TraceyMeagher.com

I’ve been a huge Ralph Fiennes fan since first seeing him play the gorgeous intellectual Charles Van Doren in Robert Redford’s production of Quiz Show back in 1994.  Being used to seeing Fiennes play debonair, heroic, self-certain characters (with the exception of Spider, and maybe Oscar in Oscar and Lucinda)  seeing him play the deferring and restrained butler, Bernard Lafferty, to the fiesty, spirited and super wealthy tobacco heiress, Doris Duke (Susan Sarandon), took a little bit of adjustment. (He can’t always play strong and interesting characters afterall!)  And Bernard Lafferty certainly is not interesting, though his relationship with Duke is, and that’s why the movie works.

In fact, we learn very little about Lafferty, except that he came to America from Ireland after both of his parents died when he was nine. He found himself employment as a butler to Peggy Lee and Elizabeth Taylor (the movie is based on true events, by the way) and somewhere along the way developed a drink problem.  His stint in rehab ended his employment with Taylor and he found his way to Doris Duke, who having just fired her previous butler for serving her melon ‘too chilled’ was in need of a replacement.

We must assume that Lafferty intuitively sensed Duke’s fickleness and perhaps this goes someway towards explaining his restrained demeanor.  Though he does seem naturally to be a shy guy, whose bland personality is starkly contrasted by the energetic livliness that is Doris Duke.

Duke, played brilliantly by Sarandon, is a vivacious and culturally curious older lady, who happens to sleep with many of her younger male staff , most likely to compensate for the loneliness and isolation that her wealth has  brought her.  She develops a curious bond with Lafferty who happens to be gay and who appears to want nothing from her, other than to care for her.  Duke, being defined by her money all of her life and because of it, cynical of those she associates with, is taken aback and touched by Lafferty’s uncomplicated nature and request.

Doris Duke: What do you want from me? From me.
Bernard Lafferty: Miss Duke?
Doris Duke: What do you want? I mean, you don’t fuck me, do you?
Bernard Lafferty: No, I don’t.
Doris Duke: You don’t steal from me. Do you steal from me?
Bernard Lafferty: No, I don’t.
Doris Duke: Well then what do you want from me?
Bernard Lafferty: I just want to take care of you.

Perhaps it is true and he is not chasing her fortune but the movie does little to help us work out Lafferty’s real intentions.  He does refuse a half a million dollar bribe from Duke’s lawyer to disappear, which could be seen as evidence that he truly cares for her.  But half a million is a small sum compared to the five million she left him.  Could he have forseen her generous gift.  I don’t think it is something he could have been certain of and so I’m inclined to conclude, like Duke, that Lafferty’s intentions are good.  Afterall, Lafferty, like Duke, was a lonely individual and that is the one thing they shared in common and the one thing that really connected them.  Duke’s financial adviser and lawyer, Taft, chooses to see Lafferty only as a gold-digger.

If you want excitement and intrigue, this is not the movie for you.  The movie completely lacks plot and jumps almost episodically from one event to the next.  It is a study of the growing trust between two very different characters.  Laftterty knows how to restrain himself so that he may better fit into Duke’s world.  Throughout the movie, he conveys the sense that he knows he doesn’t belong and that at any moment his world (the one he borrows from Duke) may shatter around him, despite Duke taking him on her many cultural trips abroad.  When he falls victim to his vice, alcholo,  Duke doesn’t abandon him.  Instead she sends him to rehab and while she makes him suffer (for drinking from her wine cellar), it is apparent that she will eventually forgive him in her tough love kind of way.  Duke is a woman who doesn’t (or can’t) express caring emotions too easily.

Only on watching Bernard and Doris for the second time, did I appreciate just what a fantastic job Ralph Fiennes did with the character and what skill it took to act a man with so little personality of his own.  There is one scene when Duke is singing at the piano (being played by one of her young gigolos), Bernard enters with drinks and is encouraged to sing a Peggy Lee song, (I Love the Way You’re Breaking My Heart).  Fiennes plays this scene with such subtlety. It is exquisite to watch and could be seen as the movies attempt to affirm the true friendship that exists between Lafferty and Duke. That’s how I like to read the scene.

The movie doesn’t attempt to make overt judgements on the nature of their relationship but even in real life, Lafferty’s relationship with Doris was never proved or disproved to be anything other than a caring one.  While the movie could have taken artistic licence with the events and wrapped everything up Hollywood style, it chose not to.  Some say it suffers because of this but for those of us who enjoy character driven movies, it was a pleasure to watch two of our greatest actors portray two very different characters so brilliantly.

Share on Facebook

I wouldn’t have thought much of Ridley Scott’s 2006 production of Tristan and Isolde if it hadn’t been for Rufus Sewell’s performance. Why don’t we see more of this guy? Not only is he gorgeous but he can really act too (check out the video below for proof!!) James Franco was okay but I’m not a huge fan.  I find his acting a little bland (maybe I’m biased after sitting through 127 hours and feeling like the film took 127 hours to end!)

Sewell was captivating as the kind and vulnerable, yet brave and heroic Lord Marke of Cornwall.   Ultimately he is betrayed by his wife Isolde and his ward, Tristan, which is all the more tragic because never has there been a man more deserving of love.  It’s corny but it’s true.  Lord Marke is so loved by his people and essentially a very decent guy (having lost his hand in battle to save Tristan who was then a child and then taking Tristan into his care and favouring him over his flesh and blood, his nephew Melot).  It’s all just too sad and tragic for poor Marke.

I can’t imagine anybody having suited the role as well as Sewell.  He also gave a great performance as the very odd, but very brilliant biophysicist, Dr. Jacob Hood in Eleventh Hour (which was unfortunately cancelled) .  Here’s hoping that we see Rufus again in the bigger roles he deserves.

Here’s a clip of what is probably the best scene in Tristan and Isolde.  What a gorgeous scene that draws you into the heart of a man suffering in love. That doesn’t happen too often in the movies !

Share on Facebook

That’s a first .. the same movie being released into cinemas twice within 12 months. Amazing I know but it is Avatar so are you really that suprised? It’s on the cards to happen in the Autumn. Looks like James Cameron is not happy with his $2.6 billion (and still growing) profit from this movie. The big guy is hearing from the exhibitors that there was a couple of hundred million more to be had from screenings … had the movie not been pushed out of the cinema to make room for Disney’s 3D take on Alice in Wonderland.

So will the appetite be there for the re-release? Yep, I imagine so. It’s hard to believe, but I do know people who still haven’t seen it (that’s you Bernie) and I have no doubt that I’d go again, family in tow! Plus, according to Cameron, there are 40 minutes of cuts that didn’t make the movie, which will be included, with some action scenes of Jack Scully proving himself to the Na’vi.  Can’t wait!

Of course, 3D TV’s are coming on sale in April so I can catch all the spectacular-ness of it from the comfort of my own couch too!

Share on Facebook

I never know whether it’s a good idea to read the book before the movie. No matter how great the movie is, you’re always going to compare it to the first version of the story you came to know.  And the first of everything is very often the best, if only because it was the original, and originals warrant respect.

When I first picked up Christopher Isherwood’s A Single Man in the bookshop, I hadn’t intended to read it. I knew I was going to see the film later in the week so I picked up it casually, more interested in checking out Colin Firth’s picture on the cover than reading what was inside. But as you do, I opened the cover to glance at the first line. It was liked being rapidly sucked into another consciousness.  The first lines were so captivating and tragic.  I’ve never picked up a book and been rooted so deep into the character so quickly.

Waking up begins with saying am and now. That which has awoken then lies for a while staring up at the ceiling and down into itself until it has recognised I, and therefore deduced I am, I am now.

It’s a testament to the quality of Isherwood’s writing that despite all of the publicity I’d seen for this movie before reading the book, I didn’t at all picture Colin Firth as Isherwood’s George. Isherwood’s George, is hardly described physically in the book at all. The book is far more concerned with George’s inner psyche rather than his outer appearance. We learn he is 58 and so far older than Tom Ford’s George and many of the elements introduced to give the movie the kind of dramatic oomph that appeals to cinema audiences, are absent in the book. In the book, George, is not, despite his crippling grief, suicidal.

So book or movie?

There’s no doubt that A Single Man, the film, is a visual feast. The direction was arty with lots of deep emotion being conveyed through close up shots of sultry eyes and sexy lips. It was beautifully designed and some of the scenes were like photographic prints come to life (I’m thinking Jennifer Strunk in her blue dress).  Tom Ford seemed to make characters abundant in life, physically portrayed (the tennis players),  and this did set the perfect backdrop for George’s dismal struggle to go on participating, and find the energy for life in himself.  Jim too was portrayed as a free spirit, this freedom and energy for living were the very things that attracted to George to him.  Even Julianne Moore, playing Charlie, as tragic as her character is, was colourful and lively.  The story of A Single Man as it goes in the movie is definitely far more glamourous, like an old house that has been given a style makeover.  I still loved it for what it was. Cinema engages the audience differently. There are certain expectations for dramatic twists and turns and visual flair. Tom Ford delivered this. There was some tension and the amazing underwater dream sequences that punctuated the storyline were captivating to watch and brought the audience back to George’s pain very subtely.

The movie did depart from the book in many ways. Isherwood’s George is not suicidal. In fact, I think, Isherwood would have hated Ford’s character’s suicidal tendencies. Isherwood’s George, in spite of his grief, still counts himself part of the ‘minority’, those who are living and appears to think that it’s the right place to be, inspite of all the pain.

Isherwood’s Charley is also far more of a mother-earth, hippie character.  While Ford’s Charley, played brilliantly by Julianne Moore, is glamorous and desperate, I prefer her to Isherwood’s Charley, if only because the on screen Charley is far more tragic.

Also Isherwood’s George, never had a sexual relationship with Charlie in the past. I preferred it that way.

On balance, I enjoyed the book more.  The book was able to take the reader further into George’s emotional drama and because of this the story seemed even more tragic.

Share on Facebook