"Jesus of Nazareth" was created for many of the same reasons Mel Gibson did his film: Both directors had traumatic accidents (in Mel's case to his child) that caused them to re-examine their faith and want to propitiate and thank god by creating a film. Zeffirelli first did this with his film about St. Francis of Assisi--his patron saint. But unsatisfied with the result and critical reception, he eventually agreed to do another, better film: "Jesus of Nazareth". When the controversies developed over Mel Gibson's "Passion..."I remembered the protests and complaints about Zeffirelli's film which caused one of the major sponsors to pull out--all this BEFORE the sponsors/protesters had even viewed it! Back then they protested his humanity was promoted over his divinity. How silly. Could humans care about an alien god-creature? It is precisely because Jesus was human, and suffered as such, that people are interested enough to listen and later learn about his more "divine" message. And that is the great strength of this production: its realism and humanity. Because Zeffirelli took pains to show Jewish life and practices of the time, he didn't suffer the disapprobation Gibson did from Jewish leaders. He follows his protagonist closely, but Zeffirelli is also concerned with the wider picture of Jesus' relationship to his disciples, the zealots, and Jewish & Roman authorities and laws. Here the political environment is just as important as the religious in explaining the impact of Jesus and his teachings. Zeffirelli is always meticulous in his historical settings (and recreation of Renn/medieval paintings in his blocking), and this realism helps to explain not only the person, but also the message historically, politically, and philosophically. And the one message that comes through, MUCH more than in Gibson's film, is Jesus' message of love, forgiveness, and reconciliation between enemies. Over and over it is shown in scenes--in many the verbatim Bible quotations are transposed to different action to emphasize that theme: Matthew's dinner party, debating Joseph of Arimathea, trying to convince Barrabas. And there is always the undercurrent of someone who knows who he is, why he is there, and what is coming, but still perseveres. Gibson sought historical verisimilitude by using Aramaic and Latin, but this can detach the viewer from the action--pausing to read subtitles reminds you that you are VIEWING not experiencing the action. Ditto the visible demon/devil--supernatural creatures negate the suspension of disbelief from the reality of the moment. 1st century history becomes 21st century horror film with cgfx. There are some really memorable images,and Gibson's strong feelings are apparent behind the film, but for 28 years the one that resonates most is Zeffirelli's film. Because the history is visible, because the message is placed in a political as well as religious context, and because (despite the miracles, healings, raising of Lazarus shown) Jesus' empathetic humanity is there. Let us give thanks for a memorable score, literate script, superb actor (and supporting actors) and a knowing director.
Reviews
5 Reviews
Macbeth
(1971)
Medieval accuracy, good Shakespeare
31 December 2004
A few years after this was released in the USA, I convinced my high school English teacher to take our class to see it. (In the days before videos & vcr's, this involved renting a theater and print.) I was glad I did. It is certainly the most real and immediate filmed version of the play. The sets, costumes (or lack thereof), and casting all work to create an accurate depiction of "nasty, brutal, and short" 11th century life. And of course, there is the wonderful insight of Shakespeare's language to engage our modern sensibilities.
One can only thank Polanski for casting such relatively young actors as his leads. Kings lived and died young then, and had to be both excellent generals as well as administrators to succeed. Jon Finch is both athletic and impassioned enough to carry off the soldiering, and young and introspective enough to be moved by his wife both as a woman and co-conspirator. Of course Francesca Annis made a splash by doing the mad scene in the nude--but in medieval times, everyone slept in the nude, so it was certainly accurate to the times.
And as has been noted before, at least the castle keeps are cold, dark, and dirty. The communal sleeping arrangements, straw bedding, flaring smoky torches, seeping walls, and muddy yards all contribute to the historical accuracy of this production. The exterior of Bamburgh also works. And keeping with Shakespeare's light vs. dark metaphors, the mist, rain, and lowering skies combine to enhance the mood.
What happens in this "Macbeth" is as realistic as possible. So what happens offstage in the play, happens onstage in the film: the murders of Duncan, Banquo, Macduff's family. Murder is nasty and bloody and Polanski (having much experience of its results) makes sure we know it. Medieval Scotland was nasty and bloody as well, and if the film is accurate in depicting its setting, why not the action? And only Polanski has an ending that hints that violence and ambition didn't die with Macbeth's overthrow. All said, Polanski's film still has the most accurate medieval setting, engaging performance(s), and thrilling battles.
PS. For those interested in the real historical Macbeth, read Dorothy Dunnett's excellent biographical novel "King Hereafter". Dunnett is world renowned for her historical accuracy, and did much research to create not only a very plausible rendition, but a thoroughly interesting and entertaining story as well.
One can only thank Polanski for casting such relatively young actors as his leads. Kings lived and died young then, and had to be both excellent generals as well as administrators to succeed. Jon Finch is both athletic and impassioned enough to carry off the soldiering, and young and introspective enough to be moved by his wife both as a woman and co-conspirator. Of course Francesca Annis made a splash by doing the mad scene in the nude--but in medieval times, everyone slept in the nude, so it was certainly accurate to the times.
And as has been noted before, at least the castle keeps are cold, dark, and dirty. The communal sleeping arrangements, straw bedding, flaring smoky torches, seeping walls, and muddy yards all contribute to the historical accuracy of this production. The exterior of Bamburgh also works. And keeping with Shakespeare's light vs. dark metaphors, the mist, rain, and lowering skies combine to enhance the mood.
What happens in this "Macbeth" is as realistic as possible. So what happens offstage in the play, happens onstage in the film: the murders of Duncan, Banquo, Macduff's family. Murder is nasty and bloody and Polanski (having much experience of its results) makes sure we know it. Medieval Scotland was nasty and bloody as well, and if the film is accurate in depicting its setting, why not the action? And only Polanski has an ending that hints that violence and ambition didn't die with Macbeth's overthrow. All said, Polanski's film still has the most accurate medieval setting, engaging performance(s), and thrilling battles.
PS. For those interested in the real historical Macbeth, read Dorothy Dunnett's excellent biographical novel "King Hereafter". Dunnett is world renowned for her historical accuracy, and did much research to create not only a very plausible rendition, but a thoroughly interesting and entertaining story as well.
Henry V
(1979 TV Movie)
Excellent play and cast
20 December 2004
First, it has taken me almost 30 years to finally get a copy of this play to view again. Previously, it was only available as an entire series (all 37 plays)for libraries or schools ONLY--and since not many libraries could afford the entire series, it was unavailable--even at the university libraries I also checked. Thank goodness for Ambrose, since PBS has been horrendous in not making it available earlier. Finally audiences could see accurate productions with excellent casts. So...know that:
1) These were NOT film productions. They were part of an ambitious project to VIDEOTAPE the ENTIRE canon of plays. Therefore, they were shot on sets--RARELY on location. If you are producing all 37 plays with some of the best talent, you don't spend it on frills. Because these were 'filmed' stage plays, the sets were minimal--but tapestries, arches, crenelations, and some grassy knolls sufficed. The costumes were, with the possible exception of Olivier's film, the most accurate--and obviously derived from the 15th c. Duc de Berry's Hours. Kenneth Branagh's had hardly any costumes, and NO ARMOR! Leather armor on the king?! How ridiculous was that? Branagh's film costumes were historically inaccurate, though the french knights did sport some real armor. And the only location filming was the same muddy field for Harfleur and Agincourt.--See Branagh's autobiography for why: Budget mattered here too, just as it did to the BBC in 1978/79.
2)David Giles, directed "I Claudius" about the same time for the BBC, then did "Julius Caesar", and soon after, this cycle of history plays with Derek Jacobi as Richard II, and an interesting Jon Finch (who did a memorable Macbeth for Roman Polanski)as Henry IV. And unlike later producer/directors for the series, he stayed in the historical period of the action; which makes for a better understanding of that action, than seeing "Anthony and Cleopatra" in 16th century clothes. This production also had a lead actor who looked more like the real Henry V (if the NPG portrait is to be believed) and the attention to detail of Henry's scarred cheek from Shrewsbury.
3)David Gwillim not only had the continuity of playing Prince Hal in the series immediately before doing "Henry V", he had also seen Anthony Quayle's Falstaff as a child when his father, Jack Gwillim, was in the play. So there was a rapport. But doing the plays as a continuous series, and viewing it as such, it is easy to see how the portrayal built on what came before. And how bluff, jolly Hal, becomes serious, wary Henry V; who yet still remains approachable and likable as king.
4)Like Branagh's ten years later, this production tried to show a conflicted king, as well as a calculating one; a stickler for the accuracy of his claim to France (witness the close questioning of the prelates' long-winded reasoning), and yet one who could feel both the traitors', and then Bardolph's deaths, and a guilty conscience the night before Agincourt. Okay, so Branagh's and Olivier's Crispin Day speech is more inspiring--they also were enhanced by music. David Gwillim's first act--the tennis balls,and later traitors scenes have never been bettered. Gwillim didn't just glare at the French Ambassador like Branagh; you actually saw the king's surprise, rueful acknowledgment of his own past actions having caused the false impression, and an attempt to control his temper all within the space of a few seconds before he replies. Branagh's scenes were rather more histrionic. Ditto, the traitors scene. Branagh attacked so you saw the anger, but the tears did not equal the pain of those "...Why so didst thou(s)" that Gwillim and Giles did. And that closeup when Gwillim's Henry is told about Bardolph still resonates without the flashbacks Branagh had to use. No one has bettered Gwillim's "Upon the King...". Through inflection and expression it was so much more honest and real. Olivier's is almost sleepy--and he cuts a lot out. Branagh's, though beautifully lit and enhanced by music, still sounds like he's reciting--until the final desperation seeps in. Later, I think the BBC production tried to capture the historical Henry's rigorous adherence to rules, but also his religiosity--though it was very subtly done. (I could see this king burning Badby, pulling him out half burned to recant, and then putting him back in the flames when he doesn't.) RE: The glove scene: Henry deflects the challenge to Fluellen because he knows if Williams does hit him as king, it is a possible death penalty--as Fluellen himself recommends. So, for Henry it is not a game, it is an attempt to protect Williams--yet still let him know what he could have faced. And in CU we see both the king's consideration of Williams's excuses and consequent concern about the situation before he capitulates and gives Williams the crowns. And finally...
5)In over 40 years of viewing, David Gwillim is THE most honestly direct actor I have ever seen. Maybe the range and subtlety of others' talent is not present, but that's what made him almost perfect as Shakespeare's Henry V who was such a forthright and direct king. Olivier comes across as overtly regal, and Branagh as younger and more approachable. You never forget Olivier is a king, and Branagh is more like a brother. Only David Gwillim caught the middle ground of both the honest directness and resultant surety of purpose in Henry's authority, and the isolation of self-awareness. So for now, and as I did 30 years ago, I thank Mr. Gwillim (and Mr. Giles) for "the little touch of 'Harry(V)' in the night."
1) These were NOT film productions. They were part of an ambitious project to VIDEOTAPE the ENTIRE canon of plays. Therefore, they were shot on sets--RARELY on location. If you are producing all 37 plays with some of the best talent, you don't spend it on frills. Because these were 'filmed' stage plays, the sets were minimal--but tapestries, arches, crenelations, and some grassy knolls sufficed. The costumes were, with the possible exception of Olivier's film, the most accurate--and obviously derived from the 15th c. Duc de Berry's Hours. Kenneth Branagh's had hardly any costumes, and NO ARMOR! Leather armor on the king?! How ridiculous was that? Branagh's film costumes were historically inaccurate, though the french knights did sport some real armor. And the only location filming was the same muddy field for Harfleur and Agincourt.--See Branagh's autobiography for why: Budget mattered here too, just as it did to the BBC in 1978/79.
2)David Giles, directed "I Claudius" about the same time for the BBC, then did "Julius Caesar", and soon after, this cycle of history plays with Derek Jacobi as Richard II, and an interesting Jon Finch (who did a memorable Macbeth for Roman Polanski)as Henry IV. And unlike later producer/directors for the series, he stayed in the historical period of the action; which makes for a better understanding of that action, than seeing "Anthony and Cleopatra" in 16th century clothes. This production also had a lead actor who looked more like the real Henry V (if the NPG portrait is to be believed) and the attention to detail of Henry's scarred cheek from Shrewsbury.
3)David Gwillim not only had the continuity of playing Prince Hal in the series immediately before doing "Henry V", he had also seen Anthony Quayle's Falstaff as a child when his father, Jack Gwillim, was in the play. So there was a rapport. But doing the plays as a continuous series, and viewing it as such, it is easy to see how the portrayal built on what came before. And how bluff, jolly Hal, becomes serious, wary Henry V; who yet still remains approachable and likable as king.
4)Like Branagh's ten years later, this production tried to show a conflicted king, as well as a calculating one; a stickler for the accuracy of his claim to France (witness the close questioning of the prelates' long-winded reasoning), and yet one who could feel both the traitors', and then Bardolph's deaths, and a guilty conscience the night before Agincourt. Okay, so Branagh's and Olivier's Crispin Day speech is more inspiring--they also were enhanced by music. David Gwillim's first act--the tennis balls,and later traitors scenes have never been bettered. Gwillim didn't just glare at the French Ambassador like Branagh; you actually saw the king's surprise, rueful acknowledgment of his own past actions having caused the false impression, and an attempt to control his temper all within the space of a few seconds before he replies. Branagh's scenes were rather more histrionic. Ditto, the traitors scene. Branagh attacked so you saw the anger, but the tears did not equal the pain of those "...Why so didst thou(s)" that Gwillim and Giles did. And that closeup when Gwillim's Henry is told about Bardolph still resonates without the flashbacks Branagh had to use. No one has bettered Gwillim's "Upon the King...". Through inflection and expression it was so much more honest and real. Olivier's is almost sleepy--and he cuts a lot out. Branagh's, though beautifully lit and enhanced by music, still sounds like he's reciting--until the final desperation seeps in. Later, I think the BBC production tried to capture the historical Henry's rigorous adherence to rules, but also his religiosity--though it was very subtly done. (I could see this king burning Badby, pulling him out half burned to recant, and then putting him back in the flames when he doesn't.) RE: The glove scene: Henry deflects the challenge to Fluellen because he knows if Williams does hit him as king, it is a possible death penalty--as Fluellen himself recommends. So, for Henry it is not a game, it is an attempt to protect Williams--yet still let him know what he could have faced. And in CU we see both the king's consideration of Williams's excuses and consequent concern about the situation before he capitulates and gives Williams the crowns. And finally...
5)In over 40 years of viewing, David Gwillim is THE most honestly direct actor I have ever seen. Maybe the range and subtlety of others' talent is not present, but that's what made him almost perfect as Shakespeare's Henry V who was such a forthright and direct king. Olivier comes across as overtly regal, and Branagh as younger and more approachable. You never forget Olivier is a king, and Branagh is more like a brother. Only David Gwillim caught the middle ground of both the honest directness and resultant surety of purpose in Henry's authority, and the isolation of self-awareness. So for now, and as I did 30 years ago, I thank Mr. Gwillim (and Mr. Giles) for "the little touch of 'Harry(V)' in the night."
Camelot
(1967)
Who is Tom?
3 August 2004
After reading many of the reviews of CAMELOT, no one seems to have figured out who the boy is at the end. He is named Tom because he is supposed to be SIR THOMAS MALORY who will go on to write Le Morte [sic]d'Arthur in 1485 compiling what was heretofore a disparate group of Celtic, Welsh, Breton legends into a coherent whole that became the basis (with Chretien de Troyes' & Geoffrey of Monmouth's versions) for the "King" Arthur we know now. And T.H. White's book of course.
RE: Julie Andrews. I've always loved her. However, I agree with the makers of the film--she's sweet and tragic, but not mischievously bitchy enough to be Guenevere. So I am GLAD Vanessa Redgrave is in the film. Of course Redgrave later had a VERY long affair with Franco Nero, producing their son Carlo. And Richard Harris, the most perfect Arthur ever, at that time was able to draw on his own painful divorce and possible loss of his 3 sons in his characterization. Gene Merlino dubbed singing for Franco Nero.
And for all those who say Arthur never existed. Then how come the Annals Cambrai (Welsh Annals), which was simply a calendar/notation of events--NOT a story, lists both the Battle of Badon, and Camlann "where Arthur and Medraut died." It is the only historical documented listing of his name. But at least he is mentioned in a circa 5th/6th c. document. The current "King Arthur" film with Arthur at Hadrian's Wall is based on linguistic analysis of the legends which was done in late 1970's. The Saxon invaders are probably based on Hengist and Horsa. PS. Did an honors thesis on the subject along with a CNTV degree.
RE: Julie Andrews. I've always loved her. However, I agree with the makers of the film--she's sweet and tragic, but not mischievously bitchy enough to be Guenevere. So I am GLAD Vanessa Redgrave is in the film. Of course Redgrave later had a VERY long affair with Franco Nero, producing their son Carlo. And Richard Harris, the most perfect Arthur ever, at that time was able to draw on his own painful divorce and possible loss of his 3 sons in his characterization. Gene Merlino dubbed singing for Franco Nero.
And for all those who say Arthur never existed. Then how come the Annals Cambrai (Welsh Annals), which was simply a calendar/notation of events--NOT a story, lists both the Battle of Badon, and Camlann "where Arthur and Medraut died." It is the only historical documented listing of his name. But at least he is mentioned in a circa 5th/6th c. document. The current "King Arthur" film with Arthur at Hadrian's Wall is based on linguistic analysis of the legends which was done in late 1970's. The Saxon invaders are probably based on Hengist and Horsa. PS. Did an honors thesis on the subject along with a CNTV degree.
Camelot
(1967)
Take it in context
28 July 2004
WARNING: Saw it in '67, read OFK in one day, wrote honors thesis on development of Arthurian legend in college. So, it resonates. WHY CAMELOT WORKS and Excalibur, King Arthur et.al. don't really: Because 1)Camelot remembered that audiences are more interested in people (characters) than plot. The people, NOT battles, NOT magic, NOT spfx. (Why Spiderman2 & LOTR work) And (2) Camelot is the ONLY version that had a TRIANGLE--where 3 people cared about each other EQUALLY, yet it still breaks. You only get that tragedy if both Guenevere and Lancelot care about Arthur as much as they do each other. Otherwise, it's just another adulterous affair, and Arthur is a cuckold we don't give a damn about. RE PRODUCTION: SETS: It was shot in Spain at Coca, Alcazar of Segovia etc.etc. many months before returning to Warners backlot where a bricks/mortor castle ctyard--used later in other films--and real forest were used--only winter set fake. Excalibur's mega green gels irritate much more. COSTUMES: Designed for pseudo medieval NOT 6th or 15th c. accuracy-ditto Excalibur. Don't blame actors for bad make-up artists or Josh Logan's sorry direction and use of overwhelming closeups. At least the singing punched up the drama. I hate too many songs in a film and at least Cam only has 8 and each moves the plot forward. Excalibur adapted Malory and Pre-Raphaelites. New King Arthur film confused about time, all battles, character interaction nil. Neither film is good as Camelot because not once do I believe Arthur, Guinevere, and Lancelot really care for each other. And if they don't, why should I?
Tell Your Friends