Maybe These (11) Links Are Magic

I love this post from the very smart Tim (Antagony & the Ecstasy) stepping back to look at the vastly underrated Peter Pan from 2003. Does anyone remember that film? Does anyone remember how good Sumpter was in the title role? So nice to see him shining a spotlight on it with his always excellently written prose.
         
I have massive love for Chocolat. You know, that sweet little Miramax film that popped up randomly at precursors then earned 5 Oscar nominations including Best Picture? Yup, that one. Jose (Movies Kick Ass) gives a fond review of it over at Pop Matters and I couldn't be happier.
       
Walter (The Silver Screening Room) is traveling back to 1964 for some Oscar retrospection, check out what he thought of the Best Director nominees. How random and ridiculous is it that George Cukor won his Oscar for My Fair Lady  of all things - from Holiday, to Little Women, to The Philadelphia Story to Adam's Rib and he wins his Oscar for the movie with the WRONG Hepburn!!!! Oh, Oscars.
       
I can't remember where I was saying it , but I miss Cate Blanchett desperately. Why is she so scarce? Fritz (Fritz and the Oscars) dedicates a post to her work in The Aviator as he counts down the Supporting Actress winners from worst to best. Cate is his #32.

And while we're on the Oscars' arc, anyone expecting Midnight in Paris to kill at the Oscars? Rumblings abound, but they are just rumblings and silly me I've yet to see it. Ugh. Mike (You Talking To Me) loves it.
     
I love when film bloggers talk about TV (a plug for my upcoming blog-a-thon) and CS (Big Thoughts From A Small Mind) is wondering who, if anyone, is winning the fight for supremacy between television and cinema.

Richard (Riku Writes) thinks we spend too much time thinking about "greatest" films forgetting those that might not be the best, but are a great deal of fun. He gives us a list of ten.

My two favourite film composers at the moment are Alexandre Desplat and Dario Marianelli, the two most ubiquitous are probably Hans Zimmer and James Horner, in a face-off I'd choose the latter and Luke (Journalistic Skepticism) devotes a write-up to some of his best work. Do you even have to ask which is my favourite...clue: lots of water...
            

I swear, I have no memory of Soderbergh's Out of Sight, probably because I saw it before I got all crazy and cinephile-ish. I need to watch again just to see if my hatred of George Clooney can be abated. Ed Howard (Only the Cinema) gives it a glowing review.

I didn't like Chloe very much when it was released, I still don't really like it even if it has some fairly good acting (and surprisingly well shot). The Mad Hatter (The Dark of the Matinee) writes up on it.
  
Why do we have so many film bloggers? James D. (Central Florida Film Critic) gives a great reason while trumpeting Tree of Life which I've yet to see. I'm so behind on 2011 viewing, it's ridiculous.

An Old-Fashioned Link Story

I can't put my finger on why, but I love this post Rich (Wide Screen World) does on Woody's Manhattan. I really need to see that one again, of all the Woody films I've seen it's the only one I've seen once - I can hardly remember it. And in other news, I still haven't seen Midnight in Paris.Ugh.

                 

Emmy nominees are coming up soon (Emmy conversation continue with me and Ryan) and Kate Winslet is essentially a shoo-in for her work on Mildred Pierce (check out Jose's ten best moments from a few months back). Well Alex reviews the work of the original Mildred - Joan Crawford's Oscar winning performance.

                      

Nicholas (Anomalous Review) puts forth a rousing defense of Keira Knightley in Atonement, although the word defense suggests that there is something damning about the performance which needs to be defended. I love the film and Keira in it, but I know Keira is not loved by all, which is a shame. She was the MVP in Never Let Me Go only last year.

             

Nathaniel's (The Film Experience) poll on memorable Best Actress characters of the 90 gave Jodie Foster the edge for the 91-95 women. I'm not that fond of Clarice Starling or The Silence of the Lambs, but CS (Big Thoughts From A Small Mind) offers of a great write-up on its longevity. I re-watch is in order when I get some time, I suppose.

     

In just a few paragraphs Paolo (Okinawa Assault) manages to touch on some significant things in Notes on a Scandal. I just love Cate Blanchett as Sheba. And, on the topic of Cate being excellent Norma (The Flick Chicks) pays tribute to her work in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, another performance I adore. Where was her Oscar nomination? Heck, not even a Globe nod.

Ben (Runs Like A Gay) has some harrowing words about The Conspirator. I want to see this if only because Robin Wright Penn is delightful (she made The Private Lives of Pippa Lee so much better than it deserves) but he's not impressed with the film.

“She came. She was nice. She left.”

Hanna written by Seth Lochhead and David Farr, directed by Joe Wright

          

Few handles of film critics exasperate me more than that of the “auteur”. It’s not that I am in firm disagreement with the usage of the term. But, the way in which the average movie reviewer throws it around like a benediction sometimes tends to annoy me, it all seems somewhat jaded. Tarantino, for example, is a definitive auteur but someone like James Ivory (who infuses each of his films with a constant grace) would never be given the title. I feel as if it’s the same with Joe Wright. Ignoring The Soloist - and it’s like everyone did ignore that one – he’s done Pride & Prejudice and Atonement and there’s always that quiet feeling that he’s not a “real” direction because of the alleged gentleness of both films. Enter Hanna.

I can’t account for reasoning, but general audiences seem to have racked up an affinity for women in combat. There’s something a bit sensational about a woman fighting, I suppose, and nothing beats a fighting a woman like a fighting girl. And, from its inception Hanna has cards stacked highly for and against it. The superficial presence of childhood violence is as much a draw for some as it is a turnoff for others. There’s only so much that one can do with a story about a girl being trained for mortal combat, right? And the answer to that question is yes and no. For, Hanna is just that – a story about a young girl who has been trained (cue gasp) for mortal combat. And, still it works.

I often wish people would get reality that a good original screenplay is good not necessarily for the original portion of the compound word but for the screenplay part. Well written trumps originality any day, in my book at last; and Hanna is hardly innovative but Lochhead and Farr do fresh things with some rudimentary themes. The culture shock which Hanna spends much of the second act experiencing is handled with a surprising amount of whimsy preventing the film from become a slave to its bleaker issues. I’m a bit like a broken record, but there are few things I appreciate more than structure in a screenplay and despite the occasional diversions (that final act could do with a little more tightening) it succeeds for the most part, the script is well done for its genre – but it’s Wright who’s the true saving grace. More than anything Hanna depends on his direction. I’ve always found him to be a succinct filmmaker (the successful condensation of Pride & Prejudice still impresses me) but Wright and his team (editor Paul Tothill deserves major props) keep it moving a fine pace.

Third time, they say, is the charm and this is Saoirse Ronan’s third major feature and if you’re not willing to accept her talent you’re just being silly she misses all the easiest chances to make Hanna a victim of caricature (Chloe Moretz take note). It’s a beautiful thing to watch her talent develop and it’s even better watching her play opposite the likes of Blanchett, Williams and Bana – each turning in performances of varying goodness.

The best thing about making a genre film like Hanna is that it gives Wright a chance to develop a film without any kneejerk expectations of awards’ glory. Hanna allows him to develop his talent and – who knows – maybe he’ll stop being deprecatingly referred to as “that period director” (although I’m continually nonplussed as to how that’s a bad thing). I’ll admit, as satisfying an experience it is Hanna is marked by a distinct sheen of coldness. I’m not sure if it’s an occupational hazard of the genre or of it’s a flaw in the plan of Hanna – because it IS a satisfying film. That line that smoothly opens and closes the film about Hanna missing her target’s heart seems terribly apt here. But, even if it’s not a direct hit to the heart it’s fine marksmanship nonetheless.

      

B

Cinematic Shakespeare, Part Three: The Possibilities

I must admit that when I heard that Hailee Steinfeld was rumoured to be the lead in an upcoming adaptation of Romeo & Juliet I was less than enthused. I’m not against remakes by principals, but I don’t think anyone will ever be able to top Zeffreli’s 1968 production – unless they do some revolutionary adaptation. I’m not even too keen on the idea that Steinfeld would be closer to the actual age of Juliet – what will the MPAA say about simulated sex between two fourteen year olds? I don’t even want to go down that road, I’ve already begun to digress. Instead of another version of Romeo & Juliet I’d love for some of Shakespeare’s other works to get (credible) cinematic treatment.

                
Here’s a quintet of actors I’d love to see tackle the Bard.
              
Thandie Newton as Adriana (The Comedy of Errors)

I’m not a big fan of Thandie Newton, but even when I don’t like her performances I’m conscious that she has talent waiting to burst forth. I loved her last year in For Colored Girls where she had some excellent moments through soliloquies. And, we all know, Shakespeare loves his soliloquies. Adriana is a basic female archetype of Shakespeare. She’s halfway between loving wife and annoying shrew and I’d like to see Thandie do a film retaining her British accent. The character has one of the best female soliloquies – it has loud dramatic moments, and lighter comedic ones and it’d be interesting seeing Thandie tackle it.

Ralph Fiennes as Macbeth (Macbeth)

I consider Macbeth to be even more iconic of a character than Macbeth – that being said I loathe the Orson Welles version which amps up his evils turning it into something almost farcical. Fiennes is a brilliant actor, and he’s also thoroughly British which is often a good thing when Shakespeare is in the mix. I’m waiting anxiously to see what he does with Coriolanus, and depending on how good it is I think it’d be great for him to follow it up with Macbeth – one of Shakespeare’s most tortured souls. And, I’ve even got an idea for his wife below...

Keira Knightley as Rosalind (As You Like It)

It seems like such a strange thing to say, but Keira Knightley seems built for a cross-dressing Shakespeare role. In the same way that Gwyneth Paltrow’s Viola could have passed off the boyishness, I could see Keira doing the same and what better role than Rosalind in As You Like It? I always feel moved to defend Keira when she’s accused of lack of range for holding on to period films, but I can’t keep beating a dead horse. Rosalind is, above all else, witty and fun and considering how excellent Keira was as the witty and fun Elizabeth Bennett this seems like a no-brainer. Get Joe Wright to direct and Rosamund Pike or Romola Garai to star as her cousin and we could have a hit on our hands.

Joaquin Phoenix as Richard III (Richard III)

It’s a bit silly on my part, but I often wonder why Phoenix doesn’t do more period pieces. Maybe it’s because the first two films I saw him in were Quills and Gladiator, but he just seems like a “period actor”. I’m not a big fan of Shakespeare’s histories but this one has a reputation as one of his greatest plays. I’m neither here nor there on that, but Richard III is a glorious monster and I’d love to see Phoenix tackle it. Even playing a decided villain in Gladiator he was able to forge that relationship with the audience and Richard III is one of the greatest anither0s of the Bard. Joaquin would definitely knock this out of the park.

Cate Blanchett as Lady Macbeth (Macbeth)

This one is such a no-brainer, for me. I suppose it’s only because Shakespeare is so rarely adapted to the screen as of late, but I can’t believe that Blanchett has never done a Shakespearean piece on film. Most probably remember Lady Macbeth as one of Shakespeare most morally reprehensible women, but the way the character is written there are so many interpretations to run with. She’s nowhere near villainous for me, and is just the right amounts of tenacious and ambiguous that I’d love to see Cate tackle.

         
Which of these five actors would you most love to see tackle the Bard? Any suggestions of your own?

Goodbye February, Goodbye Oscar

So with the end of February comes the official end of the 2010 season. And, what a season it’s been. In my five years of taking the Oscars’ much too seriously, 2009 easily emerges as the worst (even though I loved the year in film, then). 2010 was okay, neither terrible nor excellent – rarely surprising, but always with something interesting (even if vaguely so). Last night’s Oscars were sort of a case in point. I didn’t feel disappointed or excited when the winners were announced; the single prize that actually made me gasp was Tom Hooper’s win. I feel bad for the guy – he, himself, seemed to shuffle embarrassedly to the stage, and I sincerely hope that that win doesn’t signal the death of his big-screen career before its beginning; and for the record, though he’s not my favourite in the category, an unobtrusive technique does not signify weakness in direction, yeesh. Other than that, it was quite tepid – even the “surprises” (Randy Newman, Pfister, Robert Stromberg) were expected in their way, so it was random bits like Cate Blanchett calling the makeup on The Wolfman “gross” and Kirk Douglas bantering with Colin and Hugh and Billy Crystal being awesome that made the night anything more than beige (or Annette Bening grinning through the entrire show, why is she always so happy?)

     

It’s the shortest month, and it felt even shorter – it just sort of flew by. I managed to wrap-up my own personal awards: with the usual dissonance between my own choices and AMPAS.

I was, as per normal, late with LAMB Casting – we’re on to a new film up for casting, the huge ensemble of P. T. Anderson’s Magnolia is up for reimagining (more details here).

Thanks to the usual readers for being their usual awesome selves (working on their own blogs and showing up here on occasion). Here are just a few of the comments I loved this past month.

On my discussion of Auspicious Cinema of 2010 (important films regardless of their quality, noted for their value, risk and originality) Tom of Reinvention: The Journal of a Dog-Lover, Book-Reader, Moviegoer, and Writer cites two The Kids Are All Right and Black Swan:

“I think Black Swan, of all of this year's films, will endure as an artistic moment that contemporary audiences have been scared to embrace. It is ahead of its time in terms of technical brilliance, telling a multi-layered story that affects the mind and heart on many levels. Those who are willing to enter its inferno of coming-of-age symbols will be forever changed.”

I’m not all with him there on Black Swan being before its time and whatnot, but this sort of discussion is one of the best parts of these year-end conversation – and I sort of love his “inferno of coming-of-age symbols” bit. It sounds highlight quotable.

    

I was musing over which of this year’s Oscar nominees I’d like to see hook-up in a film and Walter (of The Silver Screening Room) had some absolutely delightful ideas. I especially loved these two:

      

“Ooooh Bening/Rush makes me giddy, giddy, giddy. A remake of The Barkleys of Broadway? I never saw it, but it sounds like they'd be awesome in it -- husband/wife musical-comedy duo where she wants out). (a/n: how brilliant does this sound, though?)

Bardem and Firth as antagonists in a conspiracy thriller: both can be intense or easy-going, depending on the situation or role. The roles are interchangeable, but we get awesomeness no matter what!” (complete comment and post HERE)

I took a quasi-break from regular Oscar guessing to flashback to a personal favourite scene from On the Waterfront. I kept thinking how Eva Marie Saint and Marlon Brando there were so similar to Natalie Wood and Richard Beymer so many years later in another Best Picture Winner. Yojimbo of Let's Not Talk About Movies concurred:

“How can you NOT think of ‘Somewhere’ when Leonard Bernstein's tribal kettle drums, mournful brass, and keening strings are shared by both OTW and WSS?  This is a brilliant scene (and brilliant of you to include both parts of it—this cements the relationship between Edie and Terry, and transitions him from Hamlet-like conscience-fighting to not just deciding but taking action. And I've always loved the scene of them hand-in-hand running down the alleyway and their faces shining in the dark.” (full comment and post HERE)

And I rather loved Luke’s comment wrapping up the prognosticating for the season (HERE):

“Well, it seems you've got your answer to how the Academy will take A$lice in Wonderland's ‘let's barf visual effects on every frame’ mentality - they ate that crap up. I'm a little bothered by the Art Direction trophy - and just how much of the costuming was real and not CGI? And your final thoughts - how are you feeling about the movie that you named the most anticipated FOREVER ago ended up winning Best Picture. I sort of credit you with calling that one well over a year ago. Well done sir!”

With all the inklings I had, I should have just gone for the gut and predicted Alice in Wonderland in Art Direction. I do feel something vaguely akin to pride in having The King’s Speech being the film I was anticipating most of the year – even if I didn’t love it completely, it still made my top 7. And, really, though I know more than a few disagree (one, two) they could have picked a much more terrible winner – and I know some agree with me (one, two). I worry for Tom Hooper’s future (what with him “stealing the Oscar and all, sigh) but I’m absolutely fine with The King’s Speech resting as the film of the year.

          

So, goodbye February…how was it for you? Did you find the Oscars’ essentially bland? Did February fly by? Looking forward to March?

Cinematic Knowledge: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings

“You offer it to me freely...?”

“I do not deny that my heart has greatly desired this.”

“In place of the Dark Lord, you would have a Queen, not dark, but beautiful and terrible as the Dawn. Treacherous as the Sea! Stronger than the foundations of the earth...all shall love me and despair!”

“I pass the test...”

“I will diminish and go into the west and remain Galadriel.”

Lessons Learned: Galadriel is one scary Elf Queen (and incidentally one of the the strongest characters in the series).
Cate Blanchett is awesome and yet completely scary.
     
(She's signed up for The Hobbit, can't deny that makes me happy.)

The Spin-Off, Season One: Episode 3

I have a soft spot for Babel. I know many people consider it to be Crash’s less distinguished foreign cousin, which generally irks me. But I’ve grown out of my initial loathing for Crash and descended into righteous dislike...but I digress. Babel, like so many ensemble dramas there are so many characters to take note of ...so many characters we could spend more time with. I’d single out Adrianna Bazzara as the film’s strongest performer, but my second choice is someone that’s often forgotten – Pitt. I’m still confused as to why Pitt was virtually ignored that year, but then he was also ignored for a brilliant turn in The Assassination of Jesse James (and once again, I’m digressing...)

Cate Blanchett and Brad Pitt play the married couple, Richard and Susan Jones. They're a couple with obvious relationship trouble, she gets shot in the neck at the beginning of the film and he spends the duration of the film ensuring that she doesn’t die. Cate and Brad showed us later that they have amazing chemistry (evidence) but I like the idea of them in Babel even if Cate’s role was slight. I’m not sure if the idea of a spin-off (prequel?) that has me interested, after all marriage dramas are nothing inventive at the moment...that being said, what is? It’d be interesting to see them travel that territory again, though.I'd be willing to sit down and watch two hours of Cate and Brad biting each other's head off.

                    

What about you? 

         

Previously:

Meredith Logue and Tom Ripley continue their journey in The Talented Mr. Ripley

Marjorie Mellor before her daughter, Jenny, got her (An) Education

The Spin-off, Season One: Episode 2

It seems each time I start thinking about The Talented Mr. Ripley I get obsessed with writing about it. Watching it yesterday I still think that each member of the main quintet should have walked away with Oscar nominations – but I’m greedy like that. I gave you my pipe dream last week for a prequel about the life of Marjorie Mellor before she became wife to Jack and mother to Jenny and now I’m thinking about another sequel for The Talented Mr. Ripley. As brilliant as Gwyneth Palthrow is (and she really is) I can’t help being interested in Cate’s Meredith Logue whenever she appears on screen and Matt Damon and she have such good chemistry together. Earlier in the week I spoke of the ending and it’s implications for Ripley – a life of loneliness. Yet, what happens after? Does Tom (aka Dickie) ever meet Meredith again? Imagine the sort of film that could be.

Of course, Anthony Minghella is no more – he wrote and directed the actual film, but I’d still like to see Cate and Matt team up for a sequel picking up ten years after the credits rolled. I think Sam Mendes could do a nice job of handling it, even if he’s never done anything quite like that. Who knows what will happen? Perhaps Tom will eventually kill her too, but it’s sort of odd that Cate who seems to work with everybody hasn’t worked with Matt since. Maybe they’d go to another location, who knows? I just know I’d like to see more of Tom Ripley, and the actual book was a series of book so I’m sure there are loads of adventures he could get himself into.

             
Would you be interested in seeing more of Tom Ripley? Who would you put to direct?

Scene On A Sunday: The Aviator

The Aviator is one of those films I wish I had made. It oozes such sophisticated, old Hollywood charm that I find it difficult to resist; and it's not like I want to resist it anyhow. It's so well made, technically and otherwise, that I love to praise it. It was bound to show up here sooner or later, though it's particularly difficult finding just one scene to talk about. But, I'll pick one... A few minutes before this scene actually begins, Howard brings Katharine Hepburn to the Coconut Grove. It's a night out on the town, in theory at least. The scene in question surrounds the arrival of Hughes’ press agent to the table with Errol Flynn (an excellent cameo from Jude Law). Who doesn't love Hollywood banter?

I always love that shot of the irrepressibly happy band. The song Happy Feet really does make you want to get up and dance, even if the lead singer looks a bit manic, but more on that later.

You have to appreciate the attention to set design that occurs here. It's just brilliant to watch.

We see Kate looking sweetly at Hughes before the spell is broken.

Cate looks only slightly like Kate, and yet she is  Kate completely. Sure, it’s like Kate on steroids – but I have a feeling that the real Kate was like Kate on steroids. Cate is very Tracy Lords in her affectations here - imperious, iron maiden and what not.

There comes Mr. Meyer, and isn’t that shot lovely? Sure, it was snubbed a host of other prize but at least the excellent art direction was remembered.

HOWARD: “Kate, this is Johnny Meyer. I suppose you could call him my press agent.”

JOHNNY: “Pleased to meet you. Loved you in Alice Adams.”

KATE: “You’re too kind.”

Kate is so gracious, even when she’s not being gracious. I get the striking feeling that she feels an urge to roll her eyes at Meyers words. (And Cate does look too old for Alice Adams, but I nitpick.)

HOWARD: “I’m sure you know Errol, right?

KATE: “Mr. Flynn, yes.”

I’ve already praised Jude’s work effusively; I really do love him here. As much as I admire DiCaprio I like Jude Law even more – even though he doesn’t do as much work as I would like him to do at the moment. The pairing of him with Cate (even if momentarily) is just a delight. I demand a rematch.

ERROL: “Kate, Kate of the clench-jawed Hepburns. Enchanting as always.”

Jude comes across as such a rake (but a charming one) – which is how he should. He’s the perfect actor to come in and steal the show in under five minutes. Remind me again why this wide (and talented) ensemble lost the SAG award to a film that centred on four thespians?

 

ERROL: “You should use Lux on your hands, by the way. I do.”

If pushed I’d probably call that bit my favourite part of Jude’s. It’s so thoroughly incidental and yet strikingly insensitive. Doesn’t he realise he’s just insinuated that her hands are not soft? What makes it better is Cate’s reaction…there is that half smile - and she looks down, only slightly...and then she ponders, for a moment...

I know most think Cate won her Oscar for being loud and brash, but it’s the softer moments where she says little or nothing that impress me me. Kate (the real one) has been described as a self-conscious beauty and Cate taps into that. She looks regal, but she’s not completely at ease.

I love how she looks across at Howard there. She’s already trying to start the telepathy: get me out of here, I’m an Oscar winner (unlike, Mr. Flynn, ahem).

JOHNNY: “You and Howard ought to cook up a picture. Co-star with Errol. I could sell that in spades. That would be marvellous. Howard?”

While Johnny is giving his lofty ideas (but that would have been a nice movie, though, no?) Errol has gone across to steal a chair from a nearby table – this will be important onwards.

I love the look on the man’s face.

              

Kate, but of course, is not sold on teaming up with Errol. She heads into a lovely bit of in-joke references that I greatly appreciate. It was not match for the entire winner, but Logan's screenplay is poorly underrated. Taut, funny, and even sarcastic at times - especially when Kate is front and centre.

KATE: “I think not. Don’t you read Variety, Mr. Meyer. Well, I’m box-office poison. I’m on the outs, the skids, the doldrums. Washed-up, day-old fish not worth the eating, so they tell me.”

I went a little overboard with the images but with Cate/Kate it’s an obsession. I love physicality of the performance; now she’s evoking memories of Hepburn circa Susan Vance. Certainly, she is not Kate but I still can’t help being invested in the performance. She is so in character, but yet she’s not overly technical about all the character tics.

ERROL: “Hell with them. Hell with them. Soulless pricks to man, right?”

Howard seems completely out of the loop here.

ERROL: “Johnny tells me you’re thinking of doing a Western, of all goddamn things.”

That uncomfortable pause never fails to make me chuckle, even if must try to look for subtext. Is he really deaf?

And don’t those two look lovely together above?

KATE: “Are you making a Western, Howard?”

HOWARD: “Yeah, making a Western. I’m gonna call it The Outlaw.”

JOHNNY: “Yeah, and you know what it’s about? S-E-X. It’s all about S-E-X.

Honestly, isn't Adam Scott just on point here? Sure, we know him for his comedy bit - but not this type of comedy. Why does he spell out the word? His take on the officious grease ball is just another example of the brilliant cast working in superlatives.

HOWARD: “It’s a Western.”

DiCaprio such a good job of making Howard particularly loopy, though he’s never stupid. S

ERROL: “You can’t have fornication in a Western. It isn’t done.”

JOHNNY: “It’s not real sex, it’s movie sex. What Scarface did for the gangster picture, The Outlaw will do for the Western. Put the sex and blood and guts up there on the screen.”

Oh how times have changed, I’m so thinking of Scorsese’s bloody gangsters and Eastwood’s westerns. Apparently you can have fornication anywhere now. Kudos to modernisation. Ha.

The food has been delivered and yet these buffoons are here. I love Kate's over-excitement at the arrival. She's trying to send a message. Obviously

ERROL: “Have you seen my cigarettes?”

Another random bit of line-reading there. Jude is thoroughly in character he’s not even trying - he’s just there being awesome.

KATE: “Don’t mind us.”

You can’t forget her when she’s there – she ensures that. It really must be annoying getting your first date (well second, technically) crashed by a pair of boors.

I like that childish clap from Howard as he gets his dinner…which the waiter specifies.

WAITER: “New York cut steak, 12 peas, bottle of milk with the cap on.”

I will say that dinner looks unappetising to me…and milk?

JOHNNY: “You can’t afford your own cigarettes?”

ERROL: “Jack has all my money.”

KATE: “I hope your food isn’t getting cold at your table somewhere or something.”

JOHNNY: “No, no. We’re here all night. Don’t worry.”

Talk about not being able to take a bint...

There is one of the most insincere smiles – Cate’s so good with the expressions.

All the while Howard is very intent on attacking that steak.

ERROL: “Now, Howard. If you’re seriously talking about putting carnality back on the silver screen, you must swear to let me in on the casting sessions.”

And Errol Flynn in all his smug entitlement dares to take a pea from Howard’s plate. Howard is schizophrenic, we will remember, so the fact that someone's hand is in his plate exasperates him; he tries to hide it, poorly.

That glare from DiCaprio is brilliant.

ERROL: “I have an eye for talent.”

Kate’s look at Howard is another example of her doing so much with so little. She keeps the focus on herself and Howard's mental state even though she’s not leading the scene, and that's not at the forefront at the moment.

Oddly, though, there are still twelve peas remaining…what is Errol eating?

Howard can’t even hear him anymore, he’s so chagrined.

And Kate is perceptive enough to know that all is not well. Although our two crashers are not so quick on the uptake.

JOHNNY: “You ought to give up prancing in tights to be a talent scout.”

I do appreciate the not-so-subtle allusion to Flynn’s Robin Hood.

ERROL: “That prancing paid for my new yacht. You must all come sailing with me.”

JOHNNY: “Catalina. Sounds grand, eh.”

ERROL: “I’ve even managed to coax…the luscious Miss De Havilland and her equally luscious sister to come. Though I fear their mother will insist on coming, to preserve their questionable virtue. We shall assault these twin monuments of pristine Britannic beauty nonetheless.”

Errol really is painted as a crass cad, and you have to love the movie references. So much is going above, though. Cate is once again chanelling Tracy Lords (if looks could kill), and Howard is clearly not enjoying the possibility of Joan and Olivia. He's still to perturbed thinking about this not-quite-missing pea.

ERROL: “What do you say, Howard?”

HOWARD: “Yeah?”

JOHNNY: “Yeah…”

More telepathy from Kate there - do something.

HOWARD: “Yeah…I gotta go. If you'll excuse us, we have... We have to be somewhere.”

And the lady is content. I love how Kate just pops up from that chair.

ERROL: “You are somewhere, Howard, you madman.”

HOWARD: “Somewhere else. Excuse us.”

Great reaction there from Scott. They're all so in character. And then Kate wins a prize for best use of appropriate bitchiness (said with love).

KATE: “Charmed, gentlemen. Do help yourself to the poached pears. I hear they're divine.”

Divine is just what the waiter called them when she placed her order, so we'll assume they are.

JOHNNY: “Well. Howard Hughes, ladies and gentlemen.”

And apparently, he's not the only one slighted. The man whose chair was stolen by Errol returns...

ERROL: “Was that meant for me?”

How childish, though, throwing a rolled-up napkin?

 

KATE: “My hero. God, all that Hollywood talk bores me silly. As if there aren't more important things, like Mussolini. Where are we going, by the way?”

She barely gives herself time to breathe, what a chatterbox she is.

HOWARD: “Do you feel like a little adventure, Ms. Hepburn?”

KATE: “Do your worst, Mr. Hughes.”

But the scene doesn’t end there.

The club drifts into a frenzy with Errol at the centre…and even the very orchestra seems to go wild too.

 I did say that lead singer looked manic.