#LOVE that norma desmond line in sunset boulevard too

[pynkhues]

https://x.com/leiselbt/status/1888036890898583721/photo/1

Man, that is a FACE. Suddenly thinking of Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard and her saying "We had faces then." Sam has a FACE. Jacob, Delainey, Assad, they have FACES. Beautiful AND fascinating.

Face cards that never decline 😔 I love that we're always so shocked by the fact that the cast of the beautiful people show are beautiful, haha.

[forthegothicheroine]

Perfume for Noir Dames

Brigid O’Shaugnessy (The Maltese Falcon): Chanel No. 5. It’s old fashioned and charming and it says exactly what you want it to- that you’re a high-class lady and far above any scum you happen to be associated with. What’s that, Chanel was a bad person? That just makes you even.

Vivian Sternwood (The Big Sleep): Mitsouko by Guerlain. When they think of you, they’ll think of rose and peach and moss all gone beautifully bitter. It’s tough and complicated and old money, and the marketing keeps going on about how the name means Mystery. What are you if not all those things?

Laura Hunt (Laura): Mon Guerlain. Your mother insisted on teaching you how to cook and bake, and even though you wanted more out of life than a warm stove, you still smile at the smell of pastries. You believe in having a signature scent, and if it’s sweet and disarming, it will become complex by virtue of you wearing it.

Norma Desmond (Sunset Boulevard): Narcisse Noir by Caron. That’s what they wore back in the golden age, when girls were starting to smoke and wanted perfumes that blended well with nicotine, and it clung to your white silk negligee and black pearls. You get a new bottle every month, and you frequently need more than that.

Jane Palmer (Too Late for Tears): She Was An Anomaly by Etat Libre D’Orange.  Everyone says that iris smells cold, and you like it that way. You have to be cold to make it through. You have two dead husbands, one murder and one suicide. They both died amid the cold scent of iris.

Annie Laurie Star (Gun Crazy): Black by Bulgari. You never claimed to be a good person. You never claimed to love milk and cookies rather than smoke and leather. All you claimed to be was in love, and even with all that danger clinging to you, you were telling the truth.

Mildred Pierce (Mildred Pierce): Tobacco Vanille by Tom Ford. You’ve done all you can for the ones you love, but sometimes all you can do is fight to survive. The tobacco in this perfume smells a lot better than the stale cigarettes you used to clean out of the diner’s ashtrays. The vanilla smells like the happy home you wish you had. This is where your money has taken you, and this is what you still want.

Lily Stevens (Road House): Bruise Violet by Sixteen92. You’ve never heard the words “riot grrl” before, but you like the sound of them. You like the idea that you could be cheap and gravel-voiced and smell like lipstick and powder and still take care of yourself. And you like that you don’t have to break the bank to buy a bottle.

Dr. Constance Peterson (Spellbound): Not a Perfume by Juliette Has a Gun. Cosmetics in general are bothersome in your line of work; you’re expected to be feminine enough to seem professional but not so much that they can write you off. If you could just have the scent of something soft and subtle but secretly sweet, that would be very soothing.

Gilda Mundson Farrell (Gilda): Snake Oil by Black Phoenix Alchemy Lab. They want a femme fatale? Oh, you’ll give them a femme fatale, alright. You’ll make sure you stay in their memory, sugared over in vanilla and incense, maddening and jaded and full of love. If they can’t take it, that’s their loss.

Vera (Detour): Poison Girl by Dior. The minute you got your money, you headed straight for the nearest department store to spend it all. You grabbed a full bottle because it smelled sweet and rich and glamorous, and maybe just for a while you can imagine yourself as the kind of girl who always had access to it. Anyone who says you’re wearing too much can fuck right off.

Phyllis Dietrichson (Double Indemnity): Honeysuckle & Davana Cologne by Jo Malone. How could he have known that murder smelled like honeysuckle? He could have asked you. You could have told him there was always something sinister underneath anything beautiful.

Sandra Carpenter (Lured): Portrait of a Lady by Frederic Malle. Maybe you shouldn’t be wearing perfume while solving a mystery and trailing suspects, but you’re trying to draw out suspicious goth boys, and what better way than to smell like a Baudelaire muse? Your lips and nails are the same dark scarlet as the roses in this scent, and the smoke merges with the fog that covers the streets.

Nell Forbes (Don’t Bother to Knock): La Fille de Berlin by Serge Lutens. You were supposed to be living happily ever after by now. You were supposed to be held close by your one true love, who would think you were perfect and irreplaceable. Can’t they just let you wear your expensive roses and pretend to be a romantic heroine, just for a little while?

Cora Smith (The Postman Always Rings Twice): La Vie La Mort by TokyoMilk. You’d like to live in a bower of white flowers if you could. Really, anything better than where you are right now. Somewhere you never have to get your white dresses dirty and always have bouquets of jasmine being handed to you by your admirers.

Margot Shelby (Decoy): Joy by Jean Patou. What’s that, a bottle costs too much for an anniversary present? Well then, your lover had better make some more money, hadn’t they?

[mollrat101]

I find it so fascinating that this is the song that’s playing when Ruby and Ava have their date at the restaurant in episode 9. 

Because on the surface this song is about Ava’s feelings for Ruby and probably distills down why Ava is so drawn to her. The only lyric that really seems to be about Ruby is the very title “You’re So Cool”. Why does Ava like Ruby? Because she thinks she’s cool. Something that Ava is very obviously obsessed with. 

To be fair, we don’t know a lot about Ruby, and she seems like a perfectly nice person, but just glancing at their relationship doesn’t really give us much insight into why Ava is drawn to her. We know that L.A. is where Ava pursued superficial values over more meaningful pursuits, so it wouldn’t be a stretch to suggest her draw to Ruby is also based on this. Ava likes the idea of being able to win the heart of a young, beautiful, cool and successful actress. And while Ruby seems to care about her, Ava seems to avoid emotional vulnerability with her. Their connection seems to be based on having fun with each other and anything deeper than that isn’t something they’ve been good at handling. 

But everything else in the song? It fits more with Deborah. 

Which probably just highlights that Deborah’s presence in this whole scene is felt despite not being there. She has forever taken space within Ava’s heart and mind.  

(It got long, I’m sorry but my love for Ava and Deborah made me write this much lol.)

Body so fit So full of spark With affirmations As your wall art You were driven Eyes on the prize A yoga routine Home exercise

The song is speaking about an ambitious and driven person the narrator is admiring. There is no character in Hacks who is quite as driven and determined as Deborah. Despite all the tragedy and heartbreak and challenges that have come her way, Deborah has managed to find great success in her field. Deborah is nothing if not a survivor. 

Some of Deborah’s best traits are her ambition, self-discipline, dedication to her craft, strong work ethic and her determination. We see this demonstrated time and again such as when she mentions haven told 30,000 jokes in her career and when we see her morning routine which consists of her exercising in her home gym. For almost being 70, Deborah is in incredible shape. There’s no mention of her having chronic diseases and she’s health conscious to the point of being too restrictive on herself. 

Again, we don’t know much about Ruby so it’s probably not fair to say none of this could apply to her. She wouldn’t have gotten successful as an actress if she wasn’t ambitious and determined. But it’s the next lines that fully cement that even those that’s likely true, Ruby has a privilege Deborah doesn’t: youth.  Now like the faded star In sunset blvd

Here is a reference to the classic Hollywood horror film, Sunset Boulevard. The film follows “Joe Gillis, a struggling screenwriter, and Norma Desmond, a former silent-film star who draws him into her demented fantasy world, where she dreams of making a triumphant return to the screen”. The film is touted as one of the best scathing critiques of the Hollywood system by touching on issues of ageism, celebrity culture, the discounted role of writers in Hollywood and trying to balance the love of filmmaking with the cynical real-world business. 

This video essay goes more in depth on the film, but it’s easy to see some comparisons you could draw between Norma and Deborah. Norma and Deborah are both aging female stars who are looking to make a comeback. They’re both isolated and lonely in their mansions. They both take pains to create a certain image in response to the ageist and sexist standards of the entertainment industry. 

Of course, where Deborah differs is that while Norma fits the trope of the Monstrous Older Woman, Deborah is a deconstruction of it. While Sunset Boulevard, to some degree, sympathizes with Norma for the misogyny, ageism and destructive Hollywood system that has thrown her away, it ultimately portrays her as a cautionary tale and a villain. 

But Deborah is the hero of her own story. The story is more interested in empathizing with her suffering and exploring how she can move forward in a way that lets her have more control of her own narrative. Her backstory signals that the Mad Woman she’s been painted as was just a fiction perpetuated by her vindicative ex-husband. The fact that she leaned into it in order to preserve in her career and to take away some of the sting is completely understandable. 

Compared to Norma, Deborah doesn’t fall into delusions or commit acts of violence despite the fact that the public perceives her as the crazy woman who burned down her ex-husband’s house. 

While Norma is too far gone, Deborah’s story offers hope for her to finally feel free of this trope and to claim her own narrative. And while Norma’s relationship with Joe is toxic, Deborah and Ava form a real genuine bond that is based on honesty and push the other to become better artists and better people. 

The movie also debates things like cynicism versus idealism in working in movies which feels very similar to how Hacks battles between idealist or cynical when looking at the comedy world. 

Another character that’s relevant is Betty Schaefer, Joe’s collaborator and love interest. Betty represents a balance between Joe’s cynicism about moviemaking and Norma’s delusions of recapturing glory. Betty isn’t concerned with fame nor has she had idealism beaten out of her yet. She sincerely loves movies and has a devotion to writing good ones, but she’s realistic about working in the rough business. Joe initially chastises her for saying that a film should say something calling her “one of those message kids”. This feels very much like what Deborah accuses Ava of believing that comedy now should be about honesty and speaking your truth. But the film takes Betty’s side, as Hacks ultimately takes Ava’s. 

While Norma and Joe are cautionary tales of both Ava and Deborah being spit out by the entertainment industry (at the most extreme, Deborah ending up irrelevant and Ava ending up dead), Betty represents who they will actually become by being able to merge their points of views into a healthy whole. 

I play the devoted butler Morning coffees by the bed While all hard fought endeavours Bring in diminished returns

The 2nd reference to Sunset Boulevard is talking about the “devoted butler”. That’s referring to the character of Max. Max is Norma’s butler who is later revealed to be Norma’s first husband and former director. After she divorced him, Max couldn’t stand to live without her, so he abandoned his career to devote his life to her. 

In terms of Hacks characters, Max could actually be compared to either Marcus or Ava. Marcus has been in a codependent relationship with Deborah for 20 years where he’s essentially built her business empire singlehandedly, been her constant companion and has seemingly ignored his own personal and professional life in favor of devoting his life to Deborah. Marcus is the dark version of this idea of loyal service, sacrificing his own personal well-being to take care of someone else. 

But Ava represents a more positive spin on it. Ava becomes Deborah’s most ardent supporter of the new direction of Deb’s career. Ava choosing to act in service for Deborah isn’t seen as a negative as it’s actually seen a character growth for her. Unlike Marcus, one of Ava’s defining traits is her self-centeredness and her ruthless ambition. Ava choosing to lift up someone else’s career, to some extent at the sacrifice of her own, is actually a moment of growth for her. 

Of course, the more somber idea of efforts and diminished returns could refer to the fact that Ava and Deborah’s journey for her comeback is going to be difficult. While Deborah will never be able to gain back the potential success, she could’ve had in 1976, hopefully there will be some returns although they won’t likely go as they expect. 

And also, my little shipper heart can’t help but want to imagine Ava being supportive of Deborah day in and day out as her partner and her collaborator, in a way more positive spin on Max.  

You're so cool, it's true You're my kind of girl Keep you 'til the end

While the title itself, superficially, can refer to Ruby, most of the season has actually been dedicated to Ava genuinely starting to see how “cool” Deborah really is. Not in a superficial way, but in a way where Ava is impressed by her talent, her courage, her experiences and her perseverance. 

Again, going to be a huge sap here and say that while Ava believes it is Ruby who is right for her, it’s more likely actually Deborah. Is Ruby the kind of person she really wants to be with? It’s hard to say. I’m not sure Ava herself would know. But I find it very interesting that when we got a glimpse into Ava’s subconscious it isn’t Ruby, she imagines showing her love and intimacy, but Deborah. And while her relationship with Ruby isn’t likely to turn into anything long-term (at least not based on past experience), Ava’s relationship with Deborah (in whatever form that takes) is likely to be for life.  Find solace in the privilege to pursue Most people are crushed into servitude

This line likely refers to how Ava and Deborah have chosen the unstable path as artists. 

The path they’ve chosen is difficult, but they know they’ve taken a risk by not choosing a supposedly more stable career path. They cannot control how the industry evolves, but they can choose to find solace in doing good work and in being with each other. 

tl;dr: Despite the song “You’re So Cool” featuring on Ava and Ruby’s date, the lyrics have more relevance to Deborah. Superficially it’s about Ruby, but when you dig deeper the connections to Deborah are stronger which is kind of a metaphor how it is Deborah (not Ruby) who has left an indelible impression on Ava. It is Deborah who Ava’s heart feels really true to. 

[birdycurtains]

What about Tony being an old school horror director who feels like he’s about to be upstaged by Peter, a new horror director - think Blumhouse - and Tony, never having met him, both hates and fears him, until he bumps into him at a movie theater and hit it off until Peter introduces himself -des

this inspired me beyond belief, i have no idea why. i don’t think this was the direction you intended, but once i started i couldn’t stop haha. - birdy

He Calls Him Anthony

wordcount: 2,357

Friday nights were sacred. They were nights centered around going to see old movies at the IFC, and there was never to be a schedule conflict. Because that was one of the three nights he was awarded for seeing his daughter a week. 

And he would die before he didn’t take Morgan to see a truly good movie every Friday night. 

This night was Sunset Boulevard, he did always enjoy a good Wilder film, as did Morgan. Her twelve year-old self had mastered the art of the Norma Desmond gaze.

But here was Peter Fucking Parker, waltzing out of a showing down the hall. 

Morgan blearily leant into her dad's side as he attempted to speedily walk out of Parker’s field of vision.

It wasn’t that he hated Peter Parker, well maybe he did just a little. 

He was once that fresh face on the scene, basking in the limelight, being the true face of modern horror. 

But now his takes weren’t exactly fresh, and what the younger audiences were looking for. They wanted a twisted gore, with just this side of odd comic relief, that Parker had perfected while Pepper was serving Tony divorce papers.

So maybe he was envious, maybe he was just tired of everytime he attended a premier, or so much as breathed in the direction of the media, he was hounded with questions of what exactly did he think about Peter Parker?

In the beginning, he didn’t care or think much. But as trailer after trailer was put out, the movies being produced at a rapid rate while maintaining or increasing their following, even Morgan was asking her father if they could rent this, or if they could go to the cinema to see that.

And maybe he caved once, and with a hoodie, and sunglasses, a hat. For good measure of course. He went and saw one. With Morgan, because she insisted, and who was he to deprive her. 

It was good. And he resented Peter Parker for the same craft he held a torch for.

So here was Peter Parker, coming out of Casablanca. And making a bee-line towards him. 

“Mr Stark! Mr. Stark! Mr. Stark?”

God damn it. 

Tony willed his body to face the younger man. Morgan follows in suit, her eyes widening in realization, and proceeding to prod her elbow directly into her father’s side.

“Mr. Parker, well, nice to see you.” 

Tony could play nice, put on his ‘customer service’ voice, and act chummy with Peter Parker.

Although, the in-person Parker didn’t exactly match what he imagined.

This one wore thread-bare jeans, and converse that had seen better days, three years ago. 

He didn’t match the one he had seen plastered over last month's vanity fair, the pictures that had circulated his time-line a little more than his liking. 

They ran in the same circles, it wasn’t like he was actively looking for him.

“Gosh, Mr. Stark, it’s an honor to meet you really. Please, call me Peter.”

He was like a chihuahua that took a five-hour-energy-shot. 

His handshake was firm, and he slipped his glasses back up his nose as he collected himself. 

“I’m sorry for bothering you, but I thought I had seen you here before, I come here all the time y’know, every time they have a Rocky Horror showing, I’ve got tickets.” 

It was easy to catch that he was a New York native, unlike Tony himself. His Queens drawl interweaving between vowels and catching on to his r’s. It was rather cute, and personable. 

Did he just- Tony called him cute. Christ.

“My daughter and I like the classics.” He put simply smoothing down Morgan’s unruly strands. 

“Yeah, me too. I’m usually knee deep in everything going on right now, that to just enjoy the good ol’ stuff-”

He gave a dramatic sigh of pleasure, Tony felt his ears turn red.

 “That’s everything man. You would know of course. God, of course you know-  I mean”

The younger man cut himself short as he realized he was gripping Tony’s shoulder, his face and neck flushing red.

“I’m sorry- I’m probably taking up your family time. But, we should totally get together. Like talk shop or whatever?”

Peter flashed him the brightest smile, he swore the dim hallway was a little brighter.

“Yeah.”

The man was gone with a friendly wave as he jogged back to a small group of people, probably his friends, towards the exit.

Tony looked down at the ground and focused on his hand that hung limply by his side. On it was a chicken scratch phone number. 

Peter had written down his phone number. On Tony’s hand. 

And he hadn’t even noticed.

~

A few days later, Tony decides to grow a pair. He types the number into his phone, makes an individual contact for a Mr. Peter Parker.

He never thought this day would come. And he’s not sure the exact connotation behind that thought.

Does he call? Does he text?

In all honesty it has been a minute since he attempted friendship, or even communication outside of his usual social circle. 

Things had never been like this when he and Rhodey had initially become friends. Even the rest of his band of misfits had just happened naturally, never really taking this much preamble communication.

He texts.

~

They decide to meet at a small cafe around the NYU campus. Peter had said the place was quiet and usually uncrowded, one of his favorites.

Going against his gut, he trusts Peter and agrees.

Now here he is, looking presentable for the public eye, it’s a Monday. He’s just dropped off Morgan at school, and here he is. At another school.

“Anthony!”

He winces just the slightest, and is met with the vision that is Peter Parker at eight a.m. on a Monday morning. For someone so heavily criticized and praised in the public-eye, appearances must be everything on some level for the man. He doesn’t exactly aim to disappoint.

He looks so effortlessly cozy, dolled up in his black turtleneck and rust orange suede jacket, and those same glasses from the week prior perched against his brow bone. His hair looks soft, and his eyes are warm.

“Mr. Parker.”

That’s good. Set some boundaries, before you directly tell him he looks soft.

“I told you.” Peter sighs wistfully, wrapping his hands around a deep mug of hot chocolate? 

He looks up again with the same kindness and warmth.

 “Call me Peter.”

~

He invited him to dinner.

He doesn’t exactly know how it happened. It was somewhere between talking about how Peter had wound up picking up where his uncle left off, and how working as a barista in the cafe they were sitting in was Peter’s favorite job during college.

He could imagine a littler Peter, running around behind the counter making drinks and warming up scones. His open textbook to the left of the register, just like he described.

It made a fluttering in his chest somewhere, to know a personal and small detail of the Peter Parker. 

Not in a, I’m a huge fan of the Peter Parker.

But, in a, this kind young man, I am having the privilege of getting to know, kind of way.

The point is he invited him to dinner, at this high-end steak house he’s familiar with. A reservation for eight. 

It’s eight forty-five, and he’s on his second glass of red wine, Peter’s on his third.

Things are comfortably warm, they’re talking about Tony’s first movie, and how much of a shitshow it was, but the critics loved it.

The steak is amazing, they order dessert.

And he doesn’t budge or comment when Peter hooks his foot around his own. He only smiles softly, and watches Peter’s curious eyes watch as he brings a piece of poached pear to his mouth.

He hails Peter a cab at the end of the night, and Peter thanks him for dinner.

He calls him Anthony, once again.

~

Peter calls him this time.

It’s in the late hours of the night, and Tony, never really one for sleeping through the night anyway, has a lapful of script he’s reviewing, making sure it fits his artistic vision and what-not.

His voice is rough around the edges, a haze of sleep almost.

Tony wonders what it sounds like in person. If he were in bed next to him, or with him. Maybe with a lapful of Peter Parker, and not dialogue bleeding into his iris’.

He invites Tony over for Thursday night.

Peter knows the custodial schedule. That should mean something right?

He texts him an address later in the day. It’s in the Upper East Side, not too far from him, it’s in a cozy neighborhood of brownstones. 

Very Peter Parker.

~

Tony, will never understand Rocky Horror.

Peter had invited him when he arrived a little late, just five minutes, but he could see the worry drip off his shoulders as he greeted him at the door.

His home was a beautiful thing, filled to the brim with the most eclectic vintage interior, but it somehow matched.

He had learned from their meeting at the cafe, that Peter’s aunt owned a store that specialized in all things vintage and antique. It hadn’t surprised him to see it rubbed off on him.

In the downstairs parlor, it was decorated with dozens of Peter’s movie posters. Some were beta’s that Peter and an artist had worked on together. Peter flushed when he caught him staring. 

Tony would never get used to the fact that this Peter Parker was shy and not open about his work in his personal life, he liked to keep things very separate. 

He watched him put together a heaping bowl of kettle corn and followed him up a winding staircase, Peter remarked it was his favorite thing about the house.

He told him they were watching Rocky Horror Picture Show. 

Tony had never seen it in his entire life, he knew the cult following it had, but he couldn’t piece together that this is something Peter loved so much, but was so different from the direction he took with his work. 

He only smiled and agreed and saddled up with Peter on the pink floral couch. 

They’d never done this before, but it felt so familiar, like they had been through this scenario a dozen times, and it was just natural to lean into each other and fumble for the sugary popcorn between them.

It was around the scene when Frank N Furter was doing the backstroke with the rest of the cast in the swimming pool, that Tony realized their closeness.

How he had his arm wrapped around Peter, and Peter had just melted into his side.

The younger man must’ve felt the pressure of Tony’s gaze burning into the side of his face, since he turned his head to face him. 

It was all very cliche in this sense. 

A romantic scene directed and scripted and cast.

Except the love interests were him and Peter.

Peter kissed him first. That’s all he can clearly recall, the seconds prior being a blur of ‘is this actually happening’ to ‘it’s actually happening, do something’.

Finally the cognitive gears in his brain rekindle their function, and his lips are moving against Peter’s. He’s so warm and soft, he tastes like cinnamon sugar. 

Peter’s hands are grounding against his chest, holding him to reality, in any other case he would’ve drifted off somewhere because he has to be dreaming.

But this is real. And Peter’s real.

And, oh no. 

Tony gently pulls away from Peter’s grasp, and takes a breath. And Peter’s got this smile on his face like he won the grand prize at a carnival game.

“Peter- I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have done that. This is not going to happen.”

The smile falls faster on Peter’s face than the pit in his stomach.

There’s something hurt and cold in his eyes. The warmth is gone, and the guilt gnaws at Tony as he flees the Parker residence. 

~

It’s been two weeks since the Rocky Horror incident. 

Peter’s texted, and called. He believes he’s got Anthony all figured out. 

To be truthful he does. 

He had called Anthony out on his behavior six days ago, and hasn’t sent another message since.

Peter left a voicemail stating that Anthony wasn’t going to let himself enjoy something without finding an excuse for why he can’t. Peter wants this, and Anthony wants this, then that is all that matters. He is going to be filming at this location for the next two weeks, he can make his peace by showing up or not.

Tony stared at the message for ten minutes before Morgan told him to go get Peter.

She knew.

She always knows.

~

When Tony saw Peter again he was rushing past people ushering him to stop.

But Tony was on a mission, he felt like one of his main characters in the final leg of the movie, finally making it out alive, and this was the final call, where he would live to the credits, or the antagonist would leave no survivors. 

Peter was beautiful.

Even if he did look like Prom Queen Carrie at the moment. 

His hands and clothes were covered in fake blood, helping arrange the set to a T.

When Peter looked up at him, he knew he would make it to the credits.

His boy ran at him and swallowed him in his warmth. 

It was a pining, longing, and apologetic kiss, with bloody hands cradling Tony’s face.

“You’re dumb, and you hurt my feelings Anthony.” Peter whispered as he pulled away. 

“I’m sorry.” He replies, his eyes watery, insecurity wrung out like a rag, he wanted Peter and Peter wanted him. He chanted it a million times into the crook of Peter’s neck, just holding him. 

Peter pulled away and held him by his shoulders “It’s okay Anthony.”

He smiled that big beautiful warm smile of his, and pushed him away.

“Now. Get off my set. I’ll see you at nine, bring Morgan, they’re playing Psycho tonight.”

[introvertguide]

Sunset Boulevard (1950); AFI #16

The next film on our AFI list is the film noir drama Sunset Blvd. (1950). This movie was directed and part written by Billie Wilder. It was nominated for all of the acting categories, best director, and best picture...but won none of them. The movie was up for 11 Oscars but only received technical awards because of the very stiff competition that year from the likes of All About Eve, The Third Man, and Harvey. This film is often called the best movie about Hollywood ever written because it bravely looks at the life of a star and how they can be chewed up and spit out of the system when they get too old. This is not an aspect of movie stardom that Hollywood generally likes to advertise, so it is not surprising that this film was not as recognized. I would like to go over the plot before further discussion, so...

YOU KNOW THE DRILL! PREPARE FOR SPOILERS! THIS IS A MYSTERY SO DON’T READ FURTHER UNTIL YOU SEE THE FILM!

At a mansion on Sunset Boulevard, the body of Joe Gillis (William Holden) floats in the swimming pool. Long before it was done in American Beauty, the movie is narrated through a post mortem flashback of the main character.

Six months earlier, down-on-his-luck screenwriter Joe tries selling a story to Paramount Pictures.  Producer Sheldrake (Fred Clarke) is somewhat interested but looks to the advice of a script reader that walks in on the conversation. The woman who comes in is Betty Schaefer (Nancy Olson) and she harshly critiques the script, unaware that Joe is the writer. There is some awkward banter and Joe leaves in a huff. He is driving home and sees some repossession men seeking his car, so he flees only to barely escape by turning into the driveway of a seemingly deserted mansion. After concealing the car, he hears a woman inside call to him, mistaking him for someone else. Ushered in by Max the butler (Erich von Stroheim) , Joe recognizes the woman as long-forgotten silent film star Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson). She seems to believe that Joe is bringing a coffin for her dead monkey (that is not a typo), but becomes interested when she learns that Joe is a writer. Norma asks his opinion of a script she has written for a film about Salome, which she plans to play the role herself in a return to the screen. Joe finds her script abysmal, but flatters her into hiring him as a script doctor for enough money to buy back his car.

Norma insists that Joe move in and she has Max secretly get all of Joe’s things and move him in. Joe resents this but gradually accepts his situation as her boy toy because Norma is psychologically fragile. He sees that Norma refuses to face the fact that her fame has evaporated and learns that the fan letters she still receives are secretly written by Max, who explains that he has had to hide all of the knives and remove all locks on the doors as Norma has attempted suicide. Norma lavishes attention on Joe and buys him expensive clothes. At her New Year's Eve party, he discovers that he is the only guest and realizes she has fallen in love with him. Joe tries to let her down gently, but Norma slaps him and retreats to her room. Joe visits his friend Artie Green to ask about staying at his place. At Artie's party he again meets Betty, whom he learns is Artie's girl. Betty thinks a scene in one of Joe's scripts has potential, but Joe is uninterested. When he phones Max to have him pack his things, Max tells him Norma cut her wrists with his razor.  

Norma has Max deliver the edited Salome script to her former director Cecil B. DeMille at Paramount. She starts getting calls from Paramount executive Gordon Cole, but petulantly refuses to speak to anyone except DeMille. Eventually, she has Max drive her and Joe to Paramount in her 1929 Isotta Fraschini. The older studio employees recognize her and warmly greet her. DeMille receives her affectionately and treats her with great respect, tactfully evading her questions about her script. Meanwhile, Max learns that Cole merely wants to rent her unusual car for a film.

Preparing for her imagined comeback, Norma undergoes rigorous beauty treatments. Joe secretly works nights at Betty's Paramount office, collaborating on an original screenplay. His moonlighting is found out by Max, who reveals that he was a respected film director, discovered Norma as a teenage girl, made her a star and was her first husband. After she divorced him, he found life without her unbearable and abandoned his career to become her servant. Meanwhile, despite Betty's engagement to Artie, she and Joe fall in love. After Norma discovers a manuscript with Joe's and Betty's names on it, she phones Betty and insinuates what sort of man Joe really is. Joe, overhearing, invites Betty to come see for herself. When she arrives, he pretends he is satisfied being a gigolo, but after she tearfully leaves he packs for a return to his old Ohio newspaper job. He bluntly informs Norma there will be no comeback, her fan mail comes from Max, and she has been forgotten. He disregards Norma's threat to kill herself and the gun she shows him to back it up. As Joe walks out of the house, Norma shoots him three times and he falls into the pool.

The flashback ends. The house is filled with police and reporters. Norma, having lost touch with reality, believes the newsreel cameras are there to film Salome. Max and the police play along. Max sets up a scene for her and calls, "Action!" As the cameras roll, Norma dramatically descends her grand staircase. She pauses and makes an impromptu speech about how happy she is to be making a film again, ending with, "All right, Mr. DeMille, I'm ready for my close-up." as she makes a series of exaggerated swooping steps towards the camera, an equally exaggerated 'come-hither' expression upon her face. 

Gloria Swanson was in fact a silent film star that was having difficulty finding work. She was very well aware that the part was poking fun at people like herself and old Hollywood in general. She had worked with Cecil B. DeMille and he was happy to be part of the production for the right price. He was paid $20,000 for his cameo, which says that even he was glad to get work but still expected full price for his participation.

As mentioned in the recap, the idea of the post mortem narrator was taken full on by American Beauty. Arguably, so was the idea of somebody dealing with their growing irrelevance as they age. But it is fantastic that the movie can reveal the end result in the opening scene and yet there is still tension and it can act as a whodunnit. It becomes a question of who is going to kill Joe. The jealous butler/director/ex-husband? The crazy out of touch actress? The confused new girl? Artie the spurned fiancée? The repo men? Or maybe a distraught Joe takes his own life? As mentioned it was Norma, but I legitimately did not know the first time I watched the film and it was great.

Some more recent critics have not been kind to the acting of Gloria Swanson because she overacts to the point of camp. Yet that is exactly what you would expect from an emotionally fragile, silent film era actress that was once the biggest star and had lost her fame. She is a total drama queen and that is appropriately so. The reason that it works is that people point it out and she seems weird next to the other actors. She is like the character of Ms. Havisham in Great Expectations, but instead of tempting Pip with the love of Estella, she tries to do it herself. One part hilarious, but three parts absolutely fascinating. 

There is quite a bit of dark humor in this movie and much of it is through the campy acting of Swanson. I am glad to say that she owns it and doesn’t back away at all. There is a scene where she puts on a Charlie Chaplin outfit and attempts to entertain Joe. Also, the entertainment of the evening was watching her old silent movies and she reacts emotionally to her own portrayals. It is fantastic. I think my favorite part is that she thinks that Cecil B. DeMille is trying to get her back for a part and it turns out that an AP simply wants to use her car. 

So should this movie be on the AFI list? Without a doubt. It is brilliant mystery that takes a deep look at the downside of stardom. It was so accurate and appealing that the Academy had to take note despite likely not wanting to. It was one of the first movies to examine the fragility of an actor’s ego. It also has some of the very best single lines in cinema history. Would I recommend it? Absolutely. It might not interest younger viewers and the strange gigolo implications might not be appreciated by all, but it is a pretty fun (and funny) movie that find enjoyable every time. Well worth a watch. 

Side Note: There is a monkey burial scene when Joe first arrives and it might one of the strangest and funniest scenes in cinema. I just wonder...why did she have a monkey and how long did she keep the dead body before the burial? Yet another reason to check out the movie.

[clairen45]

Hey :-) In the new Anidala comic there is a interesting thing: the actress's museum is called "thousand faces museum" and I was never a believer in the reincarnation theory but in my opion, this is telling. Anakin and Padmè, both of them walking through this museum, which shows important moments of history. And on top of that, there is a picture of the place where Anakin and Padmè had married, but this picture is still "work progress" What do you think about all this new stuff?

Oh dear anon, these two issues from Star Wars adventures, issues 12 and 13, are so ripe with meta textuality that it’s not funny. This comic blew me away with the clever references and jokes. It’s all about reverse Anidala and the Skywalker saga coming full circle with Reylo. From the cover of 12 that looked so much like Rey and Kylo fighting back to back, to all the winks in there. This stuff is so great.

Ok, museum of the 1000 faces. Fans of GOT could love that one too because you have this idea of a character being able to wear the face of someone else and become this character in order to fulfill a mission, right? Given that the TV show (not sure what the book series will do) is following the path of descendants fixing the mistakes of the past (fire and ice, Starks and Targaryens), and of chosen ones coming back (Azor Ahai, the Prince that was promised), this is also a noteworthy parallel. Even more so that Arya, the one whose arc goes through the hall of faces, also becomes an actress (in the TV show she is fascinated by plays but does not become part of the troupe).

The idea in the Star Wars comic is that Madam Synata is a versatile actress that played all these many characters: hence the Thousand Faces Museum. She is also two-faced in real life since she is actually working for Dooku.

Funny anecdote, she is supposed to be this great famous actress in the galaxy, yet she is introduced to Anakin in the comic through an obvious parallel with faded silent film star Norma Desmond from Billy Wilder’s Sunset Boulevard

Besides the pose, the staircase, the dramatic walking down the stairs, actress Gloria Swanson, who plays Norma Desmond, would have favored this kind of feathered dress and hat…

I think the reference is here to point out everything that does not work out about her. She gets her facts all mixed up and wrong, as repeated over and over again in the comic, as we can see here for instance:

And of course:

If Risha does not get the end she was expecting because “she was not the hero of the story”, the idea that there are “two sides” to a story is still an essential one in the saga. From Obi Wan’s “certain point of view” sentence to the scrolling credits to ROTS that boldly state that there are “heroes on both sides” of the war. This is not minor and it indeed matters. So even if Risha gets it all wrong (beginning with the side she chose),  there is still some value to take away from this story. And mostly, this  comic raises a lot of question about where the Skywalker as a whole is headed and offers a bridge between the PT (where this story takes place) and the current ST.

Let’s come back to this Thousand Faces museum. Contrary to GOT’s Hall of Faces, the point is not really about the diversity of faces exhibited. Even though you get different dioramas of scenes presenting mannequins or animatronics with various settings, the point of the museum is to showcase Risha’s face in various poses and costumes over and over and over again. So these thousand faces are really just the one face of Risha in 1000 different settings, poses, and costumes. As you can see there examplified:

In terms of the ST, this should ring a bell. We got a thousand faces and yet only one face represented on screen, right?

And interestingly, Risha belongs to the Dark Side, like the cave on Ahch-To, and acts like a mirror, reflecting everything wrong: her stories are never accurate. Another huge wink at Rey we get earlier (so that Risha dons both Padmé and Rey’s costumes or attitudes in this comic) :

So what else do we get that should give us matter to pause and ponder upon?

You very rightly, dear anon, pointed out the “work in progress” reference to Naboo.

The comic is not even subtle about it, commenting right away about the meta aspect of this: our PT love story is a tragedy, we are a work in progress. Ok, gotcha. But what the story tells us too is that Anakin and Padmé are unfinished business, right? A part of a bigger story that still requires completion. Like a PT that can be completed with a ST? So what scene needs to get completed? The wedding scene of course, the exchange of vows, what normally constitutes the climax and perfect ending to any self-worthy fairy-tale.

Unfortunately, that is a fail for the PT, as we well know. Since Risha usually gets stories wrong, though, it’s a good thing this story still needs to be completed. Padmé bets that Risha would have ruined the scene with a tragedy, which, given that Risha gets things inverted, means that the story would have ended happily. Nope. So better leave it unfinished. The couple missing on the painting is not Padmé and Anakin. Possibly it hints at Rey and Kylo (though not necessarily wedding on Naboo, this is just symbolic). Also again, inversion of the story: Anakin poor boy falls for royalty, and Kylo royal boy falls for poor girl. Ummmm, subtletly be damned. Work in progress indeed, since the ST and the saga are not completed and are currently shooting.

More stuff. Funny how this sentence is repeated over and over again, even by a Yoda animatronic:

Padmé has escaped many dangerous situations and assassination attempts. Sure, she will still escape this time around, but eventually, we know that she won’t. It’s like the ticking of a clock, and clock ticking, well, that’s another way of talking about the need felt by some women to have babies…

Even better stuff; Have you noticed these little sceneries as our heroes run down the hall?

Ok… So they are running from Tatooine to Endor!!! Tatooine is the passageway to their escape. Sure, it’s the transitional planet between the PT and the OT, the only planet that they both feature. It’s the last one we get from ROTS and the first one we get in ANH. The Ewoks and Ewok village that’s unmistakably ROTJ. So the characters have escaped the setting of the PT to run through the OT (and the planet that sees the funeral of Anakin). What is the next scenery we get?

A snow planet. I would not necessarily pay any attention to the characters in the background. but look at the way Anakin and Padmé are flying about in a snow-covered landscape… Do you remember Kylo chasing Rey on Starkiller base?

And then in the next issue, it’s like going backward with this scene that could TLJ’s Canto Bight (which is oddly enough totally unrelated to Kylo or Rey):

And straight to the beginning of PM with Naboo’s sea monsters:

“We’re close”… meaning close to the final act, the end. And what is the final act about in this story?

Which does not work out for Risha, of course. Which does not work out for Anakin, but certainly did work for Luke in the OT and is bound to work for Kylo in the ST.

Cross this with this very important line from the TLJ graphic adaptation:

So we keep on saying the same references to the circle, to repeating history, to getting it right after many mistakes and failures, be it in litteral sentences or through the actions of the main characters. So, of course, Reylo. Look at the next two pictures depicting Luke’s death:

The light of two suns…Which fuse into one. 2 suns meeting to “step into a larger world”. This is not death, this is rebirth, this is birth. Womb/Tomb. The cave entrance. Death feeding life, right? This was an important part of the first lesson Luke gave Rey on that very spot. The utlimate metaphor of the two suns fusing, like two people becoming one through love, a wedding, sexual union, and creating life. A work in progress?

There is a lot to cover in these silly cartoons that are actually incredibly clever and thoughtful. I also love the tongue-in-cheek quality of such a line:

Does Star Wars produce too many shows?

And I had to edit this OP with the very important note made to me by @toawaterfowl. What work did Lucas credit for being essential to the concept of this saga? Campbell’s The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Of course!

[broadwaybydesign]

The Glamorous Life: Costuming the 2009 Revival of “A Little Night Music”

Editor’s Note: This review was originally scheduled for Wednesday, but due to the tech issue with the Here Lies Love review, I’m going to post it this afternoon. Hopefully I can find the HLL review, but if not, I’ll write a new one for posting later in the week. And now I’ve learned a valuable lesson in backing things up again!

A Little Night Music is one of those productions where everyone can probably name the 11 o’clock number, but has no idea what the rest of the production is--or even that the song came from a musical: the classic “Send in the Clowns.” But this production, and its 2009 revival, are so much more than a single (beautiful) number. And while Harold Prince may have said it is “a play about wasting time,” there is a lot more than nothing going on with this staging and costuming.

I first became aware of A Little Night Music because of the 1977 movie of the same name which starred Elizabeth Taylor and Len Cariou. The musical and movie are based on an earlier film by famed Swedish director Ingmar Bergman, so it is perhaps not surprising that the whole of the production is couched with Scandinavian themes, styling, and color schemes. The 2009 production, a revival starring the divine Dame Angela Lansbury and the ever-beautiful Catherine Zeta-Jones in a role which won her a Tony, is no exception. 

Prepare for a lot of whites and creams and blacks in this review, which should give us a chance to talk about technique a lot, because that’s just as important here as the colors are in other productions. Costume designer David Farley also did the scene design for this revival production, and so we get to see what it looks like when a costumer can have a direct hand in the set design, rather than just the reverse! Without further ado, let’s take a look at some of these designs:

There are some parallels in the character played by Ms Zeta-Jones, Desiree, and that of Glenn Close’s Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard. Both are actresses whose stars have faded, who are past their prime, and who are still thirsting for a taste of the glory they once had on stage and screen respectively. Unlike Norma Desmond, however, Desiree has a bit more of a “life” in that she’s surrounded by family and former lovers throughout the production, somber “Send in the Clowns” number notwithstanding.

This costume shows some classic late Victorian and early Edwardian style, which makes sense given that the musical is set in 1900. Despite being relatively simple to behold, there’s actually quite a bit to unpack here in the costume, both the dress and the accessories. Ms Zeta-Jones has a traditionally classically beautiful figure and appearance, and a costumer always wants to design their costume to fit the actress herself, and not just the character, something that I have mentioned in the past. But in this case, that’s important for the character of Desiree herself; despite the fading of her glory, she remains vain and glory-seeking, and obviously would put her appearance and looks before almost anything else.

That’s also one of the two reasons for the muted color palate chosen in this costume. The other is, as I mentioned earlier, the setting of the musical; Scandinavian designs, especially for summer weather, were extraordinarily stark for the upper classes in this era. The focus was on crisp, striking beauty rather than stunning flashes of color as seen in London or Paris circa 1900.

This dress itself is beautiful, capably constructed out of satin and what looks like a light muslin; the latter would keep the wearer cool in hot weather, important both for a Swedish summer and for an actress under the brutal heat of stage lighting. And that is extra important with this costume because it’s the one Ms Zeta-Jones spends the most time in during the production.

Let’s look at it from another angle to check some of the details:

The white chemise under the dress is what gives us our tipoff that this dress is, in fact, a cream color rather than a snow-white, and I’ve mentioned in previous reviews why that’s important. Set aside the Scandinavian design work of the piece, and an off-white often looks cleaner to the naked eye than a pure white, because the eye is attuned to picking up things that aren’t quite right when there is a lot of negative space (which white naturally tends to form). A cream, in other words, allows the purity and elegance of the white to be shown off while still looking satisfying to the eye.

The dress itself is relatively simple, with a muslin skirt that is designed to look chic and elegant, while the blouse and bodice of the dress are a little bit more stylishly cut. Notice how the bodice comes to a point in the center, allowing the eye to visually see where the piece ands and then take note of the skirts underneath. In addition, the dress is hung and layered in such a way as to allow subtle folds to develop as the actress moves across the stage or shifts her positioning; as I mention a lot, that helps the dress catch the light, and in this case reinforces that this is not a white dress, but a creamy off-white.

A line of buttons acts as the only dress adornment, and rather than being straight, they are angled across the bust towards the hip. This adds a little bit of style which takes the costume from being too simple to being just about right for the 1900-era Swedish setting of the production. The lapels of the blouse and bodice are small but prominent enough to be noticed when looked at up close, once again a hallmark of proto-Edwardian style, a transition between the lapel-heavy late Victorian era and the more flat blousing of the Edwardian era and later, as it became more acceptable for women’s fashion to be a little less “styled” as it were.

The accessory work here is very pretty, timeless in consisting of pearls and (assuredly false) diamonds. The necklace around Desiree’s neck is dainty, with the pearls bunched in a way that is reminiscent of clustered fruit, with dangling pearl earrings to match. Rather than an elaborate hat, Ms Zeta-Jones sports a feathery hairpiece that gives a little bit of added height and hints at her elegance...or perhaps, even, her reduced circumstances, relegated to theatrical touring in Sweden instead of the main stage.

Another key difference between proto-Edwardian style and its 19th century predecessors is the lack of a large bustle. I’ve mentioned bustles before in the context of ball gowns, and they were used to expand the rear of a dress and provide a bit more space between a woman and anyone else coming near her. By 1900, however, this had gone out of fashion, and we can see from this kneeling shot where Desiree embraces Frederik (Alexander Hanson), her former lover and (maybe) father of her child. The expansion of the rear of the dress is solely because of the petticoats which can be seen peeking out from under the hem of the skirt as it pools on the floor.

I like the use of the more linen-like, muslin cloth for this dress for a couple reasons, the first of which is that it’s quite authentic to the time period, but also because it allows us to talk about technique a little more. I’ve talked a lot about comfort for the actresses under stage lighting, but another reason to vary your fabric selection is to play with the lighting a little bit. Whereas satin, sateen, silk, and the like will be reflective, muslin, linen, or other woven cloths will give you the much more matte appearance seen here, and below in another group still, this time encompassing a couple similarly costumed characters:

There’s no reflectivity in this shot, because the cloth of the dresses does not allow for it. That means you can actually see some of the details a little bit better, and given that Mr Farley did both the costume and the scene design for the 2009 revival of A Little Night Music, I cannot believe this is coincidental.

Take a closer look at Dame Angela Lansbury’s, playing Desiree’s mother, costume on the left of the shot (stage right). While similar in color to Desiree’s, the style is very different and quite a bit older. Madame Armfeldt is an older woman who clings to the more Victorian styles that she grew up wearing and is most comfortable in. There is more rich adornment in this dress than in her daughter’s, as can be seen here:

Cream in color, there is a subtle patterning to this dress in the form of just-thicker-than-pinstripe stripes, a lighter color than the main cream body of the dress. Around her neck, she wears not only a pearl necklace with a cameo pendant, but a pair of spectacles, as would have been appropriate for a woman of style and some measure of means in this era; the handbag would not come into vogue for an upper class woman (and she is upper class, given her “dalliances” with European royalty in her past) for some decades.

Dame Angela is also costumed with a rather compelling hat, a straw base with some pale pink feathering and a couple of gray flowers; once again, the color scheme is muted in keeping with the overall theme of stark colors, but the addition of some adorning elements and complementary shades is a pretty nice touch.

As I noted at the start of this review, whites and creams predominate, but there is some good use of black in the costumes as well. Let’s take a look at a couple of those as well:

Once again, with the black dresses, we get to see the distinct differences between the Victorian and Edwardian styling. Dame Angela’s costume is far more voluminous, designed to disguise her figure, and the bodice is decorated richly with a little bit of beadwork and some lace-work. While she does lack a hat this time, the slight butterfly sleeves once again draw a distinction between her costume and Ms Zeta-Jones’.

Desiree’s costume is simple once again, but the striking silver panels to the bodice and blouse combination help it to stand out. There are specific rules in Victorian and Edwardian fashion about how black is supposed to be used, but at the moment I can’t recall where silver/gray comes in on the hierarchy. Needless to say, here it was a deliberate and stylish costuming choice that makes what might otherwise be a too plain dress into something that is eye-catching and memorable. Once again, there is little in the way of accessories, though Ms Zeta-Jones sports a brooch at her neck, much like Dame Angela.

Take a look at another one of the black numbers from the production, this time much more stark and austere, without the silver paneling of the above costume:

As you can see, the skirt is much the same, the giveaway being the embroidery about six inches above the hem of the dress. But whereas before we had a blouse and bodice that combined some colorful elements, this time we have a much more plain, almost velveteen blouse. There’s a more somber feeling to this dress, and I think it easily fits some of the darker themes of the musical: dissatisfaction with life, anger at lost glory, and a sense of loss as one’s fame recedes into the fog of memory.

A Little Night Music is not a showy musical, in music or in costuming, but I would never call the costumes of David Farley boring. Rather, they allow us a glimpse inside the fashions of a time period that often gets overlooked, namely the transition between Victorian fashion trends and Edwardian trends. The fact that the musical takes place in a culture that emphasized flat tones and matted colors helps to explain the choice to keep things confined to blacks, whites, and silvers. To me, that’s a beautiful choice, and there is a kind of elegance here that is timeless. Instead of relying on a color palate, the cuts of the cloth and shape of the costumes are forced to stand on their own, and I think they succeed.

This is a musical that deserves a look, not only because its austere color choice is a bit of a palate-cleanser, but because the designs are interesting and the music light and delightful. In that respect, David Farley’s designs are a rousing success, and it was wonderful to analyze them.

That wraps up my review of the costumes of A Little Night Music. As always, if you have thoughts, comments, criticism, or the like, please feel free to drop an Ask, submission, or message! And make sure to keep reading as we approach the weekend and take a look at more beautiful musicals!

Stay tuned!

[trendingnewsb]

Glenn Close: You lose power if you get angry

From vengeful mistress to Agatha Christie matriarch: the actor talks about Harvey Weinstein, mental illness and growing up in a cult

Glenn Close and I sit at the corner of a large boardroom table in an intimidatingly minimalist office on the 14th floor of a Los Angeles talent agency. Its the kind of environment in which Patty Hewes, the ruthless lawyer Close played in Damages for five seasons, would feel at home and Im almost waiting for her to stand up, slam both hands on the table and shout, Ill rip your face off or any of the other terrifying put-downs that defined her double Emmy award-winning performance.

But Close is in high spirits and radiates such warmth I barely notice the chill from the tower blocks air-con. After we fiddle with the settings on our swivel chairs, which are so high they make anyone under six foot kick their legs like a child on a swing, the 70-year-old, six-time Oscar nominee and star of stage, television and film starts telling me about her dreams. I have had a lot recently, full of this wonderful love for a younger man. The dreams just keep coming and I wake up thinking, that was wonderful! It wasnt necessarily us doing the sexual act, just the feeling of love.

With her white hair cut to a sharp crop, and wearing a relaxed navy blazer, chinos and black scarf on account of the arctic corporate temperature, she looks stylish and fit. I have never felt better in my life, and I am, like, 70, she says. Im really a late bloomer.

She says she feels a disconnect between how she sees herself and how people may view me when I walk down the street, like: Theres an old lady. You know, there is now this cult of the model. Everyone on the red carpet is made into a model. That is very hard to not play into I have a bit of podge I am trying to get rid of, but its hard. I just think, Oh fuck, Ive been doing this my whole life! But the irony is, you just get better and better with age. You dont feel less alive or less sexy.

In Agatha Christies Crooked House. Photograph: Nick Wall

We are here to talk about Crooked House, the Agatha Christie adaptation debuting on Channel 5, before its theatrical release, in which Close plays Lady Edith, a matriarch of a very dysfunctional family. Close says, Christies grandson came to the set and he validated the fact that it was her favourite book, and the one that had never been adapted. He said when she handed it to the publisher, she was told she had to change the ending, because it was too upsetting and controversial. She refused. Its still pretty controversial.

This production, co-written by Julian Fellowes, might not be as spendy as Kenneth Branaghs $55m Murder On The Orient Express, but the ensemble cast is equally starry: joining Close are Gillian Anderson, Max Irons, Terence Stamp and Christina Hendricks. Close presides over her co-stars with gravitas and grace, in an understated performance that finds the humour in an otherwise bleak setup. But youd expect nothing less from the actor whose 40 years in the business started with star turns in Broadway productions (she won a Best Actress Tony in 1983 for Tom Stoppards The Real Thing). Her first film role, at the age of 35, was with Robin Williams in The World According To Garp, for which she received an Oscar nomination as she did for her supporting roles in The Big Chill and The Natural. Her performances in Fatal Attraction, Dangerous Liaisons and Albert Nobbs, about the life of a transgender butler in late 19th century Ireland, which she also co-wrote, racked up further Oscar nominations but still no win. This is seen by many as a travesty: Close brings a precision to her film work, honed through her years on stage. She has that rare taut quality Jack Nicholson also has it where you believe that beneath the steely control she is capable of snapping at any moment.

It was this that led Andrew Lloyd Webber to cast her in 1993 as the tragic silent movie star Norma Desmond in Sunset Boulevard on Broadway. Close reprised the role 23 years later, getting her old costumes out of storage (she has kept all her costumes and recently donated the collection to a university in Indiana) for its revival in Londons West End.

As Alex Forrest in Fatal Attraction: Clearly she had mental health issues. Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock

But it was her Oscar-nominated turn as Alex Forrest in Fatal Attraction in 1987 that proved career-defining. Thirty years on, Close still counts Forrest as the character of whom she feels most fond; she has admitted to fighting tooth and nail against the films eventual denouement, which turned the character into a bunny-boiling psychopath and Close into the casting directors go-to woman on the verge for years afterwards. Now we have the vocabulary to talk about these things, clearly she had mental health issues, she says.

Close sits regally still as she speaks, emphasising her points by leaning forward and locking eyes. Shes comfortable with silences and often takes a theatrical beat or two before answering questions. Shes all poise and control, but does she ever lose her temper?

I express my feelings quietly. I am not afraid of confrontation, but I am not particularly good at it. If I get attacked, I am not good at attacking back. There is fight, flight and freeze and I tend to freeze. That is not a strength of mine. I love the fact that my daughter Annie [Starke, an actor] is more of a fighter than I am. She doesnt let people get away with shit. While she agrees that women have a harder time being angry, publicly, than men, she says, I have played a lot of characters, and actually anger makes you lose power. Patty Hewes [in Damages] she hardly ever lost her temper, but when she did, it was very specific. I have always felt you lose power if you get that angry.

The collective outpouring of anger among women in Hollywood right now is something of which Close is acutely aware. She says that sexism in the industry has shifted more slowly than it should have done throughout her career: It took Harvey Weinstein and someone calling him out [for real change to happen]. I know Harvey, and he has never done that to me, but people would say he was a pig. I never knew that it was that bad and I dont personally know anybody who has endured that. I would like to think that I would have done something about it.

We discuss whether its possible to separate the work from the personalities involved in it. News has just broken that House Of Cards will be back for another series without Kevin Spacey, after it was originally canned because of harassment claims brought against its leading man. Close wraps her scarf around her chest and fixes me with her electric eyes. Artists, to make a huge generality, walk on a very thin line. Sometimes, like my beloved friend Robin Williams, who was one step away from madness, whatever makes them a great artist also makes them very complicated human beings. Again, that doesnt mean they can prey on and abuse people.

With Harvey Weinstein in 2013. Photograph: Mike Coppola/Getty Images

At the root of the problem of sexism in Hollywood right now is, Close says, biology. I think the way men have treated women, from the beginning of time, is because they have different brains to women. So I am not surprised by it at all. I say to a guy, Tell me the truth, if you see a woman walk into a room, what is the first thought that goes through your head? His answer, always, is, Would I fuck her? It doesnt mean they act on it. If you can evolve into a society where men know that they should not always act on it then there has been a positive revolution. But you cant just say that theyre not going to have the thought that is ridiculous. It also has to be the women, who are not powerful, to be OK to say no and leave the room. I think its unrealistic to say were going to change but we have to evolve.

I ask Close who she thinks is a great man today. She is silent, thinking, for what feels like a full 60 seconds in which I am so tempted to throw out some options: Barack Obama, the Pope, the friendly security guard on reception who let us in

Nelson Mandela, is her final answer, but Im not sure shes convinced. I guess for me, she says, greatness is taking your humanity and still doing the good thing. Its sad to say that there are very few men, who are leaders, who have some sort of moral code that they dont deviate from because of popular opinion.

She thinks we are undergoing a crisis of masculinity: In the public mind, yes. I was outraged when I heard that there was a war against men I was like, are you joking? What do you think has been happening against women for centuries?

Close knows all too well about the misuse of power, because her own upbringing was, as she puts it, complicated. When she was seven, her parents joined a cult. Moral Re-Armament or MRA was a modern, nondenominational movement founded by an American evangelical fundamentalist which extolled the four absolutes: honesty, purity, unselfishness and love. Her father, a physician working in the Congo, sent Close with her brother and two sisters from the family home in Greenwich, Connecticut, to live at the MRA HQ in Caux, Switzerland (Closes mother, Bettine, was a socialite).

She is vague on the details but clear on the impact this experience had on her as a teenager: I was repressed, clueless and guilt-ridden. The timeline is patchy, but Close travelled with MRA in the 60s as a member of their musical groups, and spent time back in Connecticut at an elite boarding school. I had a wonderful time at Rosemary Hall, a girls school, she says. I was in a renegade singing group called the Fingernails: A Group With Polish. But she remained, as she calls it clueless. A lot of my friends knew boys youd have these horrendous dances with boys schools and they would get the guys they wanted and I would just stay with the person I was with.

As Patty Hewes in Damages. Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock

She was briefly married before going to university. It is a complicated story for me. I was married before college, and kind of in an arranged marriage when you look back on it, and my marriage broke up when I went to college, as it should have. I was 22. But my liberal arts school had a wonderful theatre that was my training, my acting school.

Was that where she finally learned about sex, popular culture, the ways of the world? Not really, she says. I still am learning.

Close has two sisters, Tina the eldest, and Jessie her younger sister; and two brothers, Alexander, and Tambu Misoki, who was adopted by Closes parents while living in Africa. At the age of 50, Jessie spent time in a psychiatric hospital and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder, a weight that had been hanging over the family, undiscussed, for years. Talking about mental illness just wasnt done, Close says. You dont have a vocabulary for it and youre also very aware of appearances. You dont want to appear a crazy family.

In 2010 Close founded Bring Change to Mind, a charity that aims to end the stigma around mental illness by talking openly about it and its effect on families. It was my nephew who was first diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder. This is basically schizophrenia with an ingredient of bipolar. And when that happened, it was like, What? My sister Jessie, his mother, didnt know what was wrong. He went to the hospital for two years and that saved his life. Then Jessie was, finally, correctly diagnosed herself.

With sister Jessie in 2009. Photograph: Getty Images

Close felt a duty to her family to give them a high-profile person who is not afraid to talk about it publicly. It affects the whole family. We always knew my grandmother and mother had depression my sister does, I do to a certain extent. But I didnt know my great-uncle had schizophrenia. I knew my half-uncle died by suicide. There was a lot of alcoholism addiction, self-medication. Nobody ever talked about it. I knew my grandmother was depressed, but at first I thought she lived in a hotel, not a hospital, because she always said how good the food was.

Close says she and her siblings are of one mind politically, but admits she does have members of her family who voted for Trump. I tried to understand that. Theyre not crazy people who have been brainwashed by Fox News, but I try to understand the anger, because I think that has been building up ever since Watergate. It was watching that scandal unfold that made her realise Americans have always been naive, we just take for granted what we have, and we always thought of our leaders as good people. With Watergate, people became cynical about government.

Today, she says, Washington is a bunch of self-serving She searches for an expletive and after a second settles on men. She says, Its hard to believe that people are so out for themselves. It goes against what you would like to believe about your country. I feel eloquence is incredibly important for a leader, and we had that with Barack Obama, who made his initial impact because he gave that incredibly eloquent speech, but he lost his eloquence in his presidency. We always need someone to say, I hear you, someone who can put their words into unity and hope and we dont have that. I think the last person may have been Robert Kennedy.

And now you have Trump tweeting nonsense.

Its devastating. Social networks are now like our nervous system, and if you keep pumping that kind of crap into the nervous system, it is going to have an effect on a population.

With Kevin Kline in The Big Chill. Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock

Close doesnt talk politics with her friends because she doesnt really have many friends. I have always forced myself into situations I am not comfortable in. I am an introvert, and I was painfully shy as a child. I think I still have a big dollop of that in my persona. I read a book called Quiet: The Power Of Introverts In A World That Cant Stop Talking and it was a real comfort to me I realised I was that person I had always been. And it was at that point I told myself to stop pushing myself into situations that I dont enjoy. I dread cocktail parties.

She tells me shes pretty reclusive and can count her closest friends on two fingers. I ask if shes still good friends with Meryl Streep.

I have never been close friends with Meryl. We have huge respect for each other, but I have only done one thing with her, The House Of The Spirits.

I apologise for assuming they were pals, being of a similar age and stature in Hollywood, and admit this negates my next question: Who would win in an arm wrestle, you or Meryl?

Close laughs. Oh, I would, because I am very strong.

***

The tightest bond Close has is with her only daughter Annie, 29. Annies father is the film producer John Starke whom Close dated for four years from 1987, but never married. Annie was never a door-slamming, difficult teenager. Close tells me: When my Annie was three, she looked at me, and said, I want you. I knew what she meant. I, at the time, was a single working parent, sometimes even when I was home, working or producing something, I was there and not there.

With daughter Annie Starke in 2010. Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock

She doesnt think its any easier for working mothers today and acknowledges, I had it easy because I could afford to have help think of the women who cant afford it and have to put their child in some shaky childcare centre. No, I think it is incredibly hard for women. Any person, in any profession, feels that tug [of guilt]. We discuss the intimacy of the single-parent, only-child bond. Once, I went to vacuum Annies car seat as we were moving house, and a lot of life had happened there, so I was crying. She said, Mummy, are you OK? I said, Yeah, Im OK. And she said, Here I am.

She was married to businessman James Marlas from 1984 to 1987 and then, following other relationships, including that with Starke, she married again, in 2006, to venture capitalist David Evans Shaw, divorcing him nine years later.

Would she marry again?

I dont know.

Does she think marriage is important?

I think it is a positive evolutionary component that we are better with a partner. I think to have a partner that you can go through life with, creating a history with, that you can find a comfort with, have children with there is nothing better. This is an opinion I have come to very late in life, at an ironic moment, where I dont have any of that. I dont know if I will again. But I do think its a basic human need to be connected.

Despite this, shes happy on her own right now. This is a good time in life. I do think, what would it be like to have a partner again? But it would have to be very different from what I had before. Then I have that great dream and wake up happy.

Crooked House is on Channel 5 at 9pm on 17 December.

Commenting on this piece? If you would like your comment to be considered for inclusion on Weekend magazines letters page in print, please email weekend@theguardian.com, including your name and address (not for publication).

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2017/dec/16/glenn-close-harvey-weinstein-mental-illness-cult-fatal-attraction

from Viral News HQ http://ift.tt/2npFUB4 via Viral News HQ

[anglenews]

Word from West End says ‘Follies’ revival is jolly good

August 25, 2017 | 1:52am Modal Trigger Janie Dee (left), Philip Quast, Imelda Staunton and Peter Forbes Perou Pull up a chair, Stephen Sondheim fans: I’ve got eyewitness reports from the National Theatre of London’s first preview of “Follies.” Directed by Dominic Cooke, this lavish production, set in a hulking, decrepit theater, features a staircase to rival Norma Desmond’s in “Sunset Boulevard.” “Hats off, here they come, those beautiful girls!” Onstage, a 21-piece orchestra performs Sondheim’s fabled score. The cast numbers 37. The leads — Imelda Staunton, Janie Dee, Tracie Bennett, Philip Quast, Peter Forbes — are in fine form. But the standout is Dame Josephine Barstow. Once one of opera’s leading sopranos, at 76 she plays the aging coloratura, Heidi, who sings “One More Kiss” with the ghost of her younger self. “You could see the years etched on her face, but the voice was magnificent,” one of my spies says. “It’s everything ‘Follies’ is about.” For sports fans who’ve landed on this page by mistake, “Follies” is about a reunion of retired performers from a Ziegfeld Follies-like revue from the ’30s. They gather in 1971, at their old Times Square theater, which is about to be torn down to make way for a parking lot. Cooke’s version is as cynical as Hal Prince’s legendary 1971 production; like that one, it’s performed without an intermission. My spies quibble with the dim lighting and the choreography. (“How can you have the famous ‘Mirror, Mirror’ number when nobody’s mirroring anybody? Bring back Michael Bennett’s choreography!”) Sondheim was at Tuesday’s first preview. The cast acknowledged him during the curtain call, and 1,150 “Follies” fanatics went bananas. This “Follies” is probably too expensive to go anywhere, but if you can’t make it to London, you can see the National Theatre’s live broadcast at the Beekman in New York on Nov. 16. --- In a business full of brash, egomaniacal and (in some cases) crazy people, Tom Meehan stood out because he was none of those things. Quiet, self-effacing and quick to share credit with others, Meehan, who died this week at 88, co-wrote three of Broadway’s most beloved musicals: “Annie,” “The Producers” and “Hairspray.” He was working at the New Yorker in 1971 when his friend Martin Charnin asked him if he’d like to write the book for a new musical. “I was thrilled,” Meehan told me when I interviewed him for my book “Razzle Dazzle: The Battle for Broadway.” “I’d never been involved in the theater, though I loved to go. But I was [over] 40, and I thought that ship had sailed.” When Charnin told him the musical would be based on the comic strip “Little Orphan Annie,” Meehan’s heart sank. “I was a ‘Dick Tracy fan,’ ” he said. But after poring over microfilm of comics, which began in 1924, he found a way in. “I suddenly saw orphans in darkness,” he recalled. “I love Dickens, and I began to think maybe we could make this Dickensian. Nixon was president, and it was a dark time. I thought it might be interesting to write something, set in the Depression, that starts off dark but then becomes hopeful with a president — FDR — who radiates optimism.” At a reading of the show for potential backers, Meehan saw a woman pass a note to her husband. He later found the note on the floor. It read: “I’ll kill you for having brought me to this thing.” After many revisions, “Annie” opened on Broadway in 1977, and became one of the most lucrative musicals of all time. But Meehan’s most successful collaboration was with Mel Brooks on “The Producers.” They worked well together. Brooks would jump around the room, acting out all of the parts, improvising jokes. Meehan sat in a corner, taking notes. He’d go home, pick out the best bits, add his own jokes, type up the scene and go over it with Brooks the next day. New York magazine called him Brooks’ “secret weapon,” which mortified Meehan, because he never wanted Brooks to think he was trying to muscle his way into the spotlight. But Meehan knew his worth, and had a sly sense of humor about “The Producers,” which was clobbering every other musical on the street. One night, over martinis next door to the St. James Theatre on 44th Street, Meehan and I invented tag lines for the show. I’ve forgotten all but one, which was Meehan’s: “ ‘42nd Street,’ where the line forms to buy tickets to ‘The Producers.’ ” Share this: Source http://www.anglenews.com/word-from-west-end-says-follies-revival-is-jolly-good/

[eliteweddingcoordination]

Mr. Demille, I’m Ready for My Glenn Close-Up: ‘Sunset Boulevard’ Opens on Broadway

Glenn Close at the press event for Andrew Lloyd Weber’s adaptation of Sunset Boulevard. Bruce Glikas

“So they were turning, after all—those cameras. Life, which can be strangely merciful, had taken pity on Norma Desmond. The dream she had clung to so desperately had enfolded her.”

–The late Joe Gillis narrating Norma Desmond’s mad staircase descent at the end of  Billy Wilder’s Sunset Boulevard

Norma Desmond met the press the other day at her Palace (commonly known as The Palace at 47th and Seventh). Questions flying, cameras flashing—she loved it.

But then, what’s not to love? The cause for all this media commotion was her long-time-in-coming comeback—or rather, as she pointedly prefers, her “return—a return to the millions of people who’ve never forgiven me for deserting the screen.”

Actually, regardless of how offensive it may be to poor Norma’s super-sensitive sensibilities, comeback is the correct word—especially when referring to Glenn Close, the Tony-winning Desmond and, arguably, the greatest Desmond of all, who will commence a 16-week reprise of her 1994 triumph Feb. 9 in case you missed it.

Close’s objection is with the word “reprise,” and she speaks right up: “This time, my whole approach was that I didn’t want to go back to anything I did before. I came to it just thinking I’m not recreating. I’m exploring, starting from scratch. I’m 22 years older now. I’ve had 22 years more of craft and life. It’s bound to be a different take.

“Also, it’s a story that invites revisiting. It’s one of the greatest stories ever to come out of Hollywood—and certainly one of the greatest roles ever written for a woman, either on stage or in film. Playing this character takes everything. As cathartic as the story itself is—for any actor or actress in it, it’s also cathartic and, ultimately, very satisfying just to feel that all your creative muscles are being flexed while you do it.”

Close is 69 now and holding herself to seven performances a week. “We found out you can’t do eight performances a week of this role without getting sick. Anyone who has ever played this role will tell you it’s physically, and vocally, challenging.”

Those who saw her make her West End debut last spring as Norma at London’s English National Opera say that age makes La Desmond less monstrous and more vulnerable. “To the astonishment of us all, Glenn was even better than before,” declares Christopher Hampton, who co-wrote the show’s book and lyrics with Don Black. “She nailed it. I’ve seldom been in a theater where people got so excited.”

Michael Xavier, Siobhan Dillon and Fred Johanson, who co-starred with Close in that production, are making their Broadway debuts repeating their performances here.

Hampton was the first person to see a musical in Sunset Boulevard. When the English National Opera passed on it, he gave the idea to Andrew Lloyd Webber—mostly as a way of politely passing on doing the book for The Phantom of the Opera.

Last month Phantom started its 30th year at the Majestic as Broadway’s longest running show—so, when Sunset Boulevard opens tomorrow at the Palace, with Cats and School of Rock also in town, Lloyd Webber will be the second composer ever to have four shows running simultaneously on the Main Stem. The first was Richard Rodgers, who, in the summer of ’53, had four of his shows with Hammerstein going full blast on Broadway (South Pacific, The King and I, Me and Juliet and Oklahoma!).

The British composer is a bit embarrassed, and more than a little humbled, by that statistic. “I met Richard Rodgers very, very early on in my career,” he says. “To think that I got anywhere near what The Great Man did is really astonishing for me.”

Unlike Rodgers, who needed a show to focus on to access his melodic storehouse, Lloyd Webber claims he compulsively composes every day. “Melody is what I really believe in. Right now, I have in my drawer of melodies probably 20 that I’m really pleased with. It’s a hopeless waste and strain because I can’t find a subject I want to do as a show, which is dreadful for me, but I can’t help it. I just think in melodies.”

A 40-piece orchestra, uncommonly large for Broadway, should help to hold that melodic line. “This is really the esteemed English National Opera’s staged concert version of the show,” Lloyd Webber underlines. “Because of that, it’s very much more about the material than the actual performance, so, therefore, now it’s all about the music and the story—without the encumbrance of huge scenery.”

John Napier’s multi-ton, Tony-winning gilded staircase, which dominated Norma’s gothic-Victorian-baroque mansion in the original Sunset Boulevard, is a brain-burner for anyone who has seen it. It sometimes ascended so a party scene could be played on stage under it, and, during the shaky L.A. tryout, its revelers would break into collective cold sweats from the after-shocks that followed a big California quake.

“That went on for months,” Close recalls. “The suspended stage always moved a bit when the earth was still, but, after that, even little shakes got the adrenalin going.”

She may be glad to see that magnificent monstrosity go, but it has been replaced by many more stairs for her to scale. “It’s more abstract and more deconstructed than Napier’s gorgeous, hyper-realistic set,” points out the show’s director, Lonny Price.

Glenn Close and Andrew Lloyd Weber at a press event for his Broadway adaptation of Sunset Boulevard. Bruce Glikas

“The original set and production encouraged a kind of grandiosity and, I think Glenn would even say, a kind of grotesquerie. Now, it’s a middle-aged woman fighting for her life and her career. She’s eccentric, for sure, and she’s been hurt a lot, and she’s going to lose her mind, but she’s not there yet. We watch her incrementally lose it.”

Just prior to presenting his star to the press, Lloyd Webber gave Close’s arm an affectionate squeeze and whispered to her like an excited schoolboy, “We’re all here because of you.” Which was true, he admits, “What happened was that we had the opportunity to do it at the English National Opera, and they asked Glenn. She had never done it—or anything on stage—in London, so I think she was keen to do it.”

It may be remembered that Lloyd Webber hired his stateside Evita, Patti LuPone, to world-premiere Norma in London, with the promise of her repeating the role on Broadway, but, when he saw Close do Norma at the American premiere in Los Angeles, he decided to give her the Broadway shot instead, resulting in an extremely acrimonious lawsuit that wound up paying for LuPone’s swimming pool. In this year’s Tony race, LuPone has the edge (via her Helena Rubinstein in War Paint) over Close, who, for all her from-the-ground-up work on Norma, isn’t eligible for seconds.

“Glenn,” Lloyd Webber still insists, “is the best Norma Desmond that I’ve ever seen.”

“Glenn,” Lloyd Webber still insists, “is the best Norma Desmond that I’ve ever seen.” That may or may not include the original madwoman of Sunset Boulevard—Gloria Swanson in Billy Wilder’s 1950 film classic. A haughty beauty from Keystone Kops days, Swanson was not known to be much of an actress before—or after—Sunset Boulevard, but for this one film Wilder manipulated from her a great performance of a silent screen star whose career crashed and burned with the coming of sound.

It’s now hard to believe, but she was not the first, second or third choice for the role. Wilder’s first choice, Mae West, was insulted by the offer. His second—Pola Negri, a Polish actress who didn’t survive sound—still had an accent that would mangle Wilder witticisms. He even went to Pickfair to pitch the picture in person to No. 3, Mary Pickford, who reacted in such horror at the story he was telling he stopped. Greta Garbo and Norma Shearer were asked but wouldn’t budge out of retirement.

Swanson was the suggestion of George Cukor, who, ironically, would direct the one performance that would take the Academy Award away from not only Swanson’s Norma Desmond but also Bette Davis’ Margo Channing: Judy Holliday’s Billie Dawn.

A major plus about the Swanson casting was that she’d worked with director Erich von Stroheim, whom Wilder hired to play Norma’s first husband and lasting butler, Max von Mayerling. The film they did together for producer Joseph Kennedy, Queen Kelly, was never finished, but a clip of it flickers by in Norma’s home screening room.

The role of Joe Gillis, who draws very dubious double duty as Norma’s screenwriter and lover, also went through casting loop-de-loops. Montgomery Clift bolted two weeks before shooting was to begin because he thought the older woman-younger man relationship reflected on his real-life one with Libby Holman; Fred MacMurray disliked the gigolo aspects of the role; Marlon Brando was considered too much of an unknown to take a chance; MGM refused to loan out Gene Kelly, so Wilder had to settle for a Paramount contract player, William Holden, who came through big time.

Wilder and his longtime writing partner, Charles Brackett, almost came to blows over a montage showing what Norma goes through to look young for the cameras. They never made another movie together. It was their 13th collaboration, and it won them—and someone named D. M. Marshman Jr.—a Best Original Screenplay Oscar. Marshman was a poker crony of Wilder’s whose chief contribution was dreaming up the two-decade age gap between Norma and Joe and turning him into “a kept man.”

Fearing a negative reaction to the movie’s damning depiction of the film industry, the script was kept top secret and titled A Can of Beans while in production. That fear turned out to be real: At the movie’s splashy Hollywood premiere, a livid Louis B. Mayer caught up with Wilder and accused him of biting the hand that fed him.

Wilder, never one to be at a loss for a witty retort, shot back a terse “Fuck you!”

Source

http://observer.com/2017/02/glenn-close-sunset-boulevard-broadway-andrew-lloyd-weber-interview/

[newstwitter-blog]

New Post has been published on News Twitter

New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/02/09/la-times-jack-nicholson-as-toni-erdmann-when-right-minded-ideas-come-out-wrong-18/

La Times: Jack Nicholson as ‘Toni Erdmann’: When right-minded ideas come out wrong

Maybe it was just coincidence that I was sitting in intermission of Glenn Close‘s revived “Sunset Boulevard” when this news of the Jack Nicholson “Toni Erdmann” remake came through. It sure felt like fate though.

There I was Tuesday night, watching Close as Norma Desmond. There are good reasons to stage theater revivals and bad reasons to stage theater revivals (and, these days on Broadway, really bad, cynical, money-grubbing reasons to stage theater revivals). I won’t offer a thought on what animates the new Andrew Lloyd Webber production; you could make various cases. But Close — who also played the part in the earlier Broadway production —  is indisputably a good reason to see it.

Of course, the actress didn’t have the original role: Patti LuPone did. LuPone was the one ready for her close-up when the show opened in London in 1993. And she was set to reprise the part on Broadway — so set that when she didn’t get it, she successfully sued Lloyd Webber. None of that mattered to audiences who saw Close tackle the part on Broadway. Nor will it matter to those seeing it now. This is Glenn Close’s role. Whatever LuPone did on the West End, Close does it just as well; in fact, she does it better. You can’t imagine anyone else doing Desmond. Nor, with apologies to Broadway’s original Eva Peron, should you.

Which brings me to Nicholson. It is great — unquestionably beautiful and great — that Nicholson is returning to the screen. He hasn’t been there in seven years (James L. Brooks’ “How Do You Know?”) and, if we’re being honest, really hasn’t been there in a decade (Rob Reiner’s “The Bucket List”). At 79, he’s been in a kind of unofficial state of retirement.

But is it great he’s doing it this way?

“Toni Erdmann,” in case you’re not down with the foreign scene, is the German-language, largely Romania-shot movie that tackles big issues like globalism and feminism in the context of one of the most complex, human and funny parent-offspring relationships in recent film memory. Nominated for the foreign-language Oscar (and in theaters currently), it explores the dynamic of a goofy-but-vulnerable older dad, Winfried, who adopts the titular alter ego as a way of connecting with his progeny, his uptight and barely indulgent corporate daughter, Ines. The movie manages to make these people come alive — it manages to make our own relationships come alive, if that doesn’t sound too hyperbolic.

A great sophomore director, Maren Ade, made it, and she assembled both a terrific cast of people with great theater backgrounds — the Austrian stage great Peter Simonischek plays Winfried and East German-born star Sandra Hüller is Ines. (Here’s more on what’s in “Toni Erdmann,” and the incredibly handmade process that went into creating it.)  I think it’s the best movie of the year. I’m far from alone.

Nicholson apparently loved the movie too. Per the Variety story that broke the news, he adored it — so much so that he persuaded Paramount to buy  the English-language remake rights as a starring vehicle for him, with the project attracting Adam McKay to produce and Kristen Wiig to star as the Ines character.

The idea of liking “Toni Erdmann” is good. The idea of more people becoming familiar with “Toni Erdmann” is good. But this remake is a bad idea‎.

It’s not that remakes of foreign-language film can’t work, though I can’t think of many recent ones that did. (Scorsese’s “The Departed” is one of the few that comes to mind.) It’s that this particular foreign-language remake can’t work.

Right off the bat, the setting is a problem. The sub-surface tension of “Toni” concerns Western Europeans working in Eastern Europe (Ines is involved a Romanian deal for her multinational); it’s a plot line that illuminates so much about modern European capitalism; when Ines comments on a giant mall built for no one, it hits home with anyone who’s ever witnessed the false promise of globalism across the Continent.  Sure, you can imagine Nicholson’s version as some American bigwig in a hardscrabble foreign place too. But it loses that specificity.

The tone is a bigger problem. There’s a kind of absurdist, at times even gleefully nihilist, spirit to “Toni Erdmann.” And it’s not just Winfried — Ines at one point throws a “naked party,” and at another sings karaoke Whitney Houston, in two of the wildest scenes you’ll see on screen this year. And let’s face it: Absurdism and gleeful nihilism are modes that Americans just don’t do particularly well. (We do a lot of modes well. Those just aren’t among them.)

Maybe the biggest problem, though, is the people making this movie. Which director can ably take on such a mix of tones; who can find slapstick comedy and poignant humanism in the same film, sometimes even in the same scene? Jim Brooks in his heyday, maybe. Lawrence Kasdan, possibly. But who actively working today? David O. Russell is the closest name I can come up with. And I’m not even sure about him. (Another remote possibility, someone with an outside shot of pulling it off, is McKay himself. Perhaps knowing the foolishness of the errand, he’s keeping a producerial arm’s length, at least for the moment.)

And then you get to Nicholson.  Part of the joy of the “Toni” character is that even though he’s a fundamentally silly figure, he’s also at heart a rather sad one. This is a man who puts on false teeth and pretends to be a life coach while simultaneously mourning the loss of his dog. Ade called what Simonischek was doing as Toni was “making it so that you can see past the jokes into his soul.” And I’m just not convinced you get that with Nicholson. I think what you’d get if you looked past the jokes with Nicholson was more Nicholson. (And yep, that takes into account “About Schmidt,” maybe the closest thing to this role he’s done.)

It would be unfair to beat up on the resident of ol’ Bad Boy Drive though. It’s not his fault. We just don’t have actors who can do that antic-but-heartfelt thing. Run down mentally the American actors of that generation who might fit the bill. Steve Martin? Too glib. Bill Murray? Too dark. John Malkovich? Too emotionally inaccessible. Some British actors come to mind — particularly those with Monty Python-esque backgrounds. Even they seem like stretches. The American actor who actually most comes to mind is sadly someone no longer around: Robin Williams.

The truth is “Toni Erdmann” shouldn’t be remade not because it’s too sacred, or because remakes are inherently bad, or because any of a dozen cliches you read in curmudgeonly posts when these things like this are announced. It’s because to do it as an American “Toni Erdmann” is to erode much of what made the movie so special in the first place.

Basically, this isn’t a Glenn Close situation. In fact, it’s the opposite of a Glenn Close situation. You can’t imagine someone else taking on the part and running with it because you can’t see a single flaw in the original performance, and you can’t see a single conceivable improvement made by someone else.

But there is good news. The announcement of the “Toni Erdmann” remake comes at a propitious time. Final Oscar voting begins Monday. And “Erdmann” — which was criminally shut out of a prize at Cannes, not to mention Ade ignored entirely for best director — could use a boost. Voters, many of whom no doubt haven’t seen the film, will be sitting down to fill out their ballots. They may not know Toni Erdmann from Tony Dorsett. But they know Nicholson liked it. And that may be enough to get them to vote for it and spur it to Oscar victory. Sometimes it can be good to be ready for your close-up.

See the most-read stories in Entertainment this hour »

steve.zeitchik@latimes.com

Twitter: @ZeitchikLAT

ALSO

The long, strange odyssey of bringing Oscar fave ‘Toni Erdmann’ to the screen

Review: Comedy and heartache make perfect bedfellows in the magnificent German comedy ‘Toni Erdmann’

‘Toni Erdmann’ is in a sense autobiographical, except for that naked party

This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content. Source link