Maria
A biopic about the last years of Maria Callas in Paris in the 1970s
Directed by Pablo Larraín
Starring Angelina Jolie
Released Aug. 2024
Watch Time: about 2 hrs.
It had been weeks since I had found the time to watch a movie, but on Saturday, the 14th, K and I needed a break before getting back to our holiday chores and my work. I was hoping for a Christmas movie. Strolling through Netflix, however, K chose Maria. She said she’d heard it was good. And it was good. Not amazingly good, perhaps, but good enough to leave me thinking about Maria Callas for weeks afterwards.
What I Liked About It
* Angelina Jolie in the leading role. Her expression was significantly restricted by the mise en scene, with the lion’s share of the footage of her being close shots of her face. Notwithstanding that limitation, Jolie was able to project a strong, complicated, and deeply sympathetic character almost entirely with her eyes. That’s no small accomplishment. In fact, considering the role and her performance, she is surely on the short list for at least one major award.
* The two secondary leads. Pierfrancesco Favino as Callas’s loyal butler and Alba Rohrwacher as her loyal housekeeper.Without their good acting, the drama would have been less intense and the pathos of Callas’s character weaker.
* Pablo Larraín’s decision to present Callas’s story through the perspective of someone suffering from depression and drug-induced hallucinations.
* The cinematography. The lush but still moods of the interiors, the sad grays of the exteriors, the camera angles, and the graininess throughout.
* The stories behind it. In just 124 minutes, Maria tells at least four compelling stories: one of Callas in her prime, another of Callas in her last act, another of Jackie Kennedy, and still another of Aristotle Onassis. It provoked a lot of questions about them that I’d like to answer one day if I can find the time to do the reading.
* The way the film portrayed the loneliness, self-doubt, and despair not only of Callas, but of other world-renowned artists. It had me thinking about the last days of Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, and Jim Morrison, but also of the likes of Robin Williams, John Belushi, and Philip Seymour Hoffman.
What I Didn’t Like So Much
The pace of the movie was slow – at times uncomfortably slow. But in defense of Larraín, the slowness was effective in allowing me to feel the hopelessness and ennui that Callas must have felt after her great gift and enormous stardom was gone.
Interesting
I was shocked to learn that some portion of the singing was performed by Angelina Jolie herself. I read that the parts she sang were the “not-so-good” pieces from the end of Callas’s career – although I couldn’t tell the difference. I also read that in preparation for the role, Jolie took months of training under Eric Vetro, the same voice coach that worked with Timothée Chalamet as the young Bob Dylan in I’m Not There.
About the Director
Pablo Larraín Matte is a Chilean filmmaker. He and his brother Juan de Dios co-produced Sebastián Lelio’s A Fantastic Woman, the first Chilean film to win the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film.
Critical Reception
Maria got mixed reviews from the critics, though Angelina Jolie’s performance was generally praised. It did very poorly at the box office, taking in less than $140,000 in the first week.
* “La Diva Eterna lives in Jolie, with a performance as towering as it is understated: sad and soulful and heartbreaking. She has never been better. Brava!” – John Nugent, Empire Magazine
* “Pablo Larraín’s latest biopic drowns in melodrama but dazzles with visuals, leaving Angelina Jolie to rescue what she can of Maria Callas’s legendary life.” – Rex Reed, Observer
* “As a movie, Maria is just okay. As a calling card for the next phase of Jolie’s career, however, it sings to the rafters.” – Caroline Siede, Girl Culture (Substack)
My Rating
* Horizontality: 3.0
* Verticality: 3.5
* Stickiness: 2.0
* Visual Richness: 2.5
* Overall: 3.25 out of 4.0
You can watch the trailer here.
Emilia Pérez
Directed and co-written by Jacques Audiard
Starring Karla Sofía Gascón, Zoe Saldana, and Selena Gomez
Released Nov. 2024
Watch Time: 2 hrs. 12 min.
MM recommended it. He said, “I can’t tell you why without giving too much of it away, but I’m pretty sure you’ll like it.”
He was right. And I know why he didn’t want to explain it to me. Had he done so, I might have refused to see it.
One could say that the movie is about a Mexican cartel leader that decided to get out of the business and evade capture in the future by going through “gender affirmation” surgery. Had that been the core of the story, I would not have liked it. But it was much more.
I don’t know how to sum it up. It is unlike any film I’ve ever seen.
I can’t even nail down the genre. It’s part a gangster story. Part a story about guilt and redemption. Part a story about female empowerment. But it is also an action movie and a thriller. And a love story. Actually, several. All that would not have surprised me. I’ve seen movies (not many) that successfully spanned that many boundaries before. But this one is also a theatrical production – part Evita and part Slumdog Millionaire!
What I Liked About It
* What I just said: that it managed to do so many different and diverse things successfully at the same time. When it was a cartel movie, I was frightened. When it was an action movie, I was gripping my seat. The love stories pulled at my heartstrings. The redemption story was inspiring.
* Everything it took to pull it off: great acting, directing, editing, cinematography, music, make up, colorization, costuming, and scenery.
* It had me thinking about it days after I saw it. That happens only with films that are very good.
What I Didn’t Like
As Kamala Harris said when asked if she’d do anything that Joe Biden did differently, “Nothing comes to mind.”
Interesting
* The woman that plays the male gangster turned female philanthropist (both roles – amazingly) is Karla Sofía Gascón, a Spanish trans actress who found success in Mexican films and soap operas long before transitioning.
* The film was shot almost entirely on Parisian soundstages, where the streets of Mexico City were recreated for scenes with an international cast.
About the Director
Jacques Audiard is a French film director, producer, and screenwriter. Over the course of his career, he has received numerous accolades, including two British Academy Film Awards, three Golden Globes, 10 Cesar Awards, and four prizes from the Cannes Film Festival.
Critical Reception
* “Phrases like ‘game-changer’ and ‘cutting-edge’ can’t capture just how audacious and original Emilia Pérez is. It’s a knockout.” – Leonard Maltin
* “Audiard has created Emilia to startle and divert, but it’s Gascón’s performance that centers and grounds the story, and it’s the actress who finally gives the movie real stakes. She is its heart and soul both.” – Manohla Dargis, The New York Times
* “By making Emilia Pérez a quasi-musical, Mr. Audiard cranks up the campiness; by making it a parable about one’s own past being inescapable, he makes it profound.” – John Anderson, Wall Street Journal
My Rating
* Horizontality: 3.75
* Verticality: 3.75
* Stickiness: 3.75
* Visual Richness: 4.0
* Overall: 3.8 out of 4.0
You can watch the trailer here.
Conclave
Directed by Edward Berger
Starring Ralph Fiennes, Stanley Tucci, John Lithgow, and Isabella Rossellini
Released Oct. 2024
Watch Time: 2 hrs.
The plot of Conclave follows one of the world’s most secretive and ancient events – selecting a new Pope. Cardinal Lawrence (Ralph Fiennes) is tasked with running this covert process after the unexpected death of the beloved current Pope. Once the Catholic Church’s most powerful leaders have gathered from around the world and are locked together in the Vatican halls, Lawrence uncovers a trail of deep secrets left in the dead Pope’s wake, secrets which could shake the foundations of the Church.
What I Liked About It
Most of all, the directing, editing, cinematography, and the acting. But it was also a beautifully designed film, with visually arresting attention to light and color. The music and sound effects were perfect for the emotional atmosphere the film needed. In other words, it had all the components a film needs to be very good.
I also liked the information the film presented about the Vatican and its rules, written and unwritten.
What I Didn’t Like
* The ideas behind the movie were clichés.
* The resolution of the mystery was implausible. Actually, it was absurd.
* It showed me nothing truthful about the human condition.
Interesting
* The word “conclave” – referring to a room that can be locked for privacy – was derived from the Latin phrase cum clave (“with a key”).
* This is the fourth time a Sistine Chapel set has been built at Cinecittà Studios for a feature film, following The Agony and the Ecstasy (1965), The Shoes of the Fisherman (1968), and The Two Popes (2019).
Critical Reception
* “You may think that being locked in a room with a bunch of pompous elderly men deviously attempting to shaft each other wouldn’t be a lot of fun. But trust me on this: Conclave is a blast.” – Wendy Ide, Observer (UK)
* “There is much to admire about Conclave, but in the end, all of its lofty aspirations come tumbling down due to that poorly constructed Jenga tower of a plot.” – Richard Roeper, Chicago Sun-Times
* “It’s possible that the film takes itself entirely too seriously. Fortunately, the viewer is under no such obligation and may have a good time as a result.” – Matthew Lickona, San Diego Reader
My Rating
* Horizontality: 3.0
* Verticality: 1.5
* Stickiness: 3.25
* Visual Richness: 4.0
* Overall: 2.93 out of 4.0
You can watch the trailer here.
What We Do in the Shadows
Written and directed by (and starring) Jermaine Clement and Taika Waititi
Released 2014
Watch Time: 1 hr. 26 min.
Like Emilia Pérez, this was a strong recommendation from a friend. “This is right up your alley,” he said.
I didn’t doubt I’d like it because it was the creation of Jermaine Clement and Taiki Waititi. I’ve been a huge fan of Clement ever since watching Flight of the Conchords about five years ago. And I knew Waititi from JoJo Rabbit, which I thought was brilliant.
The Plot
What We Do in the Shadows is a mockumentary that follows four vampires who share an apartment in a New Zealand suburb. They have most of the expected habits and superpowers of vampires, such as sleeping in the daytime, sucking blood for sustenance, and hypnosis. But some have additional skills, like levitation and morphing into animal forms.
They also have wonderful backstories. Viago, for instance, is a 17th century dandy who originally traveled to New Zealand in the 1940s in search of Katherine, the love of his life. Vladislav is a 12th century former tyrant known as “Vladislav the Poker,” who is haunted by memories of his nemesis “The Beast.” And Deacon is a 19th century former peddler who was turned into a vampire by the fourth roommate, Petyr, a reclusive ancient that looks and acts like Nosferatu.
I don’t think I need to tell you more. By now, you are either dying to see it or have zero interest. As for me, I loved it!
What I Liked About It
* The idea of it – doing it as a fake documentary. It adds a layer of humor that gives it extra comic power.
* The sense of humor: This is New Zealand humor. If you liked Flight of the Conchords or JoJo Rabbit, you’ll like this.
* The quirks and idiosyncrasies of each of the vampires were very smart.
* The way the movie plays against vampire movie tropes.
* The acting – especially Clement’s.
Interesting
* What We Do in the Shadows is based on a 2005 short film – What We Do in the Shadows: Interviews with Some Vampires – written and directed by Waititi and Clement.
* Genre movies that are heavily quoted or referenced in the film include The Lost Boys, Bram Stoker’s Dracula, Interview with the Vampire, Blade, Twilight, and Buffy the Vampire Slayer.
* $447,000 was raised for the film from over 7,000 supporters via the crowdfunding website Kickstarter.
* In 2019, What We Do in the Shadows was made into a TV series. The 6th (final) season ended in 2024. I haven’t seen it yet, but based on the movie, I’m going to give it a try.
Critical Reception
* “An irrepressibly charming B-movie that never over-stays its welcome, and is both conceptually clever and admirably well-executed.” – Simon Abrams on the Roger Ebert website.
* “At a brisk 86 minutes, What We Do in the Shadows never sags or drags, delivering its comic punches with surgical precision and then getting off the stage.” – Alonso Duralde, The Wrap
* “It’s a cheerfully horrific affair, a sanguine comedy that feels more than a bit like a Christopher Guest farce or an elaborate Monty Python sketch, imprinted with the Kiwi comic sensibilities of [Clement and Waititi].” – Stephen Rea, Philadelphia Inquirer
My Rating
* Horizontality: 0
* Verticality: 2.0
* Stickiness: 3.8
* Visual Richness: 3.8
* Overall: 2.4 out of 4.0
But I’m also giving it…
* 1.5 Extra Points for New Zealand Humor
* So Overall: 3.9 out of 4.0!
You can watch the trailer here.
