Born in Puerto Rico, Miguel Arteta once moved to Boston, where he chose a cinematic career path. While still a student, he wins a prestigious award and thanks to this he gets a job with Jonathan Demme, who is famous all over the world for his paintings The Silence of the Lambs (1990), for which Demme received an Oscar for Best Director, Philadelphia (1993) and Manchurian Candidate (2004). Agree that it is very prestigious to get invaluable experience from such a well-deserved master of the director's workshop. But Demme later recommended Magel Arteta to continue his studies, which the ex-Puerto Rican did, and later began to work on mostly independent feature films (among which you can single out “The Good Girl” (2001), “Rebel Youth” (2009) and “Alexander and a terrible, nightmarish, bad, very bad day” (2014)), as well as on series, among which was the one-season “Hooligans and nerds” (1999-2000).
As one of the screenwriters on “Hooligans and nerds” worked Mike White, who was already familiar with Miguel Arteta during the collaboration on the melodrama “Good Girl”, where White not only became the author of the script, but also played a major role. And in 2017, the paths of Arteta and White crossed again – this time they again took on the same roles, that is, director and writer, respectively, while working on the production of another melodrama, titled “Beatrice at Dinner”, which premiered in early 2017. The main role in the film is played by Salma Hayek herself - her character is called Beatrice Blanco and she works as a chiropractor, who is said to work literally miracles. Beatrice is a kind and empathetic woman, although she is lonely, but her life is brightened up not only by grateful patients, but also by animals, although not everyone is satisfied with this, especially her neighbor. One day, Beatrice comes to a session with a rather wealthy woman, but then because of a car breakdown, Beatrice cannot leave, and the hospitable hostess of a luxurious house offers her to stay for dinner. . .
And everything would be fine if not for the fact that Beatrice clearly contrasts with the arrogant friends of the hostess, who are confident that they have achieved a high position in society. Beatrice in her usual manner does not pay attention to their greasy jokes and frankly cheeky behavior, Beatrice demonstrates not only endurance, but also a surprisingly good attitude to everyone. But everything begins to change with the speed of a flying snowball, when Beatrice learns about one of the guests - a hot Doug Stratt performed by John Lithgow. Having recognized in him an unclean businessman who by all sorts of machinations and soulless attitude towards poor people, built a hotel business. Doug is the most unpleasant person among all the guests to dinner, but in the meantime, he is also the richest and most influential among those present, so he allows you to behave loosely and even in a slightly boorish way. And then Beatrice gets enraged, who won't smack in front of this narcissist, and is ready to put him in his place, telling how he came to what he has, and maybe Beatrice is ready to do more. . .
At its core, Beatrice at Dinner is more like a TV play. First, the lion’s share of the film takes place in one location – within the house of a hospitable hostess, who, by the way, was played by the notorious Connie Britton. Second, despite the fact that the degree of heat in the atmosphere rises every minute, still much is built on dialogue. In them, screenwriter Mike White tried to convey the social differences between Beatrice and the others, and, of course, the sympathy of the public will be on the side of Beatrice, because she is an ordinary person, but only the sensitivity and kindness in her is many times greater than that of the arrogant squirrels who came to dinner. By the way, Salma Hayek played her role very heartfeltly. It is possible that Hayek’s sincere features appeared in the image of Beatrice, because she leads an active charitable activity in life. But who is John Lithgow? In my opinion, he’s one of the most underrated actors, if you think of the villain he did in Ricochet (1991), or how sorry he was in Rebellion of the Planet of the Apes (2011), or how good he was in Hello Dad, New Year’s Day 2 (2017). Indeed, Lithgow’s character in Beatrice at Dinner feels disliked, and this can only be achieved by strong play.
But all the other characters, who, by the way, were played by good performers, especially Connie Britton and Chloe Sevigny, leave almost no memories of themselves. And this is the problem of the plot, in which its author Mike White focused more on social differences, which are expressed in outright disrespect and even hatred, as well as on the characters of Salma Hayek and John Lithgow. Therefore, if you remove all this from the main plan, it turns out that nothing else "Beatrice at dinner" does not carry, so that there is no question of any layering here, everything lies on the surface. But for Hayek and Lithgow, I'll raise my grade by one. There is also a moral in the picture.
I like non-cash movies. The plot, of course, is not new. Poor and rich, good and evil. How much has been said and filmed... Of course, this film is about Salma Hayek. And although the topic is battered, but it is presented very subtly, felt, spiritually, emotionally, strongly. Only for that, it's worth seeing.
This is one of the best films I have seen. The film tells about how hard it is for a person with a heart to survive in a world of selfishness and greed. Wealth and poverty are not opposed here. This is not about racial prejudice. Although the characters of the film showed their low moral level in all aspects.
The main character of the film Beatrice is a sensitive, friendly person who knows how to compassion, forgive and thank. For the owners of the house where the film takes place, she is almost an angel. This is how it is presented to guests who came to dinner to discuss common affairs and a pleasant pastime, but do not expect the presence of a person outside their circle at the table. Despite the fact that Beatrice practically saved the daughter of the owners of the house when she was sick, this is somehow quickly forgotten when in a dispute between the guests, the owners have to make a choice between her and material wealth and status in society, which exists due to successful business ties. When Beatrice listens to other guests, she gets scared and hurt. The selfishness of these people does not fit into any framework. Faced with the most abominable human qualities, even the most ethical person will experience feelings of disgust and anger. And despair. Knowing how fragile and priceless each life is, Beatrice understands that the creative efforts of thousands of people meet the impenetrable wall of ignorance of millions of other indifferent, or, as in this case, ignorance, coupled with excessive pride, no longer even disguised as a fatherly concern for the general material well-being. There are new masks. In this circle, you can boast of immoral exploits, but at the same time observe all the rituals of educated, charming and successful men and women.
The ending of the film is not so unexpected. Such thoughts are visited, probably, by anyone who tries to do something good in this world (precisely good, if we mean by this a special feeling that has no definite direction and motive, except reverence for life in every manifestation). We can't get away from this planet. And lucky for someone who has someone very close, who pleases in moments of despair. Even if it's a goat.
How long will it take until we die, we die. The world is dying - accept and enjoy.
Let's start at the end.
The ending tells us that the whole picture can be regarded as a metaphor.
Someone will say - All paintings can be regarded as such - Yes, but not in every painting the author says metaphors. This work probably refers to those.
-
The work tells about the collision of different worlds, about the many possibilities around us, about the fact that one moment can change everything, about the fact that a person chooses his route and a turn is possible at any moment.
-
If we focus on the content as such, then our vision is an extraordinary person (Salma Hayek) with his troubles and vision of the world, in whose life there were various atrocities, but now she has the opportunity to get a little closer to understanding the causes of these misfortunes.
-
Tagline: "She was invited, but she's not welcome"
The film has a very thin plume of this slogan, do not wait for battle. Yes, sarcasm, hamstrings, nervousness of the owners is present, but this is not enough for this slogan.
“We die, people die, elephants die, bees die, the world dies, and what will you do?”
-
PS. Note that the description on the site does not correspond to reality. Beatrice (Salma Hayek) stays for dinner because of a car breakdown, after she arrived at the house of the hostess, with whom they for a number of reasons became friends, for another massage session.
7 out of 10
Beatrice is a therapist at the Cancer Center. It literally heals people. She believes in karma, fate and the fact that the whole planet is cancerous and needs to be healed, just like many people.
He asks himself a very important question:
What if, instead of trying to heal everyone, it was better to find the source of all suffering and destroy it?
And after an evening spent in the company of people of a completely different social class and some conclusions, she comes to the conclusion that the cause of all the suffering of people on the planet are rich people who build their happiness on the suffering of the poor. And directs all his aggression towards one of the guests - unscrupulous arrogant businessman Doug Stratt, a materialist in every sense.
While watching, it becomes clear how narrow Beatrice has an almost childlike view of things, especially her way of solving a problem. As for a person who reflects on karma, she does not view things from that point of view.
All people in this world come to learn. Some people are tested by fame, money, some by poverty and disease. But a person always has a choice what to do and what life to choose. A disabled person can lead a full life and be happy, and a person who has everything can commit suicide.
Beatrice would know that today this businessman is depriving people of their homes to build his hotel, and tomorrow he may be on the street. Karma will overtake him and teach him a lesson. He's also a hostage to the system. And that the people he hurt decided to be victims themselves. Those people themselves decided to suffer and cry, instead of realizing that happiness, as well as bad weather, is given to you not for nothing, but for what you did in the past and what you deserved. We need to understand this, draw appropriate conclusions and move on.
The problem is that the source of suffering is not what other people have done to you, it is how you perceive it.
Only we take responsibility for our lives and our happiness, we choose who to be, to suffer or not to suffer, and there is no one to blame.
“Beatrice at Dinner” is a film about the meeting of different social classes, different interests and worldviews, but most of all, it is a film of reflection on a philosophical topic, and although these reflections look somewhat superficial, but provide some food for thought.
Beatrice is a kind-hearted nurse from the cancer center. Lives alone with dogs and goats. One day she comes to the mansion of a rich client to give a massage. Due to the breakdown of the car, the nurse cannot leave and receives an invitation from the hostess (with the generous permission of her husband) to stay for a dinner party. For dinner are two married couples to become the owners of the house.
Usually, in life, the poor man who finds himself in the society of the powerful for the first time, at best puts up with the class inequality that has existed for centuries, at worst - quietly stifles envy of the noble luxury. In the film, Beatrice breaks the life script and acts as a public accuser of bourgeois morals.
Thanks to the strangeness of Beatrice – the choice of hairstyle, frozen throughout the film mask “I am poor, but proud and humble”, prayer in front of a photo of a goat killed by a neighbor, naivety in the style of a mentally retarded maid from some Mexican soap opera – the action is a weak farce, aggravated by a pretentious-dramatic ending.
A Mexican massage therapist in a rich house. Why not let a person at the family table who is not a relative or friend? Massage therapist Salma Hayek sees their awkwardness, but does not think to remove the problem by refusing lunch, but on the contrary, begins to impose on guests. It would seem that these people are not your friends, you are not connected by anything, you have a different job, lifestyle, generally nothing in common, why to get into someone else’s company. And at dinner it turns out that rich white people ' take everything from life ' This is such an unpleasant sensation.
Salma almost made a bright speech about the cursed capitalists, but in time she remembered that she, when she does not portray masseuses in the movies, lives in just such a mansion, and the film producer lives in the same ... and the owners of the film studio ... and those who later in their newspapers and TV channels will PR the film ... in short, do without exposing the rich. Again, capitalists, they are so different. For example, rich brown democrats, very different people, never break the law, take the rights of the poor to heart, always give up profits for the sake of the rights of the poor. Such are the miracles, the rich in every country sponsor elections, pass laws to facilitate their business, to evict everyone according to the law, but then half of the rich use these laws of their own, and the other half – in any, as you might think, but no way.
However, it is not necessary to reduce everything to the white rich. A dark man will run in the city of goats, goats bleat and stink, all white rednecks do not like it, ' sick people'. Like, you can't keep goats in town, like it's wild. Yes, white rednecks to let where Salma Hayek lives - that's where the savagery.
And Salma is drawn to millionaires again. As a masseuse, she should be ashamed of them, but as a millionaire actress, she bravely educates supporting actors. After that, the vegetarian, who is sorry for the chicken, rhinoceros and any living soul, grabs a knife. Remember this when you hear someone say it again ' the more I get to know people, the more I love animals'
You all know who poor uneducated whites voted for 'Strata'-Trump, yes. Who do poor uneducated brown people vote for? Ah, firstly, it is necessary to choose who is allowed to reproach, secondly, they do not have prejudices and obsessions on ethnic grounds, thirdly, and if they do, they themselves are to blame, and fourthly, where there is a knife.
Summing up. Dear Miguel Arteta, an artist can be forgiven a lot, but not agitprop.
P.S. The cherry on the ecological/moralizing cake. Salma Hayek is the daughter of an oil company manager. Whoever finds a video of her blaming him will get a sweet candy. Is there a video? You can also search for a video where she exposes the harm to human health and the environment in the production of fabrics for Yves Saint Laurent and Gucci.