Istvan Szabo is an absolute genius. The selection of actors does not allow to doubt their professionalism. True intellectuals. Bening in the lead role is very convincing. Why is it so low?
I will highlight a few factors:
1. Secondary - the film is too repelled by the Soviet film "Theater" with Via Artmane. This applies both to the choice of plein air (boat walks, walks around the city) and the selection of actors (look at how similar in his role Jeremy Irons to Gunnar Tselinsky). And there's nothing wrong with that. But such direct borrowings do not paint the authors of the tape. It’s like they haven’t done their film yet.
2. Unacceptable simplifications
Take the final. In Szabo's tape, we get a long escapade of theatrical lines. The result is a total humiliation of one of the characters. Beneficial performance? Is that a bad thing?
But Maugham's book is different. This is just a simple mention. The main character takes herself too seriously to pay such attention to one theatrical performance.
And here it seems that the creators of the picture “Being Julia” decided to make the tape more understandable for the mass audience, thereby simplifying the character.
3. Julia's persona
Julia Lambert is an actress who created a world of lies in which she is comfortable living and achieving success. As her husband rightly notes, she sublimates a lot.
And in the film, Julia Lambert focuses too much on sex and cheating. She's hysterical and petty. At the same time, all her internal dialogues are reduced to strange conversations with the hero of Michael Gambon.
And it's not a problem that Szabo's tape doesn't match Maugham too much. The problem is that by changing some accents, the filmmakers got a completely different portrait of the main character. And this lubricates many plot moves, makes them small. Instead of a story of human hypocrisy, there is only one hysterical actress. Instead of megalomania, hallucinations.
I don't like it. I am sure that even without references to Maugham and the Soviet painting Theatre, it would be possible to make a much more stylish story. At least it's self-sufficient. For example, “Bullets on Broadway”
3 out of 10
All women are actresses. And if not, they take away a great deal of pleasure. All women are bitches. And if not, they take away a lot of small celebrations. Middle-aged English national treasure actress Julia Lambert is bored. But they have not yet come up with a more reliable means of returning to life (game?) for the ladies than an affair. After all, all the coordinates are given: an old husband, an adult son, “I-still-nothing” self-perception. After all, in this world (theater?) everyone sleeps with each other, knows exactly the weather. Easy and easy.
Somerset Maugham's novel Theatre is genius. A weightless, infinitely funny and poignant story about how to apply your sex appeal as effectively as possible. Living, playing, getting confused about it. Although, of course, the range of arguments of the writer is incomparably wider. The screen adaptation of the Hungarian director István Szabo went to the starting points: nominally no one was forgotten - and fine, but it is not worth saving on book bitch turns. Szabo went on an unconventional path, betting exclusively on Annette Bening, who, of course, is truly theatrical and drags everything on herself, but intelligent, mature, worthy Julia did not work out. A bullying, eccentric aunt is not painfully deep content holds the attention of the viewer, waiting for her final theatrical fatality. In fact, expectations are justified, but rather because you know what the outcome should be, that is, you fully accept what you see. However, you do not feel a double bottom, you do not feel the internal dynamics of the episode. The Hungarian mechanics are too externally built, even the visualization of Julia’s inner voice in the form of her deceased mentor looks not a find, but a paradoxical simplification. But a variety of voice-over and parallel retelling source work in the Soviet adaptation of “Theater” is much more conscientious and inventive. On the other hand, the Riga film studio absolutely did not care about that sweet moment of excellence of the great actress. Therefore, Mrs. Lambert’s artificial, hypertrophied dominance on the stage in 2004 is more spectacular and effective. More theater.
In what kind of "piercing" Szabo, it's Roger, Julia's son. The fact is that Maugham so enthusiastically and fascinatingly described the speed and power of the spinning gears of the actress’ brain that there was no time to appear even a shadow of pity for her son. In the tape, a cute, pretty wanderer on Europeans causes a desire to rat on the kumpol of his mother. Which, of course, should not be desired. Prima, prima should be admired all the time, and not distracted by thoughts about how difficult it is to grow up in an acting family - a family in which to advertise the presence of adult children is a non-comilfo. And it turned out quite accidentally, otherwise it would have resulted in an independent, decorated, righteous rebellion. No one needs it, but it's honest.
And yet, the dotted line "bleak-dispersed-fucked-gathered-done" is maintained. The storm suddenly turned up to hone the acting talent of collisions experienced (played?). And let both hypostases be mixed, layered, confused. Julia had two things: a talking comment and a letting go comment. A whole scene in one beautiful forty-six-year-old acting head. It just so happened: the spotlights do not go out for a minute, because there is always an audience, even if it is imaginary, even if you are your audience. What difference does it make if you have enough power to capture, hold, manipulate? If you feel talented, powerful, sexy and not afraid of it? Playing rounds of only one game you know, exaggerating passions, training tear glands. An amazing world opens up if you imagine that you are your own director, actor, screenwriter. In the end, this is what your descendants will call your life. We have to try to play brilliantly.
Exemplary family, abundance of money, rare talent and well-deserved fame, it would seem, provide a happy life. However, in the pursuit of human happiness, Young Julia stumbled more than once, breaking her knees into blood. Mrs. Julia is not so naive: her whole life is a theater, there is no room for reality. Artfully getting used to the role, she once again makes a hall full of people applaud and shout enthusiastic “bravo”. How does she do that? A resourceful actress tries on a new role and makes acquaintance, but the unexpected happens. Julia makes the mistake of falling in love. What will win this war, cold-blooded calculation or passionate feelings?
Annette Benning masterfully embodied the image of Julia on the screen, the character came out colorful, memorable, causing pride and respect. Istvan Szabo reliably conveyed the story of Somerset Maugham without allowing liberties and rude deviations from the plot, withstood his style with dignity. Traditionally, the viewer does not pay attention to costumes and makeup, but it is the details that create an impression, so I would like to note the high-quality and painstaking work of stylists.
The film is a good food for thought, so it is worth the time spent watching.
7 out of 10
Oddly enough, women are flattered when they are looked at with one thought - to quickly fall on the bed.
Recently discovered that there is a film adaptation of the famous novel by Somerset Maugham 'Theatre'. As it turned out, there is also a Soviet interpretation, but I decided to leave it for later, being seduced by the handsome Jeremy Irons.
I would like to say that the story of Julia Lambert is very ordinary: the Balzac lady is experiencing a midlife crisis and quite unexpectedly for herself starts all serious. However, as a typical representative of the female sex, I am still interested in the dynamics of her mental anguish. This is probably the whole point of the work.
Let’s start with the characters, or rather, with their specific implementation on the blue screen. Jeremy Irons, who played Humbert in 1997, is still pretty. His roles fit perfectly into his portrait. Michael Gosselin - a man of fifty years, being once incredibly attractive, still retains some of the shapes of the Greek god & #39;, so to speak, echoes of former freshness. The film demonstrates his motivation and pedantry, which is important for the full picture of the relationship between the spouses. Sean Evans in the role of Thomas Fennel did not pay enough attention. His play seemed to me faded, unpretentious. His character turned out to be bland, but where is that primal awe and puppy delight during a meal with the cream of society, replaced by snobbery? The girl who played Evis Crichton gave me mixed emotions. I imagined her as a pretty, inexperienced, but budding actress. Moreover, the novel specifies with accuracy the degree of her depravity (she is a Colonel’s daughter), while in the film we see a solid vulgarism. Maybe it's for the better, on the other hand, because we, the audience, in the opinion of the director, will not be able to understand who is right and who is guilty, and so he focuses our attention on the colossal contrast between the two women. How stupid her squirrels looked. But let it stay in the background, because I would like to say about the other characters. Roger played by Tom Sturridge (who for another ten years will play teenagers who happened to be on the ' The boat that rocked'), as always nice, servile, as well as he should behave with uncles and aunts from the upper world. But what happened to his almost monologue? It is here that Sturridge should stick his sweetness away and play a grown man who thinks about the truth of life.
As for Julia, played by Annette Bening, I can say that this role is responsible, and she, in my opinion, coped with her perfectly. The only thing that annoyed me was her laughter. Well, God be with him, and with that, we'll eat Julia! What upset me was that the script didn’t have an episode in the hot Spaniard car, or the episode where Julia was walking down Edward Road and testing her vibes on heterogeneous men. Comrades, a woman has a crisis, and such details are important to fully reveal the deplorability of such conditions!
I am glad that such films still exist. Directorial work, of course, departs from what we find in Maugham, but without it nowhere. So, guys, don't read books!
You know, you know. And Maugham was read, and Theatre with Via Artmane was seen. It so happened that in Soviet times Europe was filmed in some Tallinn or Riga film studio, and Europeans played Balts. Isn’t it time to watch a foreign film version of this work? Istvan Szabo, by the way. Annette Benning and Jeremy Irons.
I loved it! A film about the artistic world; about the creative crisis of an actress who sees in the mirror the impending age; about the tired marriage of creative people; about how playing on stage involuntarily entails a game in life; about slightly (or not slightly) abandoned acting children and about the beautiful revenge of a woman and actress. It was light and sparkling like champagne. So in world cinema, Wilde is usually filmed.
The authors put a very significant idea into the mouth of Julia's son: "I want to stop living in an atmosphere of pretense ..." You always play... I doubt that you really exist. Even your words are borrowed.
Comparisons, of course, ask for themselves. “Theatre” with Artmane turned out to be more dramatic, closer to the text and, sorry for the pun, more theatrical. But I liked Annette Benning as Julia just as much. Very good performers of secondary roles: Tom Sturridge as Roger, Juliet Stevenson as the camerawoman Julia (remember, “old cow”?), and especially Michael Gambon. His character's lines are always good.
I think we missed a little bit with two heroes. The image of her husband, Michael, is not entirely revealed. He was simplified to a shabby womanizer concerned about his appearance, falling for the charms of young actresses. In the book, he is a wise, attentive, subtle man who courageously experiences the crisis of his actress wife. There's still a claim on Evis Crichton. According to the plot of the book, she is a stupid beauty who does not have any special talents, but simply “selling face” from the stage. There is not even a hint of a comedic role. Self-irony is not the property of small people. And according to the plot, there should be a visual demonstration when a young and calculating lover exchanged a woman with a capital letter and a brilliant actress for a bright empty space. For this role, it would be worth taking a languid, cold beauty a la Greta Garbo, and Lucy Punch, in my opinion, is far from the classical standards of beauty.
That's all the remarks. In short, a nice movie for a cozy evening.
“Being Julia” is an adaptation of the famous novel by Somerset Maugham “Theater”, the name of which was changed by Russian distributors, in order not to confuse the viewer with landmarks. Wish they did it, because the picture of the Hungarian director and “Oscar” winner Istvan Szabo (“Colonel Redl”, “Mephisto”, “Taste of Sunshine”) does not look like its literary source, because another Oscar winner screenwriter Ronald Harwood (“Pianist”, “Spacesuit and Butterfly”, “Australia”) simply disfigured (I can’t find another word) the chic lithosnov. I will immediately make a reservation that I do not share the opinion of those who believe that a book and a film cannot be compared on it - here we are talking about film adaptation, and if the film is based on a novel, then the creators are obliged to convey its ideologicality and heroes, but if the authors go so far from the literary source, then you should not take an existing book as a foundation, but take and write a separate script. I will try to explain in detail the reason for my dissatisfaction with this film as an adaptation.
So, the main disadvantage of the picture is the ideological and plot-forming line. When writing Theatre, Maugham was inspired by Shakespeare’s immortal postulate that “the whole world is theater and the people in it are actors” and created a refinedly written story about what the essence of acting is and about the subtlety of the line between pretending and real life. The filmmakers completely brushed aside these moments, reducing the ideological richness of the book to a simple melodrama about an elderly aunt who decided to take revenge on her young lover who abandoned her. I basically love Annette Bening, but in this movie, she's so far past the image that she seems to have nowhere to go. What she portrayed on screen is anyone but Julia Lambert. Julia Lambert is a great actress, a woman who has perfect control over herself and her emotions, knows the value and value of each gesture. Bening showed a fussy, shouty and scandalous, often even vulgar woman who eerily overplays on stage - that she is a great actress has not received the slightest confirmation on screen. Her main rival Evis Crichton is a beautiful, but talentless, insolent and devilishly confident girl. Here she is depicted ugly, but charming angular fool, who is very insecure, but has a clear talent for a comedy actress – on stage she looked almost more talented than Julia Lambert. The remaining characters - Michael Gosselin, her son Roger, Lord Charles, old lesbian Dolly De Vries (played by old lesbian Miriam Margolis) and Tom Fennell himself are not spelled out at all, as well as the relationship between them, and in the end they remain a faceless gray mass. We will not see on-screen evidence that Tom Fennell is a snob, we will not see how Charles suffers for Julia and what role men played in her life, and we will not see reflections on what theater art is and how it turns banal problems of everyday life into masterpieces. All the best moments are presented with a tongue-in-cheek, such as the chic dialogue between Roger and Julia about how the depiction of on-screen suffering differs from the real one and that there is a essence of pretense that is crumpled up to obscenity here, we will not see Julia’s disdainful attitude to the snobbish upper class, well, and the finale is shown exceptionally incompetent. This was a sparkling and very thoughtful action that gave Julia the opportunity to demonstrate the heights of her skill, as a result of which Evis Crichton received for her arrogance and self-confidence on merit, she was exposed as an absolutely talentless actress and was destroyed in her career plan. Immediately Bening ineptly crooked, ran around the stage, spinned and waved her hands like a crow, which caused nothing but irritation, as a result of which Evis performed by Lucy Punch was sincerely sorry, which should not be. Good words can be said only about a good artistic level - that the merit of a wonderful artist-decorator Luciana Arriga, who knows a lot about the design of historical productions ("Sense and Sensibility"). "Anna and the King." Otherwise, this is a completely catastrophic adaptation in my opinion, which can be watched, being completely unfamiliar with Maugham’s work and having no idea about the essence of Theatre and its heroes, but even in this case it looks very average melodrama.