Jessica Tandy

Jessica Tandy

Jessie Alice “Jessica” Tandy (7 June 1909 – 11 September 1994) was an English stage and film actress. Queen ace came along on the London suit direction 1926 at the age of 16, playing, among others, Katherine divergent word Laurence Olivier’s Henry V, and Cordelia opposite John Gielgud’s Mikado Lear. Youngster doll also functioned in British films. Adopting the enact of her marriage to Jack Hawkins, she impatient to New York, where schoolgirl met Canadian trouper Hume Cronyn. He became her help conjugal comrade further upholder companion on stage again cover.

She was appointed owing to a Tony endowment seeing her governmental dawning now Blanche Dubois guidance the master copy Broadway stretch of A Streetcar Named commit tribute 1948, portioning out the respect curtain Katherine Cornell and Judith Anderson in her portraiture of Medea. since the following three decades, her career far-off sporadically further included a substantial role in Alfred Hitchcock’s film, The Birds (1963), again an uptown Award lovely national presentation in The Gin working.

Hoke tries to talk Miss Daisy back into the car so he can drive her to the Piggly Wiggly. Uploaded by fujishobo.np.infoseek.co.jp

Can’t you see the pitch meeting in Hollywood for this movie? WRITER: “It’s about an old Jewish woman in Atlanta and how she comes to respect her black chauffeur.” MOVIE EXEC: “Does something blow up? Do they have to run from the fireball?”

Miss Daisy was a 72-year-old woman who’d had an accident, and her son felt it was no longer safe for her to drive. So he hires a chauffeur to take her around town. She resists the idea, even telling her driver, “This is not the way to the Piggly Wiggly!”

Uploaded to Flickr by Web 2.

Although Driving Miss Daisy was a successful play before being adapted to the screen, I think the film’s success depends almost entirely on the performances of Jessica Tandy as Miss Daisy Werthen and Morgan Freeman as Hoke. Morgan Freeman was nominated for an Oscar (he lost to Daniel Day-Lewis’s wonderful performance in My Left Foot), and Jessica Tandy was named Best Actress, becoming the oldest winner (81) of that honor.

Speaking of awards, this movie has a couple of unusual distinctions. Alfred Uhry wrote the screenplay, based on his own Pulitzer award-winning play. It’s only the second Pulitzer winner that was adapted and became Best Picture, following Frank Capra’s You Can’t Take it With You (1937). Driving Miss Daisy is also the first film since 1932 to win Best Picture without its director (Bruce Beresford) even being nominated.

In the movie Dragonwyck, Mankeiwicz delivers a atmospheric piece, well-produced, and featuring a strong supporting cast, which includes Walter Huston as the lead actor, and Gene Tierney’s crazy and thumping-the-bible father, and as well as JessicaTandy, (Jessica Tandy) which is starring in only her sixth credited film. Indeed, the substantial supporting cast does overshadow Tierney, who seems a little bit too artificial in the role.

Vencedora da edição anterior: Maria Fernanda! A ligação da cinéfila foi: Sigourney Weaver (Alien: Ressurreição) – Winona Ryder (A Scanner Darkly) – Woody Harrelson.

E pra incentivar a galera a jogar (ironia) eu e Rodrigo tivemos uma idéia bem wicked e decidimos colocar a mundialmente shoshonna da Mélanie Laurent (desde o primeiro post desse blog que eu cantei essa fama hein?) e nossa velhinha predileta (digo isso porque não me lembro de nenhuma outra neste exato momento) Jessica Tandy. Pra quem está fazendo cara de cu e se perguntando o que a Jessica fez, ai vão algumas dicas: Tomates Verdes Fritos, Cocoon e Driving Miss Daisy. A Shosanna fez… a Shosanna (cara, eu amo essa piada pronta) em Bastardos Inglórios, fez Je vais bien, ne t’en fais pas (rs) e Paris, entre outros.

Mélanie Laurent (aka Shosanna) - Jessica Tandy

Relembrando as regras:

1. Só vale ator ou atriz. Nada de diretores, roteiristas, e muito menos laços familiares ou amorosos.

2. Não esquecer de colocar entre parênteses (ou algo similar) o filme que separa cada pessoa.

3. Tentar usar o menor número de “graus de separação” possíveis.

4. Desempate em quem for mais “obscuro”

Aaaaand…. GO!

Conduzindo Miss Daisy chegou sorrateiramente aos cinemas e arrebatou estatuetas do Oscar de 1989 (incluindo Melhor Filme e Melhor Atriz para a incrível Jessica Tandy). Mesmo contando uma história tocante, é o carisma e aspecto verossímil de seus personagens centrais que mostram-se o carro-chefe desta obra injustamente deixada de lado nos dias de hoje.

 


Não faz muito sentido assistir Conduzindo Miss Daisy esperando cenas tórridas ou perseguições de carros. Na realidade, a notável Miss Daisy ralha com seu recém-contratado motorista Hoke (um ótimo Morgan Freeman) quando este passar dos 30km/h, portanto, esqueça ações e explosões.

O fato é que Daisy Werthan nunca contratou o negro e trabalhador Hoke Colburn para ser seu chofer – na realidade, este foi empregado por seu filho quando a rica senhora quase derrapou morro abaixo em seu automóvel. Miss Daisy, indignada perante a necessidade de ser guiada por um desconhecido pela cidade que conhece há tantas décadas, passa imediatamente a destratá-lo e a fazer com que sua única ocupação seja ficar sentado na sala de estar proibido de tocar até nas paredes. Porém, quando esta decide ir até o supermercado tomando um bonde, Hoke decide segui-la em seu automóvel pelas ruas, fazendo-a passar vergonha dianta das vizinhas e, enfim cede à necessidade de dar trabalho ao seu empregado. Começa assim a relação de amizade entre a agridocemente polida judia e seu motorista negro e analfabeto, que renderá histórias até o fim de suas vidas e acarretará muitas mudanças em seus respectivos modos de ver a vida.




Conduzindo Miss Daisy não chega a ser exatamente um filme extraordinário, do tipo que se solta um suspiro e um “Uau!” depois da sessão. Mesmo assim, trata-se de uma experiência divertida e que coloca um pequeno sorriso em nossos semblantes; tocando nosso coração perante a brevidade da vida mas também dando-nos alegria por mostrar como ainda há muito a aprender e vivenciar mesmo depois dos oitenta anos. Sendo assim, não espere até ser uma velha viúva esperando pelo fim de tudo sentada em seu casarão: assista ao filme e vá viver um pouco.

1989: Driving Miss Daisy di Bruce Beresford

Elogi a non finire per un film che ha mietuto giustamente premi un po’ ovunque: “Un film di grazia sorridente” (Il Messaggero), “Un buon film che ha un tema raro: il rispetto del prossimo” (Il Giorno),  “Il regista rappresenta magnificamente l’animo umano, merito anche di una coppia di attori in stato di grazia” (la Repubblica).

Leggera e profonda, divertente e toccante, intimista ma dallo spessore sociologico, un’opera (gran successo ai botteghini di tutto il mondo) che diverte ma fa anche riflettere, dolce ma con uno sfondo amaro e… il tutto amalgamato alla perfezione da Bruce Beresford (regista australiano trasferito da tempo ad Hollywood) .

Un racconto pieno di arguzia e di humour, fatto di tante piccole notazioni e sfumature che si dipana per più di vent’anni e in cui sembra accadere ben poco ma che invece risulta un affresco quanto mai sincero e veritiero di una certa America e un ritratto intelligente ed acuto di personaggi dalla ricca umanità e dalle psicologie ben delineate e accuratamente descritte. Un film di ammirabile equilibrio, senza sbavature né cadute retoriche o pietistiche (pericolo incombente in una trama del genere). Un inno all’amicizia, al dialogo, alla tolleranza, all’accettazione del diverso, al rifiuto di ogni tipo di razzismo in qualsiasi forma questo si possa presentare (da sottoscrivere quanto leggiamo su Wikipedia: “…la pellicola affronta un problema importante come quello del razzismo da una prospettiva insolita ed originale: senza scene violente o particolarmente forti e con i toni della commedia… Ma, da un’ analisi più attenta, emergono le contraddizioni di una società che si proclama fieramente libera da pregiudizi, come afferma Daisy all’ inizio del film, e che in realtà si rivela indifferente e ipocrita. Così, il tema principale del film traspare da tanti piccoli momenti, come quello in cui Hoke rammenta a Daisy che le persone di colore non possono entrare nei bagni pubblici. La morale di questo film classico, attuale ancora oggi, sta nel discorso finale di Martin Luther King : il razzismo non è solo animato dai Ku Klux Klan, ma anche da quanto ognuno possiede dentro il cuore, quindi non basta condannare a parole gli atti razzisti più estremi, solo per liberarsi la coscienza, ma serve l’ azione per mutare il corso degli eventi”).

A spasso con Daisy ci regala una grande interpretazione di due interpreti di razza, vere glorie del cinema americano che si sono fatte apprezzare in tutto quanto hanno fatto e che qui superano se stesse.

Jessica Tandy e Morgan Freeman sono al di sopra di ogni possibile elogio (il secondo era già stato protagonista della commedia premio Pulitzer di Alfred Uhry da cui il film è tratto, la seconda -che ricordiamo in un efficace ruolo ne Gli Uccelli e soprattutto come splendida coprotagonista in Pomodori verdi fritti…- divenne celebre nella messa in  scena a Broadway nel 1947 de Un tram che si chiama desiderio). 

Dan Aycroyd è da applauso in un ruolo per lui inconsueto, dimesso e poco appariscente.

scheda

premi e riconoscimenti

Feisty Female(s): Ruth Jamison, Idgie Threadgoode, Evelyn Couch and Ninny Threadgoode

Year we got to know them: 1991

Best known for: Giving us the feminist rally-cry “Towanda!!” encouraging women to take control of their lives, showing an (albeit slightly veiled) story of women in love, and giving women a little bit of hope and friendship in the truly stellar Fried Green Tomatoes.

Why they deserve a second look:
Idgie is a kick-ass butchy lesbian who won’t settle down or play by 1930s social rules and Ruth leaves her abusive husband to be with Idgie. Ninny brings hope and friendship through storytelling to a depressed Evelyn, giving Evelyn the motivation to change her life. All of the women are outstanding examples of strength and standing up for yourself, and every time I watch this movie I just feel good. I don’t think it’s over the top corny or sentimental or gushy. It just makes me happy.

Although I’ve read that the book is more blatant about the lesbian relationship between Idgie and Ruth, the film made even elementary-school me understand what was going on. And for a financially and critically successful mainstream film in 1991 to touch upon women in love, it broke barriers and is still considered a breakthrough LGBT feminist film.

Sure, all we see is an innocent kiss…

…and according to the director the food fight scene is supposed to represent, well, sex…

…it still portrays a unique and loving relationship between the two women. And with the friendship between Ninny and Evelyn that lifts them both up, this film is filled with outstanding feisty feminist females. Fried Green Tomatoes truly did help shape me into a feminist before I even knew what the word meant.

Seriously, if you haven’t seen it throw it in the Netflix queue, call up your girlfriends and have a good old fashioned slumber party to remind yourself just how important friendship is.

And, just because I think this is hilarious, a great Idgie/Ruth fan vid to one of the greatest songs ever recorded.

I’m always wary to watch these old classics, with an innate fear that they can never live up to the hype.  It’s always encouraging when they  do.  Hitchcock’s “The Birds” did.

First off, the narrative frame is pretty close to perfect.  Opening up in SF and moving straight to Bodega Bay for the rest of the film gives us this false sense of movement.  Moving so quickly from one city to another, we expect to be on the move the whole film, but just like every one else, we are trapped in this quiet town, terrorized by the unknown enemy with wings.

There is no one quite as good as capturing that quiet but endless fear and doom as Hitchcock.  Even in the opening scene, mostly flirtatious and cutesy, the viewer gets the feeling that some shit is gonna go down.

Finally, the movie exists in its own reality with no apologies or exceptions, and this is, I believe, the trademark of all the really great directors.  Why are the birds attacking?  Why do the characters do what they do?  Can’t anyone think of anything else to do to escape?  Guess what?  IT DOESN’T MATTER.  The film is what it is, and that’s what makes it so great.  We don’t need to question any of this stuff because Hitchcock doesn’t let us.  And quite frankly, none of those questions matter.  All that matters is that these birds are gonna kick your ass, and you best do something about it or you gonna be toast.

Por Bruno Pongas

Os Pássaros é daqueles filmes difíceis de resenhar, de conteúdo complexo, diferente, que aborda temas pouco comuns – especialmente para o universo hitchcockiano. Acostumado a romances, suspenses policiais e derivados, Alfred Hitchcock traz a tona nesse trabalho algo completamente novo em sua carreira: o sobrenatural. Pois é! Muito mais do que um exercício de suspense, o clássico de 1963 nos instiga a refletir sobre algo que nunca vivenciamos, sobre o que temos medo e aquilo que jamais desejaríamos enfrentar: coisas do outro mundo. Além de tudo, o cineasta mostrou para o mundo toda a sua criatividade ao brincar com um assunto tabu para as pessoas (assunto esse que gera polêmica até hoje). De quebra, Hitchcock ainda mostrou sua enorme capacidade ao brindar o público com mais um bom trabalho, apenas três anos após Psicose - uma de suas obras-primas.

Talvez a primeira impressão que o longa passe após seu término é: “ué, mas acaba assim mesmo?”. Sim, Os Pássaros acaba de uma maneira estranha, podemos assim dizer, pois o diretor constrói todo um clima de suspense para no final deixar a maioria das coisas por resolver. Para quem gosta de filmes inseridos naquela fórmula básica do começo, meio e fim, é bem provável que esse trabalho de Hitchcock seja decepcionante. Quase caí nessa, confesso, mas depois de pensar um pouco e contextualizar com a época, concluí que o cineasta executou uma grande obra, repleta de pequenos detalhes, bem filmada e assustadora.

Sim, assustadora! Embora muito dos efeitos soem como mera tosqueira (hoje em dia nem assustam mais), é bom lembrar que na época aquilo foi revolucionário, pois Hitchcock sempre esteve muito à frente de seu tempo. Ainda assim, mesmo parecendo infantil e por vezes até risível (nos dias de hoje, volto a ressaltar), o diretor consegue montar um clima dos mais intrigantes, pouco visto antes na história do cinema. O ar sombrio, aliás, ganha contornos mais tenebrosos com a ajuda da ‘trilha sonora’. Entre aspas porque simplesmente há ausência de qualquer tipo de trilha. O diretor, junto com Bernard Herrmann – seu consultor e compositor -, optou por trabalhar a trama sem músicas. Isso já fica bem claro logo no início, quando aparecem os créditos sem nenhum tipo de som além do ruído de pássaros. O filme todo é assim, repleto de ruídos de todos os tipos, o que torna o suspense ainda mais macabro e curioso.

O desempenho do elenco contribui com o ar intrigante e sobrenatural - desde os protagonistas aos personagens menos importantes. Vale ressaltar que, como de costume, Alfred Hitchcock aparece em uma das cenas. É logo nos primeiros minutos, quando ele é mostrado saindo da loja de pássaros com alguns cachorros. Mas como o assunto aqui é outro, alguns atores merecem suas ressalvas. A bela Tippi Hedren está muito bem na pele de Melanie Daniels; algumas cenas suas, como a da cabine telefônica, por exemplo, passam um sentimento claustrofóbico impressionante. Aqui, ela está muito bem auxiliada pela maquiagem, que consegue reproduzir seus ferimentos com uma realidade admirável para aquela época. Acima de Tippi, quem merece todo o destaque é Jessica Tandy. Como Lydia Brenner, Jessica nos entrega uma personagem sinistra, enigmática e indecifrável. Suas atitudes têm pouca justificativa; é uma pessoa confusa, diabólica… sobrenatural, talvez? Para completar o trio, Rod Taylor também merece elogios: na primeira metade como o bonitão convencido e na segunda como o mocinho da história.

O fato é que com Os Pássaros, Alfred Hitchcock se mostra capaz de obter destaque em diversas vertentes do suspense. Dessa vez sem roubos, sem assassinatos, sem vertigem, sem planos mirabolantes, sem nada comum em seu cinema. Talvez isso justifique o sucesso que a obra conseguiu ao longo das décadas, já que além de agregar elementos novos ao mundo hitchcockiano, temos ainda o ótimo trabalho de sempre, como personagens muito bem construídos, um suspense pra lá de amarrado e técnicas de filmagem impressionantes (é perceptível algumas cenas filmadas sem um único corte). Uma obra-prima das mais competentes que o cinema já viu, merecedora de muitos e muitos elogios.

Minha Nota: 8.5

Direção: Alfred Hitchcock
Gênero: Suspense
Duração: 119 minutos
Elenco: Rod Taylor, Jessica Tandy, Suzanne Pleshette, Tippi Hedren, Veronica Cartwright, Ehel Griffies e Charles McGraw.

Keith Carradine

Keith Ian Carradine

(born August 8, 1949) is an American Academy Award-winning songwriter, and actor born into a family of actors.

Carradine was born in San Mateo, California, the son of actress and artist Sonia Sorel (née Henius) and actor John Carradine.  His paternal half-brothers are the late David Carradine and Bruce Carradine, his maternal half-brother is Michael Bowen, and his full brothers are Christopher Carradine and Robert Carradine.

David, Robert and Keith Carradine appeared together as the Younger brothers in Walter Hill’s 1980 film The Long Riders, with Keith playing Jim Younger. Carradine appeared again for Hill in 1981’s Southern Comfort.

Carradine’s first notable film appearance was in director Robert Altman’s McCabe & Mrs. Miller in 1971. He also portrayed the character Kwai Chang Caine as a teenager in the 1972 television series Kung Fu (the adult Caine was portrayed by his half brother, David). He went on to play one of the principal characters, a callow, womanizing folk singer, in Altman’s critically acclaimed 1975 movie Nashville and his song from that movie, “I’m Easy”, was a popular music hit in 1976. Carradine won an Oscar for Best Original Song for writing the tune.

In 1977 Carradine starred opposite Harvey Keitel in Ridley Scott’s The Duellists. He has worked several times in the offbeat films of Altman’s protégé Alan Rudolph, playing a disarmingly candid madman in Choose Me (1984), an incompetent petty criminal in Trouble in Mind (1985) and an American artist in 1930s Paris in The Moderns (1988). He also had a cameo role as Will Rogers in Rudolph’s 1994 film about Dorothy Parker, Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle. Carradine co-starred with Daryl Hannah as homicidal sociopath John Netherwood in the 1995 thriller The Tie That Binds.

Other works include Emperor of the North Pole (1973), Pretty Baby (1978) and My Father My Son, a television movie in 1988. In 1983 he appeared as Foxy Funderburke, a murderous pedophile, in the television miniseries Chiefs, based on the Stuart Woods novel of the same name. His performance in Chiefs earned him a nomination for a Emmy Award in the “Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Limited Series or a Special” category.

In 1984 he appeared in the video for Madonna’s single Material Girl. In the early 1990s he played the lead role in the Tony Award winning musical, the “Will Rogers Follies”. He was nominated for Broadway’s 1991 Tony Award as Best Actor (Musical) for this role.

More recently Carradine starred in the ABC sitcom Complete Savages, and played Wild Bill Hickok in the HBO series Deadwood. He has also appeared as a host of the factual Wild West Tech show on the History Channel. In the 2005 miniseries Into the West, produced by Steven Spielberg and Dreamworks, Carradine played Richard Henry Pratt. He also has a recurring guest role on the hit Showtime series Dexter as FBI Special Agent Frank Lundy. Carradine made appearences on the show’s second and fourth seasons.

Carradine’s stage career is distinguished by Tony-nominated performance as the title character in The Will Rogers Follies in 1991 (for which he also received a Drama Desk nomination). He won the Outer Critics Circle Award for Foxfire with Hume Cronyn and Jessica Tandy, and appeared as Lawrence in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels at the Imperial Theater. He was also in the cast of the original Broadway production of Hair in 1972, appearing in the roles of Woof and Claude. In 2008, he appeared as Dr. Farquhar Off-Broadway in Mindgame, a thriller by Antony Horowitz, directed by Ken Russell, who made his New York directorial debut with the production.

Trivia:

His recording of “I’m Easy” reached #17 on the US charts in August, 1976.

Daughter, actress Martha Plimpton, is from his relationship with Shelley Plimpton.

Uncle of actress Ever Carradine and Kansas Carradine.

For his role on “Deadwood” (2004), he was trained by renowned Hollywood Gun Coach Thell Reed, who has also trained such actors as: Val Kilmer, Kurt Russell, Sam Elliot, Girard Swan, Russell Crowe, Brad Pitt, and Leonardo DiCaprio.

Originally, it was his half-brother David Carradine who pursued a role in the Broadway musical “Hair” in 1969. At his audition he brought Keith along to play the piano. Keith ended up winning the part and stayed with the show for six months.

He was awarded a Star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame for Television at 6233 Hollywood Boulevard in Hollywood, California.

As we all know, Karl Malden, Vivien’s costar in Tennessee William’s A Streetcar Named Desire, passed away earlier this month from natural causes. He was 97 years old. What you may NOT know is that Malden did not like Vivien Leigh very much. Earlier this year, I wrote to the aging actor and requested that he take a trip down memory lane. I asked him about his experience with Vivien Leigh and what her impact was on the film version of Streetcar. All the major actors in the film came from the NY theater production, except for Vivien. She came from the London production. Well, Malden was kind enough to write back almost immediately, but I found his Vivien answer to be rather short and curt. All is had to say about Vivien was this (I can’t translate 2 words… “Jessie” obviously refers to Jessica Tandy, who played Blanche with Marlon Brando and Karl Malden on Broadway:

can you translate? click to enlarge

To further investigate the situation, I went to the library and checked out his autobiography, When Do I Start? Vivien is mentioned on 2 pages, and Malden’s anecdote is not a glowing one. Here is what he says:

I was destined to have another Blanche in my future. About a year later, we were all called together again to shoot the film. All except Jessica.

I know that it broke Jessica’s heart when she was not hired to do the film version of Streetcar. There was, of course, no question that Marlon would be in the film, but at that time, he had no screen recognition.

… Marlon did not yet have what they call “marquee value.”  Vivien Leigh, however, was a major star, still so powerful because of Gone with the Wind that she could carry all of us nobodies, including Marlon Brando.

It was a wonderful experience for me to be able to come back to the role of Mitch after two years, having done other things in between, with a fresh perspective. After the play had closed, I was plagued by the usual ideas about things I could have done differently with Mitch. Thoughts that (often in the middle of the night) come with the territory. Doing the film presented me with a unique opportunity to try all those ideas out. Some worked. Some didn’t.

Oddly enough, I believe the truer interpretation of the play ended up being the movie’s. Marlon was so powerfuk on stage, so compelling, that through nothing other than his own presence, he distorted the play. When Marlon stepped onto that stage, it became a play about Stanley Kowalski. You held your breath until he came back. It was no longer a play about Blanche DuBois. No matter what Jessica did on stage, or what any actress could have done, she could not overcome his force. The movie gave Kazan the chance to keep the focus when Tennessee Williams intended it, on Blanche. He could manipulate the focus in the editing room.

Vivien Leigh had played Blanche in the London production, which her husband, Laurence Olivier had directed. She had a very different take on the play.

I recall the moment when Mitch lifts Blanche to see if he can guess how much she weighs. I had always raised Jessica straight into the air like a ballerina and then brough her down, vertically, close to my body. That worked for me, because the next moment Mitch is trying to kiss her. That move helped to make a smooth transition from a playful impulse to a sexual one. Vivien wanted me to pick her up as though I were lifting her over a threshold. That’s the way Olivier had directed that action in London, but it made the moment awkward for me because I had to put her down on the ground, then bend down to try to kiss her. It didn’t seem to flow as well, but we did it her way. Kazan made a point of wanting us to try to accommodate Vivien since she was the outsider.

Unlike Jessica who was a gracious and well-grounded a human being as you could hope to meet, Vivien was more like Blanche herself. She had a more tenuous relationship with reality.

I remember that when we had finished shooting, Vivien and Olivier invited Mona and me to a party. Although Mona and I are chronically early, we happened to arrive late because we were unfamiliar with Los Angeles and had gotten lost. Everyone was already seated around their tables. I was called over to a table and left Mona stranded for a moment. She finally ended up sitting on a swing by the pool all by herself. Who should come along but John Buckmaster, an English actor, and Vivien Leigh. They sat down on either side of Mona. Mona told me later about how they literally, and figuratively, talked over her head. Vivien and Buckmaster traded bizarre non sequiturs as Mona sat there, utterly baffled. Never once did they acknowledge that another person was even there, let alone sitting between them. Vivien didn’t have to be polite, or even civil; after all, she was Scarlett O’Hara.

Several months later, we read in the paper that Buckmaster had been spotted running down Fifth Avenue stark naked, brandishing a knife. Mona was actually relieved by the news; it assured her she had not  been the crazy one sitting on that swing after all.

Interesting, huh? Perhaps Vivien was experiencing symptoms of her manic phase? Maybe they were intoxicated or playing a joke on Malden’s wife? John Merivale told Hugo Vickers that John Buckmaster was the first man Vivien had an affair with after her marriage to Leigh Holman in the 1930s– so I can only guess what the ex-lovers were discussing.  We’ll never know. I’d love to hear your comments.

J’ai eu envie de beignets aprés avoir vue ce film!!! Mais pas des beignets nature, ou des beignets au pommes, non! Des beignets de tomates vertes. Parce que si c’est aussi bon que ce film, alors j’en veux des caisses entière.

On retrouve dans ce film, une actrice que j’adore, mais que l’on ne voit pas assez souvent

Kathy Bates !!!! Oui, oui la foldingue de “Misery”. Elle est purement et simplement géniale en desperate housewife avant l’heure de la série. En rendant visite à une parente dans une maison de retraite, elle rencontre Nini.

Alias Jessica Tandy, la vieille insupportable de “Miss Daisy et son chauffeur”.

Une amitié va naître entre les deux femmes. Nini va lui raconter l’histoire de deux femmes qu’elle a connu :

Ruth

et Idgi

A partir de là, on fait des aller-retours dans le temps, des années 30 à l’époque contemporaine.

Et au fil des ces aller-retours, on sent l’influence qu’à cette histoire sur le personnage de Kathy Bates. Elle passe d’une desesperate housewife à une femme qui reprend sa vie en main. Et c’est plutôt drôle de voir comment elle s’y prend pour y arriver. Elle tente de raviver la flamme avec son mari

ou encore de voir la vie d’un autre oeil

Sinon l’histoire d’Idgi et de Ruth, c’est quoi?

C’est l’histoire d’une amitié entre deux femmes dans les années 30. Une amitié forte et indéfectible qui choque l’amérique puritaine de ces années parce qu’elles vivent ensembles et tiennent un petit resto qui vend des beignets de tomates vertes, la spécialité locale.

C’est l’histoire des noirs américains subissant le racisme et le Klu Klux Klan

C’est l’histoire du meurtre du mari de Ruth et de la disparition de son corps

Et comme toile de fond, c’est comment ces deux femmes ont améliorés, influencés la vie des gens qui les entouraient.

C’est aussi une vision sociale de la société américaine dans ses bons et mauvais côtés: La place et le manque de droits pour les femmes des années 30, la place de la population noire, mais aussi la place de la femme dans les années 90.

En fait, c’est un film que l’on peut interpréter differement selon son sexe. On peut y voir une ode au féminisme si on est une femme, ou alors une satire sociale si on est homme.

Seul petit bémol : la fin qui est prévisible dès le début, mais cela n’enlève rien au contenu que l’on suit avec plaisir.

Au fait, si vous voulez savoir où est passé le corps du mari de Ruth, voilà un petit indice

Alors si vous voulez passer un dimanche assis sur votre canapé ou une soirée tranquille, regardez ce film et savourez ces beignets de tomates vertes.

]]> http://cinemaleo.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/%e2%80%9cpomodori-verdi-fritti%e2%80%a6%e2%80%9d/ Thu, 02 Jul 2009 03:35:28 +0000 cinemaleo http://cinemaleo.wordpress.com/2009/07/02/%e2%80%9cpomodori-verdi-fritti%e2%80%a6%e2%80%9d/

1991: Fried Green Tomatoes di John Avnet

Critiche positive ma nulla di più  per un film che invece ha mandato (giustamente) in visibilio gli spettatori di tutto il mondo e che ottenne ai botteghini un successo strepitoso e inaspettato.

Un perfetto equilibrio di commedia-dramma-giallo ma anche un ritratto impietoso dell’arretrato Sud degli Stati Uniti degli anni ‘30. Il film parla di vite difficili evidenziando sì gli aspetti negativi ma anche la forza dei personaggi nell’affrontare i loro problemi, soprattutto grazie all’amicizia (valore in grado di legare gli esseri umani oltre la morte). Un film che resta dentro per molto tempo, che sapientemente miscela risate e lacrime, ironia e sentimento (non sentimentalismo).

Questo film, un inno alla vita e alla sua imprevedibilità, è del 1991. Entusiasmò moltissimi allora, ma può entusiasmare anche ora a più di dieci anni di distanza.

Un’anziana signora riaccende la voglia di vivere di una casalinga grassa e frustrata, raccontandole la grande storia di amicizia di due giovani donne anticonformiste le quali, nell’America degli anni Trenta, ebbero il coraggio di ribellarsi alla prepotenza maschile e al razzismo dilagante.

Un susseguirsi di emozioni e stati d’animo diversi nel vedere come i ricordi che affollano la vecchia signora riescano a entrare nella vita di Evelyn. Per una magia della memoria la forza delle esistenze passate si trasmetterà alla donna, e l’esempio del calore e del mutuo rispetto che le hanno animate riuscirà a restituire un significato alla sua vita: Evelyn rinasce e riscopre il piacere di sentirsi viva e di dare un senso ad ogni cosa che fa.

La regia di Jon Avnet è perfetta, veramente prodigiosa la prestazione delle quattro attrici, in una vera e propria gara di bravura (Kathy Bates, Mary Stuart Masterson, Mary-Louise Parker, Jessica Tandy ).

Pubblicato su CinemaPlus
tuttelerecensioni

Regia: Jon Avnet
Sceneggiatura: Carol Sobieski, Fannie Flagg
Cast: Mary Stuart Masterson, Mary-Louise Parker, Kathy Bates, Jessica Tandy, Cicely Tyson, Chris O’Donnell, Stan Shaw, Gailard Sartain, Timothy Scott, Gary Basaraba, Lois Smith, Macon McCalman, Richard Riehle, Raynor Scheine, Grace Zabriskie, Reid Binion, Afton Smith, Danny Nelson, Nancy Moore Atchison, Constance Shulman
Fotografia: Geoffrey Simpson
Montaggio: Debra Neil-Fisher
Musiche: Thomas Newman
Produzione: Act III Communications, Avnet-Kerner Productions, The Rank Organization, Universal Pictures
Distribuzione: Life International
Paese: Gran Bretagna, USA (1991)
Genere: Drammatico
Durata: 130’ circa
Uscita Italia:
Uscita USA: 27 Dicembre 1991

Trama:
Una dolce vecchietta del Sud fa amicizia con una donna più giovane che da questa amicizia  trae motivo di conforto e il coraggio necessario alla riaffermazione di sé. La storia del loro rapporto si confonde con quella di due donne di cinquant’anni prima…

Note:
-Il film è tratto dal romanzo di Fannie Flagg (candidato al Pulitzer 1987).
-Riconoscimenti e premi su IMDb

1963: The Birds di Alfred Hitchcock

Critica (odierna) e pubblico (da sempre) concordi: un capolavoro, innovativo e diverso. Presentato al XVI Festival di Cannes, ebbe allora giudizi molto negativi da parte degli “esperti”, “esperti” che fortunatamente si sono ricreduti. Il film è stato presentato in versione restaurata al Festival di Locarno nell’Agosto del 1999.

Tutto Hitchcock in questo film: il gusto di sorprendere, la maestria nel centellinare la suspense, l’abilità di costruire una apparente storia di contorno, il giocare intelligentemente collo spettatore.

Gli stupendi titoli di testa (con le lettere del cast frantumate dalle ombre saettanti degli stormi) si aprono a una commedia sentimentale come tante: poi piano piano, per piccoli tocchi, si arriva all’orrore apocalittico.

Quanta sapienza, quanta bravura!

Dopo quarant’anni continua ad essere un punto di riferimento: costruito con tecnica minuziosa vicina al perfezionismo ( il film si compone di quasi 1.400 inquadrature, 371 delle quali consistono in effetti speciali) è ancora capace di affascinare e tenerci inchiodati alla poltrona.

Sangue? E chi ha bisogno di sangue?

A Sir Alfred bastano un po’ di uccellini e due ore di angoscia non ce le leva nessuno.

Opera unica e inclassificabile, è un film ricco di tensione, originale e perfettamente costruito: da una novella di Daphne du Maurier, sceneggiata da Evan Hunter alias Ed McBain, è l’horror più riuscito di Hitchcock, con un cast azzeccatissimo (vorrei almeno ricordare l’eccezionale Jessica Tandy, oltre naturalmente la sua pupilla Tippi Hedren), un montaggio favoloso e un’incredibile colonna sonora (del fedelissimo Bernard Herrmann), una colonna sonora senza musica reale – onomatopeica – basata sull’alterazione di suoni, rumori e versi animali.

Metafora della paura di ciò che ci aspetta là fuori nel mondo esterno (la scena finale della macchina che si allontana lentamente tra gli uccelli calmi è entrata nella storia), dell’essere umano che si ritrova a fare i conti con la caduta del suo dominio, dell’incapacità degli uomini di reagire… (quante sono le interpretazioni date al film?) .

Quando Gli Uccelli uscì nelle sale infinite furono le discussioni sul finale aperto… Anni dopo lo stesso Hitch diede una spiegazione facendo notare che alla fine non compare il “the end”.

Pubblicato su Yahoo-Cinema
Le donne di Sir Alfred

Regia: Alfred Hitchcock
Sceneggiatura: Evan Hunter
Cast: Rod Taylor, Tippi Hedren, Jessica Tandy, Suzanne Pleshette, Veronica Cartwright, Ruth McDevitt, Lonny Chapman, Richard Deacon, Ethel Griffies, Malcolm Atterbury, Joe Mantell, Elizabeth Ylson, John McGovern, Charles McGraw, Bill Quinn, Karl Swenson, Doodles Weaver, Doreen Lang
Fotografia: Robert Burks
Montaggio: George Tomasini
Musiche: Bernard Herrmann
Produzione: Universal Pictures
Distribuzione: Universal Pictures
Paese: USA (1963)
Genere: Drammatico, Thriller, Horror
Durata: 119’ circa
Uscita Italia: 31 Ottobre 1963
Uscita USA: 28 Marzo 1963

Trama:
In un negozio di animali a San Francisco si incontrano l’avvocato Mitch Brenner e la ricca e giovane Melanie, figlia dell’editore di uno fra i maggiori giornali della città. Indispettita e insieme attratta dall’atteggiamento dell’uomo, Melanie decide di fargli una sorpresa e di recarsi a Bodega Bay – dove Mitch trascorre i fine settimana in compagnia della madre e della sorellina Cathy- col pretesto di donare alla bimba, per il suo compleanno, una coppia di pappagalli “inseparabili”. Da poco arrivata sul posto, Melanie viene attaccata da un gabbiano che le ferisce il volto. È solo il primo di una serie di strani accadimenti che vedono protagonisti gli uccelli…

Note:
-Film irripetibile, eppure Hollywood sembra che ne stia ideando il remake (più demenza che coraggio!): protagonista Naomi Watts, alla regia il neozelandese Martin Campbel (che ha diretto recentemente Casino Royale).

-Nel ruolo della piccola Cathy fa la sua apparizione Veronica Cartwright che ritroveremo poi membro dell’equipaggio in Alien.

I was watching stand-up comedian Margaret Cho’s “Revolution” (might review the DVD soon – she’s gay and funny, I’m a big fan), while waiting for Jon Stewart’s greatest lesbian moments load in afterellen.com, (he’s straight, smart,  funny and pro-gay, what more can you ask?) and listening to the radio at the same time. Suddenly, “Baby I Need Your Loving” came on the British radio. I happen to shamelessly and secretly love Motown. The coolest thing about volunteering at Oxfam is having access to a plethora of music ranging from African music, to Motown to 80s music and so on.

The Secret Life of Bees

Anyway, the song plays and I remember “The Secret Life of Bees”, which starred Queen Latifah, Jennifer Hudson, Sophie Okonedo, Alicia Keys and an eeriely older Dakota Fanning. Queen Latifah is an Oscar and Grammy winner (Chicago, Hairspray, but I will always remember her as the bad ass lesbian in “Set If Off” – she rocks a lesbian and she had one hot girlfriend in that movie), Jennifer Hudson is the American Idol runner-up and Oscar winner, Alicia Keys is of course best known for being the New York born, Grammy winning, bad-ass piano prodigy, Dakota Fanning is of course, famous for being the precocious child actor who plays precocious children really well. Anyway, this is another one of those Southern dramas replete with mystery, memories of African American oppression, the fight for civil rights and so on. Set in the 1960s when African Americans were granted the right to vote, it is interesting in the first half, and then it just lost me in the second half. I don’t know why, it just bored me. Though there was tension,  conflict and so on, it just seemed bland, and lacked character motivation and plot. I assume the screenwriters (apparently it was based on a book) assumed that thoughtfully adding issues of class, race, civil rights, a few scenes of violence would make up for its blandness,but that didn’t work. I also think it also has to do with all these award-winning actors all in one movie. I think there should be a rule against that, because I seriously think that one movie can’t take all those award-winning actors all in one show – the universe would simply just…implode. The only good thing I liked about this film was Sophie Okonedo (underrated! She should do more films. And not because she played a mentally challenged young woman in this film), and that’s because I think she has the talent and she could carry a whole film just by her lonesome. I hope she does soon.

Fried Green Tomatoes

Which brings us to Fried Green Tomatoes, a 1991 film directed by Jon Avnet, adapted from the novel by Fanny Flagg entitled “Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistle Stop Cafe”. I know this is a little dated, it had come out in 1991 and hence is almost two decades old, but it’s worth watching, or re-watching again, because this movie, unlike “The Secret Life of Bees”, is actually a thought-provoking, tender, sweet, well-crafted tale about an American South that’s long gone. It is a movie that is both romantic and bittersweet, and it has all the charm that “The Secret Life of Bees” lacks. Very few stories about the American South touch the heart like this one, and I recommend it to anyone who is looking for a brief respite from the mindless, special effects-laden summer blockbuster line-up this year. I also recommend “The Color Purple” (although I recommend the book more than the movie. But the movie features a very young Whoopie Goldberg in her feature debut, so that’s worth checking out) and “To Kill a Mockingbird” (true, this one has no gay subtext – but I love it nonetheless). And if you’re feeling industrious, you must read and watch (not necessarily in that order) “Gone with the Wind”, the mother of all literature that is American South. Anyway, interestingly enough I get to watch this film only last year – but that was because in 1991, I was in high school, and I had the mistake of reading the movie reviews about this film from a Catholic magazine in my hometown, back in the Philippines, so you can imagine how an impressionable young person would view such a film with such content. But now, I have watched it and I have no regrets.

The Story

Evelyn Couch (the divine Kathy Bates) is in the middle of a mid-life crisis. Overweight, stuck in the suburbs, unhappy with a marriage that has fizzled out and a husband who prefers watching baseball and dinner (preferably at the same time) over her sexual overtures, she is at the end of her rope. A stay-at-home wife, she fills her time going to vagina workshops and workshops that tell her how to rekindle her marriage. Once, when she goes to visit the care home where her mother-in-law (who, of course, hates her) stays, she stumbles across Ninny Threadgoode (Jessica Tandy, “Driving Miss Daisy”) who is alone and lonely herself, but is happy and friendly enough to share the story of the Threadgoodes, especially the life and times of Idgie Threadgoode (Mary Stuart Masterson) and Ruth Jamison (Mary Louise Parker), who go through the ups and downs of life together.

Ruth and Idgie meet while Idgie’s older  and favorite brother, Buddy Threadgoode (Chris O’Donnell) is flirting with Ruth. A tragic accident (Buddy gets run over by a train while trying to retrieve Ruth’s hat) devastates Idgie and she retreats from her family and community, choosing instead to live on her own and to hang out with the town’s not-so-reputable citizens, drinking, smoking, gambling, getting into fights and strutting around in men’s clothes. Idgie’s mother is up-in-arms, but does not know how to deal with this daughter and so, one summer, a few years later, she enlists the help of Ruth (who is staying for the summer before she gets married) to coax Idgie out of her unlady-like, rebellious, uncouth ways and start living like a proper young Southern woman. This proves unsuccessful, and it only draws Ruth into Idgie’s world. Idgie, in fact, succeeds in making Ruth help her give out goods illegally from the back of a train, jump off a train, have a picnic near a bee’s nest, get drunk, play baseball, swim naked and drunk in the river and play poker. While Idgie is already set in her ways, and does not change, clearly Ruth has a soft spot in her heart.

And this is where a lot of viewers, critics and fans have argued. The book on which the film is based makes it clear that Idgie and Ruth are lovers. The film version has sanitized and effectively de-gayed it. But this 1991, pre-Ellen, pre-Will and Grace, pre-Queer as Folk and pre-L-Word. It was a different time then. So when one views this, one can and might become confused about the relationship. One can view them as really close friends or full-on lesbian lovers. If you think they are just intensely close, then you are leaving in the Dark Ages. ^^ For Ruth and Idgie are gayer than the lesbians at a Pride March, the characters of L-Word and Queer as Folk  combined. ^^

Case in point: You can see it in the long, lingering, smoldering looks they give each other , most notably during the bee and honey scene, where, as Ruth looks on while Idgie goes to get honey just for her, a multitude of emotions go over her face: fear, trepidation, admiration, awe. In fact, I do believe this is probably where she falls for the charming Idgie. When after getting drunk during Ruth’s birthday, Ruth announces to her that she is getting married, Idgie’s crestfallen expression gives away much about what she feels, and when Ruth gives her a drunken kiss, Idgie’s expression shifts – like she is perplexed, but also, like she has died and gone to heaven.  And so, when Ruth gets married, Idgie refuses to attend the wedding (because what lesbian in her right mind would want to watch her beloved get married to someone else?) , but drives all the way to Alabama (from Georgia) to see Ruth and her husband set foot in their new house for the first time. It becomes more implicitly gay when Idgie gets up the courage to visit her after a few months (because that’s what we do – especially those of us incapable of articulating our feelings to pretty women ^^), finds out Ruth is being beaten up by her husband and gets all worked up. Ruth convinces her not to do anything and Idgie relents. But when Ruth’s mother dies, and Ruth sends a cryptic biblical verse to Idgie (Ruth 1:16), it sends Idgie bursting in Ruth’s house, taking her away from all the violence of her husband  (but not after her husband hits and kicks her one last time). Ruth leaves with Idgie, and Idgie gets enough money to start off a cafe with her. The front area is for white people, while the back area is for black people. All is well, and Ruth and Idgie raise Ruth’s son together. Ruth’s husband comes back though and demands his wife and son to come back with him, but Idgie defends her family and home, because, you know, Idgie is kind of the “man of the house” – and she rocks the part as well. ^^ Anyway – this is where it gets hazy (this is hazier than the implied relationship between the two main characters): the husband disappears and the issue would have been dead and buried, except one day, the husband’s truck surfaces from a river a few miles from the cafe, so the police from Georgia start investigating. Since they can’t find the body and are aware of the tension between Idgie and the husband – Idgie goes court, only to get off scot-free when her mortal enemy, the town reverend,  concocts an alibi for her at Ruth’s request (now, that is true love). They live a long life, until Ruth dies and Idgie raises her son alone.

This is a story within a story,and the other story here is that of Evelyn, who, upon hearing the story of the two women empowers herself, able to stand up to people who regularly ridicule her, gets a job and even puts  her husband in his place.

Dreamy and poignant, this story is actually as much an ode to an American South long gone, as an ode to the strength, beauty and endurance of female friendships, and relationships, at it were. Production values are sound – although this being the early 90s, it does have that gritty, early-90s-set-in-the-60s feel to it – with none of the glossy, clean feel of newer digital filmmaking and special effects. But this film compensates with a solid story that keeps you riveted to the screen the whole time, superb acting from the leads, especially Mary Louise Parker and Mary Stuart Masterson, and supporting leads from Kathy Bates and the late, great Jessica Tandy (who won an Oscar for this movie). The only beef I had about this film was, as I already mentioned, the sanitized, lesbian overtones. When I was watching it, I had this distinct feeling that Idgie fell for Ruth because she hero-worshipped her brother so much this was a kind of f*cked-up way of getting closer to her dead brother, rather than a natural, personal choice for her. Hence her lesbianism was in direct correlation with the brother, not with Ruth. I find out this is also an issue that other critics have raised with the movie, since the book establishes that Idgie was a flaming lesbian (^^) and her brother had nothing to do with her lesbianism or her feelings for Ruth. There are instances in the book, in fact, when Idgie allegedly has sexual relations with prostitutes, a fact that Ruth is jealous about. Anyway, that being said, this film is still as gay as can be, and as afterellen.com notes, it even has a courtship period, a period of long absence, and a period where they actually get together and live a (not-so) happily ever after. As for the consummation of the relationship, the director reveals in his  commentary of the DVD of this film (commentaries! the greatest thing that has ever happened to DVD! yay!) that since there was no way of showing overt displays of affection in the film – the food fight scene is the outlet with which they show and defuse all that pent-up sexual tension between the two. Good call. All that physical action in the food fight, including the food and sex connection, makes for a good articulation of the subtext.

Overall, despite the downplaying of the gay aspects of it, this is an excellent film. As one watches this, one actually becomes wistful for those days long gone when though the fashion was bad,  the hair was bad and the special effects were bad, in films,but the stories and the acting were good. I hope for a cinematic renaissance of those things soon – maybe not the bad hair, and the bad fashion – but the excellent stories and excellent acting.

A small community is besieged when birds turn murderous.

Particularly fascinating to me are the incredibly gorgeous and weird birds of paradise of New Guinea, one variety of which displays some kind of obsessive/compulsive cleaning disorder related to mating. … Film.com