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

Shame on "Liz & Dick"

Shameful... There is no other word for it. The idea alone of Lindsay Lohan playing Liz Taylor was painful enough. Now we have pictures to deepen the wound. Not only is there no resemblance between the starlet and the legend, the vulgarity of Lohan is an insult to the beauty and class of the great Elizabeth. 

No matter how good the makeup (which is terrible by the way), no matter how good the costumes, this TV film is an insult to the memory of the greatest stars Hollywood ever had. Don't even get me started on the choice of Grant Bowler to play Richard Burton. How can you hire average actors to play legends? Fortunately, this is Lifetime. So I can only hope that no one will watch this outrageous production. 

                              

                                 What is he doing, biting her? Is this another Twilight?

                                            

                                                     How can you compare that beauty...

...with THIS ?

This is just ridiculous.


Now let's look at some real beauty, shall we?

           

Viddy Well. 

E.C

LES MISERABLES - TRAILER REVIEW

When I first was asked if I knew «Laymiz», I said no. It was only after I was explained the plot that I realized they were in fact talking about "Les miz." short for: Les Misérables, and were refering to the stage musical adapted from this masterpiece of French literature. The stage musical was first produced in 1980 in Paris and directed by Robert Hossein. Alain Boublil and Jean-Marc Natel wrote the lyrics of the songs Claude-Michel Schönberg composed. Their translation to English by Herbert Kretmzer turned the musical into a worldwide success. The next natural step was to illustrate the saying "There’s no business like showbusiness", and turn it into a movie. If you are French, you might be acquainted with the countless adaptations of the classic, both for television and cinema. This, however, is the first adaptation of the stage musical. Directed by Tom Hooper (The King’s Speech) and starring Hugh Jackman, Russell Crowe, Anne Hathaway, Helena Bonham Carter, Amanda Seyfried and Sacha Baron Cohen. Here are a few scattered images from the trailer. This first glimpse only allows us to get a general idea of the indeed very 19th-century/ «Oliver Twist»-like photography. After the Susan Boyle phenomenon from Britain’s got talent, the trailer chooses, once again, to put the same song «I dreamed a dream» on the spotlight.  Does the movie come too late? Or will Anne Hathaway manage to give a new birth to the song and be believable as a tormented Fantine?

For my part, I have had a bit of an overdose, but I let you judge for yourself:

Viddy Well, 

E.D

News of the Week

Here's the news we found interesting this week.

Drive will get a sequel
Looks like every kind of movie is getting a sequel these days. Just days after James Sallis, author of Drive,  released its sequel, Driven, he announced that a plan is being made to adapt that novel as well. In the sequel, the hero, using Paul West as a new identity, is living in Phoenix with his fiancée. But after an attack that leaves his girlfriend dead, violence reemerges. Nothing has been said whether or not both Winding Refn and Gosling would be back. But I doubt it could be otherwise.


Michael Emerson hired by Woody Allen

Nothing is known about Woody's new project, as usual. But as always, there's an incredible cast attached to it, the last member to join the club being the incredible Michael Emerson (Ben Linus in Lost). The rest of the cast includes Cate Blanchett, Alec Baldwin, Bradley Cooper, Sally Hawkins and Bobby Cannavale.

Michael Mann goes to Venice

The director will be President of the jury of the 69th International Venice Film Festival. These last few years, the festival has become the new "Cannes", getting major quality pictures in competition. From Lust, Caution to La Graine et le mulet, Venice has managed to grab masterpieces that strangely didn't make it in the Cannes competition. So this year, here are the films I hope we'll see in Venice: The Master by Paul Thomas Anderson, Low Life by James Gray and To the Wonder by Terrence Malick.

The Master

Low Life

To the Wonder

David Cronenberg and his stars

David Cronenberg is hoping that his new project Map to the Stars will be his next film. He has apparently already gotten Robert Pattinson and Viggo Mortensen on board. The script tells the story of two former child stars destroyed by Hollywood. The film is described by Cronenberg as very "extreme", " difficult" and "satirical". The director is hoping that this time he'll get to film in the US as the Los Angeles setting is essential to the story. I hope that Cronenberg will manage to get this film done, because it sounds great!

Death of Kathryn Joosten

The actress whom we have had the pleasure to see in many TV shows, such as Desperate Housewives, which had won her two Emmys, The West Wing or Ally McBeal has died of lung cancer. She was 72.

Sad week for SNL

After the departure of the incredible Kristen Wiig, SNL is losing another of its great talents: Andy Samberg. Just the thought of not seeing anymore of Samberg's great digital shorts makes me cry...

Viddy Well !

E.C

THE MUSICAL POST - "New York, New York"

Today on Viddy Well our shoes are longing to stray... This week’s musical post is from Scorsese’s underestimated film New York, New York (1977), starring Liza Minnelli and Robert De Niro.

The movie opens in 1945. Johnny (Robert De Niro), a charmingly annoying saxophone player meets Francine (Liza Minnelli) a singer, as the city celebrates the end of World War II. The story of their romance gets tangled with their competitive quest for success leading to an unusual ending for a musical.

The film lasted a very short time in the theaters when it was released - Star Wars was playing at the time.

In 1979, Frank Sinatra gave a new life to the theme song ‘New York, New York’, composed by John Kander, who also wrote the lyrics for Cabaret. The film was put back into the spotlight when it was released again in 1981 with additional scenes. 

It remains one of my favourite musicals along with what I think to be one of the best couples on the screen. 

Notice the bird’s eye view final movement of the camera, when it drifts away from the stage... quite recurrent in Scorsese’s films. It always makes me think of Taxi Driver and how the camera exits the scene of Travis Bickle’s killing. And even though it is not as dramatic here... it is still a beautifully visual way of saying ‘goodbye’.

Viddy Well,

E.D.

PROMETHEUS - Did Scott lose the sacred fire?

Prometheus promised to be great and left me with a bitter taste of unfinished business. Not just because the ending could not be more explicit about a sequel, but because the content itself never truly came to honor the grandness of the title.

Reminder: Prometheus was the titan from Greek mythology who stole the sacred fire of divine knowledge to the Gods to give it to the mortals. He was then punished in return and condemned to be chained to a rock as an eagle ate his liver - the only organ in the human body that keeps growing back - for eternity.
Because we have watched the trailer and because we know the tagline to be 'The search for our beginning could lead to our end', it was naturally that we put two and two together to figure out this would be about humans wanting to know more than they are supposed to, and being punished for it. We even recall that legendary Alien scene where a lovely-looking E.T. violently exits John Hurt’s convulsing body while everybody around screams in sheer horror, and how it might all be linked with Prometheus’ punishment. And indeed, without revealing too much, there is a similar scene in Prometheus.

Prometheus, by Paul Rubens

John Hurt in Alien (1979)

The movie, who could have been titled «Alien Begins», proves that gut feeling to be right. We were hoping for another level of depth to appear in this outline at some point; psychologically and narratively, but this sadly never comes. 

Visually stunning, narratively uninspiring

The movie is very impressive visually, in terms of setting and special effects, Aliens are what we hoped them to be and more: perfectly disgusting. We did not expect any less from the creator of Alien. Less horror would have proven disappointing. Our heart races as the characters are being chased, we cringe in our seats when some of them die (spoiler? Not really), the surrounding sound and the 3D operate their magic on us: we experience it all with fearful delight - how could we not? We’re not cylons.

And yet. We cannot but be aware of what they are selling us: the movie borrows entire scenes, images and references to many sci-fi classics, to sometimes an indecent extent: 2001: A Space Odyssey being the most obvious one. Aesthetically first: when Michael Fassbender as the perfect robot walks around the ship in a similar fashion as the characters do in 2001. His name is David, his personality combines both that of Hal the endearing computer created by mankind and the character who embodies the human race ‘Dave’. The whole fourth dimension part from Kubrick's classic clearly inspired the setting of the ship. Using Kubrick’s divine fire does not work here.

Followed by a character borrowed from Zemeckis’ Contact, adapted from Carl Sagan’s novel: a rich entrepreneur decides to finance a space expedition for personal health reasons. We also think of A.I. and their human looking robots. 

And perphaps this was the original idea: to combine many sci-fi references that worked successfully to create one great sci-fi epic. But despite a few interesting inventions, there is nothing really transcendentally new in the end, and that is where we are let down. A myth is supposed to be renewed, to leave wondering and to raise new questions. The only question we have at the end of the film is «When will Prometheus 2 be released?». Because we know for a fact it is coming.

We also regret the lack of depth of some characters; three of them are just there to fill the ship or to die first, because they are quite unfit to be a part of such an expedition. We even wonder how they got hired in the first place. When the time of their disappearance comes, we firmly believe they have been asking for it since the beginning of the film with a succession of simplistic dialogue. 

Noomi Rapace and Michael Fassbender hold the fire

Noomi Rapace is excellent as a new Ripley (same haircut as Sigourney Weaver, same tendency to walk around the ship in underwear). She is the only human worth saving.

The most interesting invention is perhaps that of Michael Fassbender’s character. An actor who continues to prove the length of his talent with this impressive performance as an un-feeling Nazi-looking robot. 

The opening of the film leaves us wanting for more, which leads us to this crucial point:

The problem of filiation

Unknown engineers created humans and humans created robots. An interesting start. When David the robot asks ‘why did you create us?’ to humans who couldn’t care less about their son, the answer they give is «Because we could». A little easy, but at that point we are already halfway through the movie and we just want answers, so we accept it. When humans realize their creators are not what they hoped them to be, we expect this revelation to be mirrored in their relationship with robots. Sons killing their creators to inherit their father’s power, the thirst for existencialist knowledge: all this is left entirely undevelopped. Even the whole religious dimension that is a backbone to the quest: who created us? Shaw’s character (Noomi Rapace) and her Christian beliefs, the Holy Father and the son, the holy cross, the notion of sin and redemption, pagans versus monotheistic believers, it is all present but dealt with superficially.

Granted that the screenwriter is no longer Dan O’Bannon, writer of Alien. Damon Lindelof creator of Lost (but also of Cowboys & Aliens...) wrote the script, which is rather puzzling. Scott and Lindelof seemed like a great match. In the end, this was good, but not enough. 

Viddy Well, 

E.D.

CLASSIC OF THE WEEK: AUDREY HEPBURN FILMS, PART II

A VERY PEPPY GIRL

Dick Avery (Fred Astaire) sang it right : "you fill the air with smiles, for miles and miles and miles". Many directors saw in Audrey Hepburn a great capacity for comedy. Paris when it Sizzles, or My Fair Lady are examples among others of how lively Hepburn was. There was in her a mixture of an enormous love for life as well as an attraction for melancholy. None of them saw it better that Stanley Donen and Billy Wilder.

          FUNNY FACE (1957) by Stanley Donen

This was Hepburn and Donen’s first collaboration. Hepburn was very enthusiastic about making her first musical and working with the legendary Fred Astaire. Unlike in My Fair Lady, she did her own singing in the film. Her excitement is palpable in many scenes, especially the one where she performs her contemporary dance. That scene is quite revealing about Hepburn’s acting: the joy we see in her character, the love for life, the generosity that exudes from her imperfect and amateur dance…  She manages to equal Astaire in grace and lightness, when she was not a professional dancer. All of these qualities have now become inseparable from Audrey Hepburn. And Donen captured all of them in one beautiful sequence.

You can find a great deal of funny moments: the girls chasing Jo to transform her into the perfect model, the soirée with the master of Empathicalism (a formidable Michel Auclair). The romance between Avery and Jo allows Donen to film some splendid moments, thanks to the help of Richard Avedon, on whom the character of Avery is based on. Avedon did a lot of photography for the film, especially the portrait Avery is developing when he sings “Funny Face”. These romantic scenes also allow Donen to reveal Hepburn’s melancholy. Remember the Anna Karenina photo shoot when it turns out that Jo doesn’t need fake tears, she’s already crying: Jo has fallen in love with Avery.

 

Donen saw how thin the line was between Hepburn’s joy and her sadness: at the end, the tears of sorrow transform into tears of happiness in a split second. And we have exactly the same performance from Hepburn at the end of Love in the Afternoon, which she shot back-to-back with Funny Face.

          LOVE IN THE AFTERNOON (1957) by Billy Wilder

For his second collaboration with Hepburn, Wilder did not repeat the same mistake he did with Sabrina. He found her a partner who, although much older (a recurrent event in Hepburn’s career, she was always paired with much older man), was her match. And finding your match is the whole point of Love in the Afternoon. As always with Billy Wilder, there’s a lot of laughter involved: recurring gags (the band playing "Fascination" every night), idiotic characters (the foolish husband)… There’s also the traditional opposition between the philanderer and the young ingénue. There again Wilder offers Hepburn much more than he did in Sabrina. Ariane is neither passive nor subdued. She beats Frank Flannagan at his own game. She makes him believe that she too has hundreds of suitors and that, just like him, she doesn’t get attached.

Hepburn as always displays her subtlety. What she hides from Flannagan, she lets the viewer see: how hurt she is when he fails to recognize her, her emotion when he announces his departure… Wilder exploits her peppiness as well: her imagination goes wild as she invents more and more crazy lovers to make the one she loves jealous. Love in the Afternoon is a beautiful romantic comedy that is far from being traditional.

          CHARADE (1963) by Stanley Donen

Who in all Hollywood had the same reputation for class, seduction and handsomeness as Hepburn? Many times, directors had tried to reunite Hepburn with Cary Grant. And Stanley Donen was the only one who succeeded, offering us one of the best onscreen couples ever. Donen escapes the traditional love story by turning the female character, Regina Lampert, into the predator. She’s the one who constantly pursues Cary Grant’s character with ardor. She tricks him into going into her bedroom at night and kisses him whenever she can. The suspense of the film is very well crafted, and the twists very amusing and witty. It allows Hepburn to play on different levels: fear, suspicion, love… Donen’s clever move is to make of Regina a strong woman, thus contrasting with Hepburn’s frailty. Regina is stubborn and very independent. The thriller aspect of the film was so well done that when it was released, many people thought that Hitchcock had directed the film thus leading to the film’s famous nickname: “the best Hitchcock film that Hitchcock never made”.

Viddy Well and see you next week for the final part of Audrey Hepburn's films. 

E.C

DOWNTON SIXBEY PART 1: episodes 1 and 2.

For those of you who are now familiar with the period drama Downton Abbey, you will not have to wait for next season of this successful British series to get a glimpse of the (sometimes soapy) atmosphere we love. 

An excellent parody has been released from the Jimmy Fallon’s Late Night show. Downton Sixbey, entitled after Studio 6B hosting the show, is a 6 episode dose of delight. All the characters are brought back to life with an uncanny resemblance...

Without further ado, here are the 2 first episodes. Episode 1 sets the mood, episode 2 truly takes off with Whoopi Goldberg as a guest star. Remember her performance as Queen Elizabeth at the Oscars... period drama suits her well!

Enjoy, 

Viddy Well

E.D