will play a girl romantically involved with one of the sons (Booth apparently). Julianne Moore is rumored to play Noah's wife while Liev Schreiber might be playing Noah's enemy.

Prometheus parody: watch this great parody of David's viral video, with Joel McHale



That's it for this week's news!

Viddy Well.

E.C

THE MUSICAL POST - MORNING SPECIAL

Because we all need a little shot of good humor some mornings, and because usually one song is not enough to cheer us up, here is a double dose of musical comedy to cast your potential grumpiness away.

The first clip is from... Singin’ in the rain! Yes, again. But it could not be helped when there is a song specifically titled «Good morning!» in the film.  

The second one is from Captain January (1936) with the song ‘Early Bird’, starring America’s little darling: miss Shirley Temple, also known as «Dimples» or «Little Curly Top».

So enjoy! To watch with a cup of coffee on a foggy morning!

Viddy Well, 

E.D.

ON THE SOUND TRACK OF... 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY

À l’occasion de la sortie de Prometheus, revenons un peu sur nos classiques avec 2001 : L’Odyssée de l’espace, film qui a bouleversé la science-fiction et monument de l’histoire du cinéma. Les avis sont unanimes, c’est un chef-d’oeuvre...

Et pourtant il n’est pas rare d’entendre la confession suivante : «j’ai bien aimé, mais j’avoue que je ne suis pas sûr d’avoir tout compris...» 

Voici donc une proposition d’interprétation à travers la bande originale du film, qui permet de suivre la logique interne de la trame narrative ; car le génie de Kubrick ne s’arrête pas au visuel, il donne à la musique un discours à part entière. La musique existe dans l’absolu en tant que symbole et renforce la logique interne du film.

Ouverture : création de György Ligeti

Le film s’ouvre sur un écran noir. En fond sonore, la musique de György Ligeti «Atmospheres» s’accorde avec le néant de l’image pendant 2:45mins. Des notes soutenues par plusieurs instruments (piano, cordes, vents) forment un magma musical, sans mélodie mais marqué de nuances progressives : les cordes montent vers l’aigu en forte puis retombent en mezzo piano. Puis les notes se font plus distinctes, le néant devient autre : c’est la création de l’univers.

La musique cesse, le logo de la MGM apparaît.

Le générique : d’Alex North à Strauss

Le début mythique de L’Odyssée de l’espace avec le thème du film «Ainsi parlait Zarathoustra» de Richard Strauss, devait à l’origine être tout autre. À la demande du réalisateur, Alex North composa 40 minutes de musique futuriste. Mais Kubrick opta finalement pour de la musique classique et son caractère intemporel.

Version d'Alex North :

Version finale : 

Du néant à la troisième dimension

En synchronisation avec l’image, les trois premières notes do# - sol# - do# (à l’octave du dessus) constituent un accord parfait majeur. La sensation de grandeur est renforcée par les battements de tambours lorsque les trois notes marquent l’apparition des trois astres (les deux planètes et le soleil) dans un alignement parfait. Après le néant de l’ouverture, ce début est inscrit dans une dimension ternaire, l’apparition de la vie et de l’homme. 

Du do#, le compositeur passe directement au sol#, sans passer par le mi qui constitue l’accord de base, une sensation de saut qui annonce le fond du film, tout comme sa dimension cyclique, l’éternel recommencement. La boucle de vie présente dans le film se retrouve musicalement par le retour au do, mais à l’octave du dessus. Malgré le retour à l’origine, il y a un saut, un progrès.

Le thème poursuit avec une série d’accords parfaits en crescendo et vers l’aigu, à l’image, l’harmonie parfaite entre les planètes donne l’idée d’achèvement. Le nom de ceux qui sont à l’origine du film apparaît également à chaque accord, le nom de Kubrick apparaissant avant le titre qui annonce la conquête de l’espace par l’homme. La musique aussi est à la hauteur d’une odyssée et rejoint la dimension philosophique du film.

«Ainsi parlait Zarathoustra», oeuvre de Nietzsche, défend l’idée que la destinée de l’homme est de devenir un surhomme.

«Qu’est-ce que le singe pour l’homme ? 

Une dérision ou une honte douloureuse.
Et ce que doit être l’homme pour le surhomme ?
Une dérision ou une honte douloureuse.»

Dans le film de Kubrick, la notion de dépassement est aussi présente : le singe devient homme. Puis en tuant Hal, la machine créée par l’homme, l’homme devient surhomme en s’affranchissant de sa création. Le chiffre trois est au fondement des trois oeuvres : 

• le singe, l’homme, le surhomme chez Nietzsche. 
• les trois notes en accord parfait cyclique de Strauss.
• l’alignement des trois astres chez Kubrick, puis dans la séquence du monolithe à nouveau : monolithe, soleil, lune.

En religion, Zarathoustra «celui à la lumière brillante», était un prophète iranien dont la doctrine était proche du christianisme, du judaïsme et de l’Islam en ce qu’elle affirme l’existence d’un Dieu unique, Ahura Mazda, d’un enfer et d’un paradis et d’un jugement dernier par trois juges. Selon le prophète, la divinité exerce un pouvoir sur la destinée de l’homme à chaque apparition, et vient pour les libérer. Ce fut ce personnage qui inspira Nietzsche et la notion de surhomme. Dans L’Odyssée de l’espace, c’est le monolithe qui semble agir sur l’évolution de l’homme à chaque apparition, et qui vient l’affranchir de sa condition précédente.

Le monolithe : l’intervention divine ou extra-terrestre

Les premières images sur terre sont marquées par un faux silence : le bruit du vent et des animaux constitue un véritable fond sonore.  L’ancêtre de l’homme apparaît enfin dans ce paysage désertique. Les singes se font attaquer par des bêtes sauvages, ils ne savent pas se défendre. Lorsqu’ils défendent leur point d’eau de l’invasion d’une autre tribu, ils ne savent émettre en signe de protestation que des grognements et des cris gutturaux, avant de se résigner à la défaite. Le singe semble avoir atteint un point buttoir. Il est voué à disparaître s’il n’évolue pas.

C’est alors qu’apparaît pour la première fois le monolithe, sorte de grande plaque metallique intemporelle.

Chaque apparition du monolithe (4 au total) est marquée par l’accompagnement d’une musique chorale expérimentale : «Requiem», de György Ligeti. Les voix d’hommes et de femmes sont mêlées à des instruments à vent, produisant une sorte de bourdonnement aliénant. Le tout forme un ensemble dissonant. Tout comme cette barre verticale se démarque de l’environnement, le son ne semble pas humain mais metallique, il suggère quelque chose d’extra-terrestre. Dans l’histoire, le monolithe intrigue, les savants de la deuxième partie le disent vivant, extra-terrestre. Il a un pouvoir sur l’homme, il peut être la représentation de ce Dieu monothéiste qui intervient sur l’évolution de l’humanité. Il annonce une délivrance et l’affranchissement de l’homme par rapport à sa condition précédente.

Suite à cette apparition, le singe découvre l’outil. Il peut se défendre, il utilise l’objet pour sa survie (la chasse, le conflit). Le singe change de nature, il se met debout et devient homme. Le monolithe s’aligne avec la lune et le soleil, annonçant le passage de l’homme à la maîtrise de la troisième dimension. Le thème revient comme à chaque renaissance, «Ainsi parlait Zarathoustra», rappelant la théorie de Nietzsche et soulignant par un crescendo et des accords parfaits l’exploit accomplit par le singe : il lance l’outil vers le ciel, le singe est affranchit de sa condition. Changement de plan : l’os lancé devient un vaisseau spatial, Kubrick projette l’homme 4 millions d’années plus tard avec l’ellipse la plus connue de l’histoire du cinéma. Le saut impressionne, le vaisseau semble flotter, il ne tombe pas dans l’espace comme la chute de l’os le laisse implicitement présager - l’homme saura-t-il s’affranchir de sa condition pour devenir surhomme ? Ou stagnera-t-il pour enfin disparaître ? 

L’homme, maître de sa création

L’homme dans l’espace apparaît comme maître de l’outil, créateur de vaisseaux à la pointe de la technologie qui circulent parmis les astres dans une danse parfaite. Le chiffre 3 est constamment présent dans cette partie : l’homme maîtrise la troisième dimension. Il n’est pas anodin que la musique choisie soit une valse, «Le Beau Danube Bleu», de Strauss, avec le retour cyclique de trois temps. Le mouvement des vaisseaux autour de la planète, le vaisseau qui tourne sur lui-même, l’entrée des instruments s’accorde avec celle de chaque nouvel élément dans le plan, les nuances et les ritendo, les forte lorsque la planète Terre sature le cadre, tout est en parfaite harmonie visuelle ; un véritable ballet. Puis un nouveau vaisseau en forme de roue apparaît, tournant sur lui-même et autour de la planète, il semble danser la valse. On note en musique la présence d’un triangle, qui marque trois petits coups... Le vaisseau est à l’image pendant les trois premières phrases musicales, Kubrick choisit le début de la quatrième pour nous faire rentrer dans le vaisseau. Le passage à la quatrième dimension est annoncé. À l’intérieur, la valse continue, grâce et apesanteur, un homme dort, son stylo flotte rappelant l’os de l’ellipse : les hommes sont sur leurs acquis.

La lutte de l’homme contre sa création et le passage à la 4ème dimension

Suite à l’apparition du monolithe sur Jupiter, le changement est à nouveau amorcé. 18 mois plus tard, deux astronautes : David Bowman, Frank Poole et 3 autres astronautes en hibernation doivent effectuer un voyage de neuf mois afin d’accomplir une mission secrète sur Jupiter. HAL, un ordinateur réputé pour n’avoir jamais eu de failles, est avec eux. 

Le «Gayane Ballet Suite» d’Aram Khachaturian accompagne les premières images, la musique suit la vie monotone des astronautes à bord du vaisseau. Tonalité mineure, des bémols, l’air triste et fade traduit l’ennui et la répétition de gestes quotidiens.

Lorsque HAL veut détrôner son créateur pour devenir maître du vaisseau, Bowman tente de le lobotomiser.

Avant de mourir, HAL chante «Daisy, or a bicycle for two», rendant la scène insoutenable pour son bourreau, l’ordinateur semble doté de sentiments humains et ne cesse de répéter le leitmotiv «I’m afraid». Mais l’homme y parvient. Il s’affranchit de la machine de laquelle il était dépendant. Le monolithe revient.

L’astronaute David Bowman entreprend alors un voyage à travers l’espace et le temps, accompagné par la musique du début de Ligeti «Atmospheres». Cette fois, ce n’est plus le néant qui devient matière, mais il y a création. Les couleurs deviennent paysages, la musique prend forme en même temps que les images. Tous les éléments sont présents, l’air avec le vent, l’eau, la terre, le feu par la couleur, la musique accompagne l’ébauche d’un monde. Plus ce monde se construit, plus la musique va en crescendo jusqu’à ce que le paysage devienne net et les notes distinctes. Bowman se retrouve dans cet espace intemporel et vieillit en trois temps sur son lit de mort, le monolithe est là pour la quatrième fois. L’homme se retrouve dans un au-delà, la quatrième dimension, et redevient foetus. Puis la vie recommence. «Ainsi parlait Zarathoustra» de Strauss suit le voyage du foetus vers la Terre, suggérant ainsi l’éternel recommencement, ce retour de l’être humain vers la troisième dimension.


Viddy Well, 


E.D.

DJANGO UNCHAINED - TRAILER REVIEW

At last! The trailer of Django Unchained has arrived. No more scarse pictures to tease us,  we can now get a good notion of what this is about. Starring Jamie Foxx as a former slave who becomes a bounty hunter, Christoph Waltz, the man who helps him find his wife, and Leonardo Di Caprio as a delightfully evil plantation owner named Calvin Candie... It feels good to see him in a role where he can show the full scope of his talent, from this few shots, dark humor seems to suit him extremely well - there is something of Dr Strangelove in him. Can we hope this role will put him on the spotlight for the next round of Oscars? We certainly hope so at Viddy Well. It is likely afterall, The Weinstein Company is producing the film...

Let us rejoice as well for this: Samuel L. Jackson is back! And stuntwoman Zoe Bell from Death Proof is also part of the cast.

Quotes are already spreading throughout the internet like wildfire, on their way to become ‘Tarantinian’ cult sentences. One thing is for sure; the movie had our curiosity. Now it has our attention.

So let’s not wait any longer, here is the trailer for Django Unchained (we now know that the D is supposed to be silent...):

Viddy Well, 

E.D

CLASSIC OF THE WEEK: AUDREY HEPBURN FILMS, PART III

There are many films starring Audrey Hepburn, and sadly I won’t talk about them all. Some retain some grace despite their lack of good directing (Breakfast at Tiffany’s) or casting mistakes (Sabrina, My Fair Lady, War and Peace). Hepburn, always perfect, is the light that pervades and that makes these films classics that will be remembered. Among these flawed films, one of them is particularly endearing. Though time has taken its toll on Mel Ferrer’s Green Mansions (1959), the picture remains charming to watch. Seeing Hepburn through the eyes of her husband triggers some emotion. But, most of all, this film has brought us Bob Willoughby’s best work. The famous photographer has immortalized Audrey in the role of Rima, a young girl living in the forest in complete harmony with nature. These photographs are amongst the most beautiful taken of Audrey, the light illuminating her Madonna-like face, her slender body blending into the landscape. This film is also the occasion to see Hepburn acting with one of the greatest actors of her generation, Anthony Perkins. Romantic as ever, Perkins is perfectly suited for the part of Abel, and their love scenes together are enough to make the movie interesting. Willoughby captured the great relationship that existed between the two actors, twins in loneliness, fragility and poetry.

Audrey Hepburn in Green Mansions, photograph by Bob Willoughby

Anthony Perkins and Audrey Hepburn on the shooting of Green Mansions, photograph by Bob Willoughby

In this final part of my comments on Hepburn’s films I would like to mention two dark films, which place Hepburn in the position of a victim, subjected and prone to violence.

A VICTIM OF LOVE

One of the many reasons I love Audrey Hepburn so much is that she appeared to be devoid of aggressiveness or violence. Yet these two films place her in that position, and the result is strangely awkward, in a very poetic way.

THE UNFORGIVEN (1960) by John Huston

Hepburn dazzles as Rachel Zachary, youngest of a family of three brothers and a widowed mother (the eternal Lillian Gish). The love that binds the family together is shaken by allegations that Rachel was stolen from an Indian tribe and that, as she is not white, she belongs with her own kind. Rachel is thus subjected to the violence of her racist neighbors, to the violence of Indians who come to reclaim her, to the rejection of one of her brothers, and to her own distress when she discovers the truth. All this will lead her to an incredible act of violence: the killing of her biological brother. The scene is startling as the act is done without hatred; Hepburn, it seems, cannot hate, and if her character kills, it is out of a necessity for survival. Rachel must remain with her real family, the one that raised her, loved her through the years. Lillian Gish delivers a heartbreaking performance as the strong (and yet so fragile) mother of the Zacharys. Burt Lancaster plays the elder brother, the one with whom Rachel entertains a troubling relationship. The two obviously love each other with more than brotherly love and that is the most disturbing aspect of the story. The revelation of Rachel’s true origins allows them to become what brotherhood forbids: lovers. This ending makes of the film a strange object, filled with a strong view against racism, arguing that love is what defines a family, not blood, and yet denies that argument by having the two stars married at the end. It is possible that this ending was required at the time, when having two majors stars in the same film demanded a love story between them. That is where the writers and the producers made their mistake: the film was not about that sort of love. It dealt with a much bigger issue: the eternal and unbreakable love created in the family unit.

Burt Lancaster and Audrey Hepburn in The Unforgiven

Hepburn delivers a magnificent performance, filled with angst and confusion. During the extremely violent confrontation with the neighbors, Hepburn appears as a small bird, a perfect prey for the hating wolves that surround her. Her most glorious scene, she performs alone. Rachel is in her bedroom after finding out the truth. And bluntly, without looking away, she paints herself as an Indian would. Rachel’s first act of violence is against herself.

ROBIN AND MARIAN (1976) by Richard Lester

After a nine-year break, Audrey Hepburn returned for this magnificent picture. An aging Robin returns form the Crusades and finds that his longtime love, Maid Marian, has become an abbess in a priory. The reunion is difficult after the passing of so many years. Marian resents Robin for choosing his king over her, and Robin, despite his elder years, is still the same restless and impetuous man he was. Trouble arrives with Robin’s old foe, the Sheriff of Nottingham. The film is filled with melancholy as it reflects on a love that hasn’t had enough time to live and on the inescapable workings of Time on humankind. Hepburn builds a Marian that is strong in her beliefs, her love and resolutions. More than ever, her body suggests a woman in dire need of protection. In a touching scene, Marian reveals to Robin that she tried to end her life when he left. Hepburn doesn’t give into an easy pathos, she delivers her lines in a disarmingly natural way, thus remaining true to the chaste and modest nature of her character. And it is her character that prevails above her flesh, for in the end, it is Robin who needs help. Badly wounded, Robin, still blind to his own mortality, convinced of his legendary nature, believes he can live. The clear-sighted Marian knows that all life comes to an end. So, help she provides, in the most daring and violent manner. Thus, in the fashion of tragic lovers, Robin and Marian die together, poisoned by her hand. Here again, violence is exerted and diverted, as it is a gentle one. To explain her gesture, Marian delivers a beautiful and poignant speech: “I love you. More than all you know. I love you more than children. More than fields I’ve planted with my hands. I love you more than morning prayers or peace or food to eat. I love you more than sunlight, more than flesh or joy, or one more day. I love you… more than God.”

Sean Connery and Audrey Hepburn in Robin and Marian

“A thing of beauty is a joy forever” wrote John Keats in Endymion. “Its loveliness increases; it will never pass into nothingness”.  Words that apply all too well to the exceptional Audrey Hepburn, whose filmography will forever remain like “an endless fountain of immortal drink, Pouring unto us from the heaven’s brink.” 

Viddy Well. 

E.C