Before us is the story of a difficult and very interesting friendship quite expressive writer Thomas Wolfe and thoughtful power publisher Max Perkins. This story is based on real events, which certainly always adds interest to the viewing experience. However, there was more interest in the cast. Of course, I came across this film because of the participation of Nicole Kidman, who plays a supporting role – the writer’s wife. But, here, of course, it is worth looking at the acting duo of the main characters performed by Jude Law and Colin Firth. Their duet is beautiful.
In general, it is a thoughtful and calm movie that is filled with dialogue and revealing characters. I would even say that it is more like a theatrical production, in which all the main events will develop through the relationships of the main characters: attitudes to each other, attitudes to work, attitudes to life, finally.
One of the very interesting things that I realized after watching it was that it wasn’t loaded with a typical biographical component. Here, in fact, there will be no documentary facts stuffed into the plot to compile the story of the heroes. Rather, it presents work on yourself, on your attitude to what is creativity for you. And the fact that the plot, defined as, in fact, a biographical tape about the friendship of the writer and publisher, is just a shell very impressive.
Definitely a picture that is remembered by the acting and its message. Of course, nothing supergenius in it will not be found and it is far from the fact that after some time you will remember about it. But if you do, it will only be positive.
After the title “the end of the film”, the question immediately arises, and to whom, in fact, in this opus can be applied the term “genius”? To the characters, the writer of the script, the director, the acting works? The answers are no, no and no! And this despite the fact that the prototypes of the characters are Ernest Hemingway, Scott Fitzgerald, Thomas Wolf and publisher Max Perkins, who opened all these authors to the reading public. Between the real prototypes and the characters of the film lies an impassable chasm. This is Ernest Hemingway. He's certainly in Cuba. Of course he catches giant fish. Happily posing in front of her. In a brutal voice he says he is going to war in Spain. All!! Volga flows into the Caspian Sea - hello to teacher Belikov from Hollywood. Now Fitzgerald. Imagine that this lump of complexes, permanently on the verge of a nervous breakdown because of his wife, who is already beyond the bounds, created one of the most piercing and subtle novels of world literature “The Night is Tender”, is absolutely impossible. The filmmakers don't have to. Most importantly, the creators of the picture declare genius – a person in a difficult life situation. How sad. Greetings to the magazines 7 Days and Caravan of Stories, for which these circumstances are the most important and defining.
God be with them - with Hemingway and Fitzgerald - they are, after all, episodic characters in the film. Thomas Woolf is one of the leaders. It's a slippery slope for me. I’m much more familiar with Tom Wolfe’s work than I am with Thomas. Honestly, about the novel “Look at your house, angel” I know only firsthand. But what director Michael Grandaj and actor Jude Law have done is somehow not inspiring to close the shameful gap in education. Jude Law starts each episode with a clean slate. Do you want an episode of “talent insecure?” Please, stage one. Do you want to get dizzy with success? Welcome to the restaurant scene. Family fights? No problem - scenes three, five and six. There will be about heightened social responsibility - against the background of a queue of unemployed, and about "the writer travels - in Paris", and about a terrible disease - on the ocean coast. Speaking of illness. Thomas Wolf died at 37 of tuberculosis of the brain. Doctors say that this infection affects different parts of the brain and leads to the breakdown of the personality. Looking at Lowe, you certainly believe that. But the trouble is that the writer still suffered from this ailment not from childhood. And it is unlikely that the novels that became important to millions of people could be created by the billions of microbes into which the patient turns. Looking at Lowe, who honestly plays sketches on different topics, combining them with only one idea of “talent in inadequate”, you do not have compassion for the writer, but remember the old stupid joke “I am drunk – such a fool!”
The main character is publisher Max Perkins. How do you play a publisher? A profession that is clearly not for the cinema. Action zero, sit down, read it. However, there is a recipe for creating such a role. True, it is parody and belongs to the hero of Rostislav Plyatt from the film “Spring”. He explains to filmmakers how scientists work. That's it, sitting there, and suddenly there's an epiphany! This is what Perkins looks like in the movie Genius. Here, tired and exhausted after a long day, he takes a book by an unknown author with him on a commuter train. So fatigue turns into interest. At home, he is no longer interested in his wife and daughters, he is all in a new book and its author. Interest, enlightenment, insight are played at the level of student studies. And by whom? Colin Firth is a great English actor. His character honestly demolishes all the twists of a crazy writer, solves his creative, family, medical problems. And all this with English equanimity, which on the screen looks absolute indifference. The actor and director even found the grain of the role - Perkins throughout most of the film does not take off his hats. Not day or night. When Perkins takes his hat off in the final, you expect to see horns at best, an ugly lash at worst. There is no such thing as one or the other. Just took off the hat and that's it.
Actors. Camerton is Laura Linney as Perkins' wife. An actress who always works only on stamps. Moreover, the stamps in her arsenal are not too much. But it is this stamping that good directors are able to turn in favor. Peter Weir in the “Truman Show” just Linney and needed in place of the false wife of Truman, an actress who “plays” his wife, inserting advertising slogans in the right places. Richard Curtis in "Love Actually" Linney defined in the most sentimental-sweet story. She was to become an alter ego of a large audience - ladies of Balzac age with an unsettled personal life. And this audience evaluates itself by the mass cult, that is, by the same stamps. In "Genius," Laura Linney plays the guardian angel Perkins with a traditionally played - understanding smile. She also smiled with Weir and Curtis. Nothing new. Another thing is that her more decorated colleagues have slid to the same level. And the director did not notice it.
Director. Movie debutante. They say that there is a great master in the theater, What happened? Did you switch from theatre to cinematography? I am afraid that in the theater these passions would not look too harmonious. Why even drag this story to the screen, if the director presents his heroes at the level of textbook images of school textbooks and glossy magazines, no deeper? The background of time is banal. The episode “the great depression” and does evoke in memory an insulting for a good director comparison with Soviet film opus type “Eternal Call”. Would you like to try yourself in another art form? I tried it. “It turned out lousy” – as the heroine Linney said in the film “Love Actually”
The most amazing thing is that this mind-blowing wampoo was in the competition of not the worst film festival in Berlin. I didn’t deserve anything, but I did!! Due to what features thrash can get into the main competition? The answer is simple: in the characters - Hemingway da Fitzgerald, on the screen - Firth, Lowe and Kidman - that's ready pseudo-interest and pseudo-significance. That means there is a genius in the film. It's his producer. They are increasingly becoming film geniuses. Sorry, not the film distribution industry.
I rarely watch biographies, but then I caught the eye of Michael Grandage’s film “Genius”, I decided to watch it, attracted by the names of the main actors – Colin Firth, Jude Law, Nicole Kidman. The film tells about the complex relationship between the writer Thomas Wolfe and the publisher, who first ventured to publish his verbose works by Max Perkins (William Maxwell Evarts Perkins), thanks to Perkins began to publish F.S. Fitzgerald and E. Hemingway. The film is an adaptation of Andrew Scott Berg's novel, Maxwell Perkins: Editor of a Genius. I cannot say that the film has an exciting plot, but it seems to me that despite such a composition, it would look somewhat different if another director took up its production, this is his first film, he himself is an actor and director, mostly theatrical, and this left an imprint on the external drawing and even on the appearance of almost all the characters, the theatricality there is noticeable. So the film turned out to be quite average, but if anyone is interested in the topic, you can watch it.
A beautiful star cast, but the narrative itself seems to be glued together from pieces of different thoughts and ideas and for some reason does not fit into the full picture.
Here is a writer, he lives with a woman who has left her husband and grown children to a promising one with burning eyes. She can feel life with him. But she's barely in his life. She keeps him, she keeps him. And then when he gets the go-ahead to publish, he goes into the editorial work and doesn’t pay attention to it. There's no love, no passion, nothing. It feels like his neighbor is throwing tantrums, and not his beloved woman.
The writer himself, of course, is very ardent. But there are no friends or relatives. He simply tells his editor, You are my friend. This is only at the initial stage of communication! You're not gonna get away with it. It’s like he owes him that friendship. A bit of a sticky feeling.
Here's the publisher. A good man, a great professional, with his aspirations. He saw the spark of talent and was able to structure it into a digestible form. To me, this is the most positive character, although he is very followable, with his head immersed in this process. No way. The book's not going anywhere. The children will grow up.
And here the plot converges on three characters: an unloved woman, a young writer and a classy editor.
Every writer is like a pain in one place. It is not clear why to love him or so immersed in him, but at the same time he breaks the fate of close people. It is not clear the reasons for this, on what levers he pressed to so influence them.
Little depth, much desire to tell narrative.
The story is really good. But no raisins. The evening will brighten, of course. But I will not advise you to watch it, perhaps.
Film ' Genius' about the friendship and collaboration of writer Thomas Wolfe and editor Max Perkins.
Before watching this movie, I knew nothing about these people. It turned out that Wolf, if not a great, then a very popular American writer. Max Perkins is a literary agent and editor who discovered writers such as Fitzgerald and Hemingway.
Immediately I will say that their relationship reminded me of the relationship of student and teacher, father and son, master and apprentice.
Wolf is impulsive, too emotional, chaotic, like a raging fire. Its editor is the opposite: calm and staid, who is primarily guided by sound reason.
It was very interesting to observe the triangle: Woolf - Woolf's wife - Perkins. Where at the climax, serious passions flare up.
I want to note the play of Nicole Kidman as Elin Bernstein - the writer's wife. I was very impressed with how passionate she was to fight for her husband. No wonder her words are taken in the title of this review.
The film is very suitable for those who have found their dream job, but is at the initial stage and does not know where to start. After watching it, you will understand that on the way to skill, professionalism and recognition, there will be people who will believe in you and help, despite your character.
7 out of 10
I know little about Thomas Wolfe, even less about his publisher Maxwell Perkins, but to pass by the film about literature with Colin Firth and Jude Law in the lead roles, where, among other things, they promise to show Francis Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway, it is simply impossible, if, of course, you are a person of the humanitarian mindset and all the habits that follow from this.
- If we work every day in the evening, when no one bothers us, we will cope.
- How long?
- Nine months.
- If you try and resist the temptation to add something.
- I should have that opportunity.
- Tom, your book already has 5,000 pages!
There is a popular saying that behind every talented artist (or successful man) is a woman. This formula is also suitable for the relationship of the gifted editor Max Perkins with his authors: behind every bright writer is a strong editor. Hemingway, with his conceit, with his lush health, would have made it without Perkins. Fitzgerald, who in many ways defined his century, could have been noticed by other publishers, but Wolfe’s case is special, it was indeed largely created by Perkins when others refused.
- I bring you what is torn from the heart, and you say, “It does not fit!”
A neurotic, throbbing, gushing personality combined with a painful need to write unrestrainedly much, add endless paragraphs to what has been said, string entire pages of distractions from the main images - this is a truly grand challenge for any editor. And Max Perkins, seeing the talent and originality of the author's style, with self-denial rushed into this work, because of which he lost peace and sleep, many nerve cells, but found a friend and gave the world another amazing writer.
- Look, you give 80 pages to Eugene on the platform before the train arrives. Don't you think there's too much detail in there? How long can I wait for the train?
There are legends about Tom and Max working together. One almost carts brought manuscripts into the office and fought for every word written, and the other ruthlessly forced to wash out tens of thousands of words, clearing the general plan of the allure. And in the film, this process is magically shown. I think it's an anthem for editors. And how funny and subtly illustrated that is. It's been a while since I laughed at night.
- Tom, we were talking about a string. One line to connect paragraphs. And you brought 50 pages about the doctor. The whole story of his life and his father.
- I like the doctor.
- Me too. I love the doctor. But God, 50 pages!
- To become a novelist, you need to learn to weed out, to give shape.
- Why?!
- We have been working for two years and the book is only 100 pages shorter.
- I need the tip of the iceberg, Tom, and you brought the whole iceberg!
Of course, Perkins was in some way a co-author of Wolfe, and together they created, were friends, lived. And it is clear that all this has a downside - the suffering of loved ones, left without attention, distracting from the main cause, do not understand its importance, but have their own legitimate and just needs. And here is another difference between the writer and the editor: the author, carried away, forgets everyone, he does not need anyone, the editor, even getting carried away, does not forget how important the family is.
- Such writers come across only once in a lifetime.
- Children have children once in a lifetime.
Acting. Firth and Lowe played two geniuses and did it brilliantly, one ice and judgment, the other flame and passion. Believe them at once and in everything, every second: in creativity, in friendship, and in quarrels. Powerful chemistry between characters. Guy Pearce as Fitzgerald wasn't very convincing, that's not how I picture Scotty. It’s the same story with Dominic West as Hemingway, but it’s still nice to see more of these big writers incarnate. Nicole Kidman and the performers of the roles of Perkins household were pleased.
- There are books that should be long! Thank God Tolstoy didn't know you! It would have been a novel “War and Nothing.”
What did I miss, why not 10? Catharsis, I guess. This is a movie I want to quote almost entirely. And there were emotions, a little lack of depth. But the desire to get acquainted with the work of Wolfe is expensive. At least for the sake of making such a movie.
Very interesting color scheme in the film. Muffled colors, semitone, in fact, every color is born of black. Each bright spot is dark compared to bright sunlight. And the shoes - the movement of many legs, the smooth rhythm of the city. A leg that beats jazz. Stations and trains. Poetry on the train is always class. And relationships - the editor (Colin Firth) is an absolute phlegmatic, feeling very subtle texture of language, life, music. And Thomas Wolfe is a neurotic choleric who wants to contain everything, to describe everything. The film drags on gradually, but when you shift the optics to consider the details in the twilight, it is striking how much these details capture.
"The end of history gives no reason to stick your head out."
The end of the story does not give a good reason to stick your head out into the light. After all, there are still corners that need to be leveled, throw out excess tails, add tones to pages where there are many spaces.
Before the publication of any book, there is a collective purge that gives shine to the body of history. And the main directors in this procedure are the writer and his editor. The former may hate the other or secretly love, but one feeling must be inviolable. Especially when a new masterpiece is being prepared for the world. That's what movies are about.
The main characters are Thomas Wolfe and his editor Maxwell Perkins, the very lifeline that the first so desperately needed. The writer is performed by Jude Law, he is as versatile as that seafood soup, which is about to be digested, but does not let the charm fall. He is so in love with his brainchild that he can devote his nights to discussions about it, as much as it is a personal grid of the soul carried over to the a4.
The editor is performed by Oscar winner Colin Firth, a man who probably does not take off his hat in a dream, smiles with restraint and holds Thomas' hand firmly. The star cast also has Nicole Kidman, who plays the writer’s beloved, but Wolfe is so passionate about his creation, immersed in the vat of discussions with Perkinson that he does not pay attention to her, unconsciously turning her into a shadow of pleasant dreams.
Over the course of the film, the temperature of Wolfe's behavior varies from bitter unfitness to unspoken arrogance.
But one thing remains unchanged its observance to live the wide rhythm of the heart screaming, in a mouthpiece at full power.
The film is remarkable for me that opens one of the curtains of the creators, any product, before going out there sometimes goes a long way of processing. I'll put 8 out of 10 on this tape. Why not 10? The answer is simple, I would like more factors that truly inspired the great writer on his novels, elements from childhood, maturation to pen.
I watch movies often and I rarely write. In general, quite a passing and unremarkable biography of the pompous and chaoticly gifted graphomaniac Thomas Wolfe. I watched only because of Colin Firth, impeccably playing what he was supposed to play. Good, smooth acting work, without the special brilliance of the faces of his wide and diverse talent and without any accents. Well, I have to admit that Firth's age characters are all about the same.
Never singled out Jude Law as a great artist, there is nothing to distinguish and now. Very pompous and played, there is a caricature in everything. Perhaps Wolfe was, and perhaps not, who knows him, but at the thought of such cocky, grotesque and odious personalities in the history of world culture, I recall the brilliant roles of Anthony Hopkins - Picasso, Depardieu - Rodin, Andy Garcia - Modigliani, Alfred Molina - Diego River, Downey Jr. - Chaplin, Jeffrey Rush - David Halfgott, etc. Believe them, no matter how crazy, cruel or extraordinary these guys are. In this case, I can compare the game of Lowe with the most incompetent play of the most incompetent Bezrukov in the role of Yesenin-Pushkin-Vysotsky and others like them. Everywhere it is cool and superficial, prone to theatricality, like a handsome man carved out of marble, Lowe, who knows how to stretch his mouth in a Hollywood smile, or give a tear from beautiful wet eyes, or proudly raise his chin, waving lush curls. To these external effects and reduces all his participation in any film.
Nicole Kidman looks like an old mummy and plays accordingly. Why was she chosen for this indistinct and indistinct prep? She is obviously much older than her heroine and absolutely does not fit into the image of a hysterical suffering wife ' Decembrist'. And these are all meaningfully empty lines, ' do you know what I went through to become who I am now?' And through what? The film comes to an end, soon run to the accounting office for a fee, and the viewer must vaguely guess what she went through. No, a man-shifted self-centered writer who thinks of no one and nothing but himself and his genius, who perceives living people only as steps to achieve fame or as living scenery that helps to endure the temporary absence of the muse - this is ugly. It's all clear and obvious, but where are all these experiences on screen? Drinking pills in front of your spouse and publisher? It's all theater. Cheap and incompetent. Came to the publisher with a gun? Faispalm. However, the wife suits her husband, flat, spineless, hyperbolized scandalous, ostentatious. Perhaps, if she were at least habitually red, it would not look so fake, but Kidman-brunette cuts her eyes like hell, even if she did not try anything to play.
Laura Linney is not bad in all her roles as post-Balzac women. Any catchy music or camera work was also not noticed. By and large, I am not sorry for the time spent, but I did not get much pleasure from watching. Wishing to get acquainted with the artistic outpourings of Thomas Wolfe 'in real life' I did not arise. Rather, on the contrary, I will bypass these rivers of empty verbal constructions. Score for Colin Firth.
About the British director Michael Grandage the world learned just after the film 'Genius'. The writers of the Lost Generation #39 are so romantic, so beautiful, and I personally adore them. Woody Allen's film about that time ' Midnight in Paris' turned out to be one of his best creations, and it was like we actually saw F. Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway. At that time, there lived such romantic and talented writers, and each of the above remained in history as a genius man.
One of the enigmatic personalities of the era ' Lost Generation' is playwright Thomas Wolfe. This film tells the story of his life, and most importantly the difficult friendship with his publisher and editor Max Perkins. Two incredibly intelligent people met and came together, bringing unique literary creations to the world. . .
39 He understood that people are forever strangers to each other, that no one is able to truly understand another, that, imprisoned in the dark womb of a mother, we are born without knowing her face, that we are put into her arms by strangers, and that, once in the hopeless prison of existence, we will never break out of it, no matter whose hands hug us, no matter whose mouth kisses us, no matter whose heart warms us. Never, never, never, never.' (c) Thomas Wolfe
The emphasis in the film is not on the genius of these people, but still on their personal relationships, who crossed the line of friendship, they were like relatives. This film is curious, and the story is interesting, but the picture was left aside. Of course, the actors are amazing in it, but the whole film looks like we are in the theater.
If it was all on the stage, it was really cool, but it’s a movie and the audience was waiting for something more true and real. And there is something theatrical here in every frame. The actors overplay the pain, and it feels like they are on stage and not in the movies. In the film, you want more reality, more truth.
Even the atmosphere of the picture, the entourage in the background, the gray constant tones, the scenery - everything was as if we were sitting in the theater and watching a play. The director needed a different view of the story. Then the movie would have gathered more viewers around it.
Colin Firth and Jude Law play the lead roles. Both British actors are loved and we grew up on their films. What I liked most about it was how they played the depth of their heroes’ friendship, something hidden between them, as if something unsettled, secret. Their heroes were very talented people, and the actors of genius played touching.
Thomas Clayton Wolfe's personality is so interesting. He was a brilliant writer and lived so little. Some of his quotes touch the heart itself.
Nicole Kidman was a strong and inspiring woman. Kidman is always cool and watching her play is a pleasure. She had previously played with both Colin Firth and Jude Law, and reuniting with these actors was once again something positive.
Laura Linney was chosen for nothing here. She overplayed, and the scenes with her repulsed. She is well suited to the roles of arrogant, cold women, but we have already seen all this, and for her role it was necessary to choose another actress.
This delicate and delicate film is about something that can not be touched, but can be felt. It's about friendship, intimacy, the battle of minds, the creation of something beautiful and the process of working geniuses. What wonderful people, if only there were as many as possible.
'Genius' is a 2015 American-British biographical drama. The result is a theatrical, costumed film with huge ambitions and a soulful history, but still the film did not last: the story is interesting and piercing, but the direction is stingy and gray. I am very neutral about the picture.
' It is not people who run away from life because it is boring, but life runs away from people because they are small. – Thomas Wolfe
I must say that I hate the writer Tom Wolfe, but not for any objective reasons, but solely for something personal. Everything about him irritates me, from style to biography. I was lucky in my youth, when I was less picky, to read one of his works by inertia, which I remember the inappropriate behavior of the protagonist and hysterical motives throughout the story. Because the news that about the biography of Tom Wolfe filmed, I reacted quite coldly.
But here, please, there is a direct, you can say, the benefit of cinema. From the unpleasant subject I got a charming image created by Jude Law, the actor I love, and at some stage on the screen he was even unrecognizable, periodically I looked and doubted. The director also did a good job of making it humorous because I have serious suspicions that Tom Wolfe took himself very seriously. Here everything is comprehended in comparison, the standard strict and positive image of Colin Firth (I have already despaired of seeing him as the bad guy), and against his background – the stupidity of Lowe. In general, “Genius” is good because they came to it ironically.
In fact, the two of them, in the good sense of the word, had everything in this movie. Even Nicole Kidman somehow passed the background. But I got a rare opportunity to join the biography of the American classic, which was predictably closed to me. You know, there are times when nothing can force you to pick up a book by a writer, let it be recognized by others at least a billion times.
Watch the movie if you like Tom Wolfe and especially if you don't like him. It’s even easier if you’ve never heard of it.
So, the story of the brilliant writer Thomas Wolfe and / or no less brilliant editor Max Perkins. A story about the complex share of genius in literature, a well-known plot, conveniently presented to the viewer from different sides in order to claim originality.
The question that arises from the first minutes of watching the film: Who do I empathize with? Everyone chooses this for themselves, because both stories are good, the motivations are clear and in general everything is clear. And this is an excellent directorial and scripting technique that works perfectly without breaking the narrative into parts.
But is everything that brilliant? With decent directing, a beautiful script and wonderful titled actors, the mosaic somehow does not add up. One part does not fit and is knocked out of the picture. It's "extra theatricality." And not intentional or bad, but absolutely not suitable for the manner of narration, rhythm and visual of the whole film. And it manifests itself in small hints that are easy to notice, but not easy to identify correctly: in the excessive, in my opinion, the emotionality of Jude Law and his character (of course, it can be explained, and then everything seems to fall into place). But I sometimes felt that Lowe overplayed, and this can not be., in the contrived (undisclosed) drama Kidman (which, by the way, I was missing here). Interesting character, but completely without background, and therefore the viewer is incomprehensible. Why is this happening? Look at the director and everything immediately becomes clear. And Lowe doesn't overdo it, and Firth doesn't play the trick, it's just the first time a director makes a movie. Genius directorial debut of Michael Grandaj in cinema. Therefore, everything looked great only in the theater, harmoniously and not too much. It's all right.
In the end, the film is good and interesting. I wanted to re-read Fitzgerald, get acquainted with the work of Wolfe and other authors of Perkins. To watch and enjoy.
An autobiographical drama about a publisher and his find: a young and excited genius. Thomas Wolfe. But the film interestingly told not only about the biography of Wolfe, but also touched upon a key conflict in the biography of Fitzgerald and Hemingway.
The cast.
Impressive casting. Tom Wolfe is an impulsive, charismatic character, an ocean of energy, movement. Honestly, I don’t know who could have played better than Jude Law. It seemed that the character and the actor merged into a single whole. The character of Tom Wolfe wants to empathize, follow him and move in his rhythm.
Dramaturgy.
The film held from beginning to end: from the panorama of the feet of the crowd walking along the wet asphalt to the suggestive scene with writing. Original actor’s decision: the whole film, Mark, without taking off, wears a hat that is on a robot, that is at home. For what? For the final suena! There are no drawn-out scenes in the film, each frame has its place and works on an interesting storytelling.
But, perhaps due to the limited availability of themes, the film is for one time.
9 out of 10
“First of all, we do not value friendship because we do not see it. And we do not see it because it is the least natural of all kinds of love, it does not involve instinct, it has very little or no biological necessity. It is almost not connected with nerves, it does not blush, do not pale, do not lose feelings. It connects personality with personality; as soon as people become friends, they stand out from the herd.
C.S. Lewis, "Love"
Nowadays, films about simple male friendship are rare. And it is significant that “Genius” is shot on a real story – because reality is full of simple beautiful plots of friendly relations.
The intrigue of the title (and who is the real genius here?) is revealed by the film itself, but in general the narrative is presented in a very balanced way - and is evenly distributed between two friends, without clearly putting either one or the other at the forefront.
Such films are good as a phenomenon – it is necessary to shoot about real personalities as much as possible, for the benefit of worthy objects of thousands. Make a film about the friendship of Pushkin and Gogol, Dostoevsky and Solovyov, Ilyin and Shmelev - this is where life will unfold in its fullness.
The cast is on top. Lowe's good, Firth's good, Kidman's good - what claims do they have? Impressed Hemingway and Fitzgerald. Very effective visual presentation, the film is not overloaded, not delayed. There is something to see, something to think about.
The film "Genius" frankly impressed me to the core. A beautifully shot story about contradictory and difficult people who encountered in this world and struck up relationships that capture the spirit of the viewer. I do not want to go into the details of the biographies of the American writer Thomas Wolfe and the famous editor Perkins, but rather I will try to describe what the filmmakers were able to portray so powerfully.
First of all, of course, I want to note the three main actors: Colin Firth, Jude Law and Nicole Kidman. The roles were performed magnificently, these are undoubtedly the “greats” of the modern film industry. It’s a pleasure to watch Jude Law grow, he’s been getting starring roles more and more recently, and most importantly, he’s doing a great job. So, for example, Lowe with his skill drew the "King Arthur's Sword", and did it alone, in fact, his role is the only reason why I watched this "cinema tin". Next, of course, about the most important thing in the drama - the plot. In a few words, it was inseparable, emotional and moderately exciting. Until the end you watch, follow the plot and expect something new from Wolfe. You get it over and over again, but a sudden death interrupts the whole course, becomes somehow empty, as if you experienced this period of life with Perkins, and now life has changed, there is a tangible trace in the soul and energy of this magnificent man. The film tells about the famous writer, few people know about him in our country, and few people are familiar with creativity, so the film is useful for viewing to expand your horizons. The technical part without minuses, there were no questions to the directors and operators.
In the end, we get a really decent and interesting drama. There is a lot here: ups and downs, eccentrics and ordinary people, complex friendship and simple family relationships, passion for your favorite business and self-sacrifice. This film, like a good book, makes you think, answer some life questions. I appreciate the banal simplicity in films, I just want to take a break while watching, but sometimes there is a lack of such strong works. And I'm really glad that I got acquainted with this picture because such films provide invaluable experience and food for thought.
It's hard to be a genius, it's hard to live with a genius.
"Genius," 2016
A classic biographical film telling about the relationship between the American writer Thomas Wolfe and his editor Max Perkins, who at one time discovered such brilliant writers as Ernst Hemingway, Francis Scott Fitzgerald. Like the vast majority of films of this genre, everything is done quite well, which at the same time still gives an element of apprenticeship (this is the first film by Michael Grandaja as a director). The script is based on A. Scott Berg’s book Max Perkins: Editor of a Genius. Good actors are invited. Thomas Wolfe is played by Jude Law, who has always succeeded in the roles of extravagant, marginal heroes, as well as female seducers. Wolfe's inspirational muse is played by Nicole Kidman; Perkins is perfectly played by Colin Firth.
I like the color scheme of the film: very New York. Green-red-brown tones, muffled, in the style of “greenwich village”; well shown the writer’s atmosphere, the atmosphere of the editors.
I didn't like it.
- It's a bad name. Too simple and at the same time ambiguous. Who's the genius? What genius? It seems that in the film there are at least three of them: Hemingway, Fitzgerald and Thomas Wolf. Then why not Genius? Or is Thomas Wolfe a genius and Hemingway and Fitzgerald not? Very controversial. Perhaps the filmmakers believe that the real genius is Max Perkins, without whose editorial talent Wolfe would not have become famous? Genius-Woolf is too predictable: a womanizer, an alcoholic, a graphomaniac, a madman and an ungrateful egoist. also Jude Law, in my opinion, overplays. Genius-Perkins (based on the film) is a boring and monotonous workaholic.
The jazz that Woolf and Perkins listen to in a black bar, he liked. That's just not how they played in the mid-30s. For a real immersion in the atmosphere of that time it was quite possible to use authentic music of those years.
- The film is a bit long and boring. Although this is a biographical genre, assuming the corresponding “rules of the game”, the characters of the film do not look like real people, but as “reference” heroes: hardworking editor Max Perkins, “forever young Peter Pan” Wolfe, hysterical Elin Bernstein.
Conclusion:
Did the authors of the film manage to create a believable picture of the life of Thomas Wolfe? In principle, we succeeded.
Could it have been more interesting and original? Yes, you can.
7 out of 10
The genius of his time, whose words mattered more than he realized.
The poem, the words, the characters. Who can write or say beautifully to give deep meaning to what is written or said? Throughout the film, I heard eloquent words, phrases, sentences, trying to delve into their meaning. It was difficult, even for me, who had read a lot of books as a child, but had become coarse due to technical literature over the past five years. And how shameful it is for me not to know such a writer, without having read any of his books and without having already begun to read.
However, now we should not talk about the biography of the writer during his triumphant rise, but about its adaptation. Screenplays with amazing and famous actors, whose performance did not disappoint me. On the contrary, I was drawn to watching and listening. So much life was felt in the form of emotions, as if I was among them, the main characters, only watching from the sidelines, worried about their mistakes and was surprised by their sometimes deft actions, which were violently irritating and already for their own real life, repeatedly seen with their own eyes.
While watching, I remembered the painting “The King’s Speech”, and it is a sin not to compare with the culprit of the celebration. A story of friendship after all. Only the story of the writer-editor friendship, whatever it was, ends sadly, unlike the story of the king and speech therapist. If in Tom Hooper's film Lionel Logue helped the "confused" George VI played by Colin Firth to overcome doubts to lead the country, then in the work of Michael Grandage, the character played by Colin Firth - Max Perkins - helped Thomas Wolfe find himself. Find through trust and friendship, which is not observed throughout the film. Rather, its appearance in the form of parasitism and “restrained frivolity”, flowing from the category to “colleagues” in the category of “close person”, because we are talking (attention spoiler) about a fanatical egoist and a shadow person who became, roughly speaking, a secret admirer of that fan. Yet acknowledging mistakes and accepting them will not pass without a trace. This will be the most touching moment in the work. He is a writer who has a lot in his books.
There's not much to talk about. I can say less about the movie because of his love of life. You don't have to. And the moments, I regret, were boring and predictable. That's the only way I can get a score. Although I can assure you of one thing, how easily the atmosphere of the time can be captivated: his music, falling in time with the mood of the characters, transmitted to the viewer, his beautiful costumes and his ... gloom at the peak of the Great Depression and Prohibition with the addition of cloudy days in the style of Christopher Nolan.
The picture itself with its epic moments is unlikely to please many who are bored with poetry and everything associated with it. Be brave, don’t waste your time. They talk about life, about love, about the great.
P.S. “And all the incomprehensibility, all the glory and power of life spread down below.” (c)
An inspirational film directed by Michael Grandaj. A film for writers, poets, journalists and those who want to learn a little more about the book/any other creation. A film from the field of "learn from the inside."
It was interesting to observe how such authors as Scott Fitzgerald with his The Great Gatsby, Ernest Hemingway and Thomas Wolfe with his voluminous books Look at Your House, Angel and About Time and the River lived and became thanks to whom.
As for the actors, I went to the movie because of Nicole Kidman. I like movies with her. But Kidman in the film was on the third or even fourth plan, and she succeeded. Colin Firth spoke in the foreground. He played the role of editor Perkins perfectly, and in general, where Colin Firth played not believably, without getting used to the role, I do not remember. Great actor!
And, of course, Jude Law. He played Thomas Wolfe in a crazy and creative way.
In general, the actors really liked it, as if you were actually living in the lifetime of these writers. You know their emotions, their character. It's expensive. And books are read differently, thanks to such biographical films.
After watching the film, you realize how valuable the role of publishers is for authors.
Thanks to editor Max Perkins. Otherwise, many masterpieces would never have reached us.
“If you describe your life in books, then there are characters who say such things that frost on the skin.” They are our reflection.
You don’t even have to be astute to say that the 2016 U.S.-British production of Genius was designed to win prestigious awards and awards. Judge for yourself: the plot of the film is based on the history of friendship between the famous writer Thomas Wolfe and his publisher, who considered the talent of a genius in Wolfe, Maxwell Perkins, who could boast of giving the world two classics of literature - Ernest Hemingway and Francis Scott Fitzgerald. Critics just love dramatic biopics, where we are talking about amazing, extraordinary and eccentric personalities, to which, of course, Thomas Wolfe belonged.
Speaks and special task "Genius" his cast. Maxwell Perkins was played by Colin Firth, who at one time became an Oscar winner for Best Actor in the film The King Speaks!, and the film itself also belonged to the category of biographical dramas. The passion of the on-screen Thomas Wolfe - Elin Bernstein - was performed by Nicole Kidman, who also has an Oscar in her asset for playing the role of writer Virginia Woolf in the film The Clock (they are not relatives with Thomas), well, try to predict the genre of the Clock yourself. The role of Perkins' wife went to Laura Linney. The actress was nominated for an Oscar three times, including for Best Supporting Actress in Dr. Kinsey, I think I don’t need to explain why I paid attention to this film. And finally, in the cast there is Jude Law, who, in fact, played Thomas Wolfe himself. Among the awards and nominations of the actor there are no such for biopics, but he perfectly played the male supporting role in the film “Wilde”, embodying the image of the lover of the famous playwright and writer.
But at the moment it can already be said that the "Genius" in a special account of the hopes put forward did not justify. Actors like Firth and Lowe, Kidman and Linney have always approached their work with a high level of professionalism. Rather, the director of the picture Michael Grandaj could not declare himself at the top of his voice, for whom “Genius” became his debut in the field of leadership of the entire shooting process. But, meanwhile, Grandaj was nominated for the Golden Bear at the Berlinale, but strictly speaking, it was a big advance, even a very big one. The fact is that the director shot the pictures somewhat academically, it stretches too smoothly, there is no rhythm in it that could give the necessary emotional background to feel the depth of drama that comes from the complexity of the character of Thomas Wolfe, his impulsivity, the ability to rush from extreme to extreme. Rather, “Genius” is an artistic framing of the history of a separate segment of the life of a brilliant writer, a kind of cinematic illustration. And in his hands, Grandaj had a truly fruitful material, which, if used correctly, could bring much greater popularity and fame to both the film and its creator.
When it comes to acting, as mentioned above, only minor claims can be made. Colin Firth is good with his eternal hat on his head, which he did not take off even sitting at the family dinner table. The most interesting thing is that for myself, I was never able to decide who – Colin Firth or Jude Law – plays the main male role here, and who – a secondary one. Another interesting point is that when I saw the photo of Thomas Wolfe, I saw Colin Firth in it, the actor is very much like a writer. Jude Law diligently played the role of an eccentric person, who are often talented and brilliant people, but in some places still lacked drama, his image was not quite penetrating, there was a feeling that you were waiting for something more, something more vivid in the emotional palette. Nicole Kidman managed to show a woman who, perhaps, by the strength of character and its ambiguity, was hardly inferior to her lover, and also very frightened her terrible look with black eyes, and you do not understand whether you are facing a deeply unhappy woman, devastated by the antics of Thomas Wolfe, or a crazy one, ready at any moment to shoot from a ladies' pistol. Or maybe she had both. Laura Linney did not have much screen time, but she played the role of a loving wife and mother without a flaw. And, finally, I will say that Dominic West and Guy Pearce are invited guests, who did not fail to perform the roles of Hemingway and Fitzgerald’s cameo, respectively.
And, summing up all of the above, I conclude that “Genius” is a good film, which largely benefits from the excellent cast and story, from which you can learn how complex the genius writer Thomas Wolfe was and how calm and restrained his publisher Maxwell Perkins, to whom Wolfe wrote lines of gratitude in his books, has always remained. But, in general, expectations were higher than what was managed to put and release debutant Michael Grandage.
7 out of 10
The story of the collaboration between publisher Mark Perkins (Colin Firth) and writer Thomas Wolfe (Jude Law).
Thomas Wolfe wandered around publishing houses for a long time, but his endless opuses did not meet with understanding. Not only did Perkins begin to edit these long-running novels, but in arguments, doubts and thanks. They both have wives and Perkins has children. And one of those two in the final will die with another interpretation: France, the army, Josephine. There will be more words and fewer addresses.
Proper American cinema is a true American genre of biopic (although they are shot not only in America). The almost nauseating recurrence of family-work dilemma. For some reason, the perpetual desire of American directors to declare the main idea or thought of the film. Anthem of this creation: predictability.
On the other hand, such works always have at least one virtue - a story that not many people know about. Some people know about the writer Wolfe, but much less about Perkins - a man not small, but who is not in the center, but around. But without such a big one could not have happened. Especially since the genius is probably not Wolfe.
Hence the advantage: to tell a story, sometimes a relatively small talent is required: the main thing is not to squeeze, not to oversentimentalize and not to descend to the level of completely beaten clichés. It worked. There's even a funny detail (unexplained) - some shit and Perkins is always wearing a hat! Unsolved intrigue is also intrigue. There is also an element of originality. And if you think about it, then Firth, exploiting his role as a regular yuppie (or cockney), is quite good at it, and Lowe almost evolves from a chronic loser to a star-bugger.
And all the time to demand from the cinema masterpieces and kaleidoscope for the eyes, apparently, is not worth it. In addition, "Genius" also teaches to be friends.
The young author finds his editor, but there will be no mercy. The editor opened his author, but he is not good at all. And it went...
The difficult relationship between the author and his editor, editor and its authors, the author and his woman, who, here, the hero is not of the second plan. Everyone grows up and changes and only the main character in the performance of Colin Firth endures any turns, endures, motivates, experiences and passes, filters through the author, his text and his private, but such important problems that a good book was born. The film proves it's worth it.
The story is about love of life, selfishness and the power of life through the difficult friendship of the main characters.
A movie with a love of word and music. The word is especially appreciated by those who know English well. And the music in Genius is a separate song, an independent hero with his own story.
Oh, yeah, actors. But as the goal of a good editor is to plunge the reader into a good book, and only then would he gratefully find out who the author and editor are, so in this movie. Colin Firth, Nicole Kidman and Jude Law, who would doubt.
I recommend watching if you are ready to take a cold bath to get warm. The film leaves a warm mark on the soul.
7.5 out of 10
But estimates don't apply at all. The rules cannot be broken, and the film proves that. Because "myriads" is correct to write "myriads."
I love the writer’s theme, I love its behind-the-scenes side, so Genius has been waiting since the trailer came out. An undeniable bonus for me was the participation of Colin Firth in it, because this man is able to decorate any film, every role is an example of talent and great acting.
The plot is built around the friendship and cooperation of two famous personalities - temperamental and verbose writer Thomas Wolfe and restrained and wise publisher Maxwell (Max) Perkins. The role of Wolfe went to Jude Law and I guessed the whole film: is his unbridledness and theatricality part of the personality of Thomas or Jude? Sometimes it was too much on screen, not in time, but in the noise it made. But perhaps Wolfe was exactly that, so the actor does not want to make claims. Moreover, Jude Law responsibly prepared for the role and even visited the Wolfe Museum to better understand him as a person.
Colin Firth as Max Perkins is very organic and believable. Every emotion, every experience finds a response in the soul, every action can be understood and explained. He's a capital actor. Looking at him, I do not want to talk, I just want to watch and enjoy the skill. Lovely couple Furth was Laura Linney, who played Max’s wife, Louise Perkins. Wise, loving, understanding, she appreciates and supports her husband, even when her strength is running out. And, fortunately, her contribution to the preservation of the family is appreciated.
The complete opposite of Louise is Thomas Wolfe's lover Eileen Bernstein (Nicole Kidman). Eileen gave up everything for the young writer - "from her husband, children, honor." Was this victim justified? You will find the answer to this question with the heroine. The character of Ms. Bernstein is more repulsive than attractive, but it is unknown where these qualities came from her birth or appeared after certain life events. Each viewer will find the answer to this question for himself. The only thing that looks odd about the film is Eileen's age and her stories of children growing up. In reality, Bernstein was a couple of decades older than Wolfe, in the film this difference is much smaller, and involuntarily begins to wonder whether the woman found some miraculous remedy that preserved her youth, or she just gave birth too early?
The overall impression of the film is slightly mixed. Thomas Wolfe and Max Perkins are the main characters and they should be the center of attention. There are no complaints about Max, but Wolfe was personally eclipsed by Hemingway and Fitzgerald, with whom Max also worked, and who appeared in the film much less often than Wolfe. After watching the film, I wanted to re-read the biographies and books of Fitzgerald and Hemingway, but not Wolfe. Why is that? Don't know. Perhaps, despite some of their shortcomings, they still look more mature and wise than Wolfe.
7 out of 10
There could be more, in particular for Colin Firth, but the film is not only about him, he is also about other characters, and to them, as to the plot, there are some complaints. I enjoyed watching the movie and didn’t want to waste any time, but it’s not a movie I’d like to see twice.
“In the days of the cavemen, our ancestors gathered by the campfire at night. In the dark, wolves howled, right next to each other, and one of them started talking. He told a story so that it would not be scary in the dark.
Biopics about great people often sin with their unoriginality. And it manifests itself in everything: in the plot, in the form of conveying the main idea, and simply in manipulating the viewer. Sometimes, of course, such films draw acting (as it was in “The King’s Speech!”), sometimes the atmosphere (as it was in “Joy”), but they still linger for a short time in the memory of the viewer. Reason? It's hard to tell them apart in a year or two. What does this movie really want to bring to us? That that man was a real genius? Or that patience and hard work will be enough? Most of the time, it really is. But where is the line between a mediocre film about a famous person and a quality one? I dare to assume that she is in a unique interaction of the main character and the thought that they want to put in the minds of people. In other words, if one and the other look great both separately and together, cinema can somehow affect a person without cunning Hollywood manipulations. Fortunately, 2016 did not stint as much as 2 good biopics: "Eddie "Eagle" and "Genius". The second one will be discussed.
The rain is constantly dripping on the dirty streets of this city. All people go one way, hiding their faces behind their hats and headscarves. But only he stands and waits for something, stomping his foot on the wet sidewalks that serve the dear myriad of lost souls of America. Grandaj, who previously worked exclusively in the theater, paints a very dull image of the country in the 20s and 30s, which can cause a real attack of melancholy in the viewer. Against the background of the Great Depression, a “love triangle” consisting of truly brilliant people is completely invisible. Young author Thomas Wolfe meets editor Maxwell Perkins, who decides to publish his work. Isn’t this the best time to start a true friendship? Starting as a cooperation, their relationship develops into something more, but still elusive for an ordinary person due to the callousness and insensitivity of the surrounding world.
The actors go to a real theatrical performance and each line is pronounced as if a huge number of spectators are sitting opposite them in the hall. And to hell with all these phrases that Jude Law’s play is overly pretentious and unnatural – we have theater in all its glory. We are witnessing something truly grand and underappreciated. Firth, Linney, Pierce, and Kidman are all names lost in the whirlpool of historical events and no longer have any value. We have Maxwell and Elizabeth Perkins, Fitzgerald and Bernstein. And scenes of jealousy by Elin Bernstein, Wolfe’s woman, only lead us to believe that this has already happened in real life: our actions partly look just as fake, and our jealousy also comes from selfishness alone. It just so happens that we look at all this through the screens of computers and phones, but this is more a view of modern life through a front camera than an attempt to look at the passions of the time.
And after all these stupid human arguments, conflicts, unjustified intrigues, we begin to realize what really has value. And it is not to be a genius in the usual sense of the word in our time, not to write yourself in history and not even to get a taste of life, traveling and spending money tirelessly. The most important gift is to be a true genius of friendship, to give strength for the future life to a person with whom you are ready to go through all the hardships and obstacles. And the most amazing force that can be developed is that even in truly dark times for the whole country, you can save lost souls and prompt them out.
"Genius" might praise both Thomas Wolfe and Maxwell Perkins, but doesn't. This is not a film about the merits of great people, although this topic is given enough space. The debate over who was a genius, the editor or the author, is so insignificant that the characters will only talk about it once. And because of all this range of thoughts and feelings, the film is really worth watching. The film can clearly qualify for the nomination “Breakthrough of the Year”. One of the best creations of 2016 cannot be ignored. And if you are ready to hear something new, then immediately take up this film.
8 out of 10
Incredibly bright and dynamic picture, telling about two geniuses of the golden era. Writer of the "Lost Generation" Thomas Wolf played by Jude Law and editor Max Perkins, performed by the magnificent Colin Firth.
Two Brits playing icons of American literature, and brilliantly! Lowe’s liveliness and Firth’s moderation create a unique contrast between the characters.
This man believed in you when no one believed.
It’s not just the story of a writer like Thomas Wolf. This is the history of modern America, which was created by people like Fitzgerald and Hemingway, not sufficiently recognized then, but deeply revered today.
The masterful maneuvering of Michael Grange within the genres of comedy and drama is striking.
Laughter, ecstasy, shock, and tears—is this not the life of great men?
When you open the book, do you think of the people who published it? Probably not. You may think of its author, but the main thing that will interest you is the book itself.
We do not think about it, but often behind the talent and genius of the writer lies the professionalism and painstaking work of the editor, turning sometimes an endless stream of thoughts and words into a fully designed and understandable work. The writer is remembered, but the editor always remains in the shadows.
This is what the film "Genius" with Colin Firth and Jude Law in the lead roles tells.
Young and talented writer Thomas Wolfe is trying to publish his novel, which occupies a thousand pages in manuscript. He's been rejected by all New York publishing houses. Tom's last hope is the publishing house Charles Scribner's Sons, which employs editor Maxwell Perkins, known for willingly publishing aspiring writers. It was he who once opened Fitzgerald and Hemingway to the world.
To the surprise and joy of the young writer, Maxwell, who considered genius in Wolfe, agrees to publish his novel. Now they have to refine and significantly reduce the thousand-page work to make the outstanding but cumbersome text understandable to the reader.
For Tom, shortening the text is torture. Every word crossed out is a knife in the heart. But Max is relentless. He ruthlessly erases everything superfluous, so that the pile of letters does not prevent readers from penetrating the very essence of the work.
After a long and hard work, the book is published and has a huge success with readers. The writer and editor become close friends. Maxwell decides to publish another novel by Thomas Wolfe.
Working on the second book becomes a lifelong affair for both men. But friendship is not an easy test for them.
The one who has had his head spinned by the success of the first book is afraid that the second novel will not have the same success. He is thrown from side to side in search of inspiration, and Max has to put up with many of the quirks of genius. Thomas pays less attention to the beloved woman who left her husband and children for him, and Max moves away from his wife and daughters, missing the best moments of their childhood. Despite everything, Perkins believes that the likes of Wolfe meet once in a lifetime. Tom is only grateful for his success to Max.
This story is not so much about a brilliant writer, but about a brilliant editor who managed to recognize talent and direct it in the right direction. The writer found a friend in the person of his publisher, who turned out to be a true genius of friendship.
Some people think the movie is boring, but I didn’t think it was. I was a bit bored at the end, but the movie didn’t lose its charm. Simple, not devoid of humor dialogue, quality acting, the realities of America of the 30s and showing the process of working on the book from behind the scenes - all this catches and gives pleasure. This is a good film about the important: about friendship and devotion, about honesty and nobility. I highly recommend watching!
When in the end of the film went credits, and suddenly read the name Nicole Kidman. Wow! Was Kidman there? Who was she playing? I didn't recognize her!, I screamed. "She played Elin Bernstein, yes, that's what she looks like now," her wife replied.
The film is based on the true story of the American writer Thomas Wolfe and his first two novels “Look at your house, angel” and “On time and about the river”. It has been said that Woolf was too verbose, and much of the success of his books must belong to publisher Maxwell Perkins, who edited the manuscripts with an iron fist. For weight in the plot introduced novelists Francis Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway, who also collaborated with Perkins.
I don't know how interesting this story was to Wolfe's fans. I was bored, swaying smoothly on the calm ripples of the narrative. A hint of at least some wave appeared with the appearance of tantrums from Wolfe's friend - the same Elin Bernstein. But it quickly faded.
Boring, boring, fresh - these are the three main words that I can describe this film.
5 out of 10
I love the writers of the lost generation. Brutal Hemingway, gallant Fitzgerald, romantic and sensual Wolfe. It is amazing that all these writers were under the cover of one man: Maxwell Perkins.
And the film “Genius”, in fact, tells a story saturated with a creative vein, about the relationship between the editor and the writer-playwright. This wonderfully touching and emotional drama immerses us in the world of romantic writing. And the creators succeeded in doing so.
I heard the rustling of the written leaves; I felt the trembling excitement and oppression of the characters of the production; I experienced with them all moments of joy, depressing moments of sadness. The film inspired my creativity, and prompted various philosophical reflections. What is a movie made for, if not for that? So, in my opinion, the authors succeeded.
Beautiful acting. There was no doubt about this, because the actors are prestigious, Oscar-winning, as well as, not unimportantly, dull theatergoers. Everyone has had, and still has, experience in theater, which has a beneficial effect on their performance in this film. Why?
Because directing is a theater director whose exorbitant look is visible and sensitive at once. Everything is set according to the canons and standards, and makes the film high-quality and immersive in the atmosphere (as in the theater).
A film for future writers or dreamers. For lovers of extraordinary personalities and beautiful poetic words. The film will teach us the morality of behavior in society, in the creative process and will push, who does not know, to a different view of the world: sensual and soulful.
“If Tolstoy had a publisher like you, he would have only ‘war’ left of War and Peace.”
When asked how he saw himself, he always replied, “I am Caliban.” The savage freak from Shakespeare's "The Tempest" is outcast and lonely. Outcast. Thomas Woolf seemed like a nice guy. A little nervous, though.
For acclaimed theater director Michael Grandage, this is the debut feature film. “Genius” is a film-participant of the competition program Berlinale 2016. And initially the role of Thomas Wolfe was supposed to play Michael Fassbender, but something did not fit and eventually it went to Dr. Watson (Jude Law). In the UK, Michael Grandage is considered the number one director. Know him and actors: and with Colin Firth, and Jude Law, and Nicole Kidman, he has already crossed paths on stage. Nevertheless, no theatrical "Genius" did not inherit: if you do not know who Michael Grandaj is, you can not guess about the theatrical "origin" of the director. They also met screenwriter John Logan at the theater.
What is the movie about?
Maxwell Perkins (Colin Firth) is a tired editor who wears a hat even with pajamas, and reads the author’s works while sitting in the closet (because all other rooms are occupied by his many daughters). In his hands falls the manuscript of a young but already proven Thomas Wolfe (Jude Law). The genius, meanwhile, is stranded, and, receiving a hundred dollars in advance for publishing a new book, dances with joy. But a thousand pages need to be reduced to three hundred, and the struggle unfolds for each line. The case is complicated by the jealousy of Wolfe’s young wife (Nicole Kidman), deprived of writer’s attention: she is prone to tantrums, theatrically attempts suicide, and once even brings a gun to the editorial office. Grandage large strokes deduces the relationship “author-editor” with all the characteristic of these professions letter-editing. For example, in the film there is a delightful scene in which Wolfe describes how many shades the word “pink” can have. The dialogue and monologues in Genius are so brilliant that even a child will understand why Scott Fitzgerald was offended by Thomas Wolfe. The adult, however, will also enjoy the purity of the adaptation of the novel by A. Scott Berg - screenwriter John Logan (Aviator, Skyfall).
“Genius” is a full-fledged directorial debut of theatrical director Michael Grandage (in the movie he did only the series “Electronic bugs”, in the 90s). Take the best British actors – Firth and Lowe (Kidman played in his play a year ago; her return to the theater stage was then loudly discussed), and make a big British cinema (how much British cinema can be at all), he did not have much difficulty. It was at least very convincing. The closest "Genius" to the pictures of Oscar-winning Thomas Hooper, and it will be unsurprising if in the fall they talk about the nomination at least for Firth - Grandaj's film can be safely put in a row with at least "The King Speaks!". And another plus: such a selfless game from Nicole Kidman did not achieve even Werner Herzog in last year’s “Queen of the Desert” (contest Berlinale 2015).
How important is Thomas Wolfe? Answering that question is not easy. When he died in 1938 at the age of 38, he was described as the greatest American author of his generation. However, over the years, respect for Wolfe has weakened, and now he is rarely included even in collections of textbooks, while his contemporaries Francis Scott Fitzgerald and Ernest Hemingway (also clients of Perkins and the characters of “Genius”) are held in schools and periodically filmed.
Is it worth watching "Genius" for the sake of acting? It's your call. Rating
Woolf and Perkins. A diamond in the hands of a jeweler.
The movie Genius. For many, the film will seem dull and monotonous, and in which there is too much dialogue. It was a revelation to me. Watching the development of the plot, I involuntarily began to wonder how difficult the life of the writer was. And how much harder it is for someone who has already touched fame at least once. You must continue to maintain your image. It’s easy and easy for some, like Thomas Wolfe, who can write 100 pages of printed text a day, and for others, like Francis Scott Fitzgerald, who needs to literally torture a word every day to write another novel.
This film is about the friendship of two famous people in America in the 30s. Publisher Maxwell Perkins and writer Thomas Wolfe. About their acquaintance and relationship throughout Wolfe's creative career. The film very clearly shows the difference between a diamond writer and a diamond writer, and what role in all this facet of beauty is assigned to the publisher-jeweler. The film very well conveys how the publisher, performed by Colin Firth, treats with paternal love his writers, in whom he believed and published. Ernest Hemingway, Scott Fitzgerald, and of course Thomas Wolf. Max treats him with fatherly love, like the son he has long dreamed of, having already 5 daughters. Thomas in the face of Max found a father who died many years ago.
Overall, I liked the film. My 7 out of 10 proof of that. I liked the conveyed atmosphere of the 30s, liked the characters perfectly played by Colin Firth and Jude Law, liked the message that they wanted to convey, about the author-publisher bundle. In general, I think it turned out to be a strong good drama that deserves time to watch it.
7 out of 10
“Finding people with ‘special abilities’, people with literary gifts, is one of the editor’s indisputable concerns. In a crumpled postal bag, under the stamp of an unknown post office, there can always be a manuscript of a new talented author. It is good if this talent is strengthened, mature, immediately exciting with the depth of thoughts, passion of feelings, originality. Such talent will declare itself, will require attention. But how not to overlook the “kind of power”, hidden initially under inability, timidity, sometimes claim, sometimes illiteracy? How to find it in a heap of graphomaniac exercises and speculative schemes, how to give the newly discovered talent a hand in time so that it would be easier for him to go “to his height”?
This quote is from Lidia Chukovskaya’s book “In the Editor’s Laboratory”, a book about the editorial, pedagogical, proofreading work of publishers and their employees with authors. The efforts and names of editors remain unknown to most readers, but it is thanks to them that not only ready-to-print books appear, but also the authors themselves are formed. And if the theme of the film “Genius” is close to you, then be sure to devote a few days to reading “In the Editor’s Lab” to look even deeper behind the scenes, into the dressing room of wizards. Despite the ideological and national strabismus, this book can be recommended to anyone who wants to become an educated person.