Scene On A Sunday: Shakespeare in Love

I wasn't planning on posting an episode of Scene on a Sunday today, but I've had this drafted for a while and thought, why not? It's a bit tough coming off the Atonement entry which you all seemed to love because of Yojimbo's many screen captures. Only 12 for this entry. I've expressed my love for Shakespeare in Love before and this short scene is particularly nice. We've seen only a few shots of Paltrow thus far enjoying the plays at the palace. We meet her now for the first time. The shot opens with a gorgeous shot of the house.

 

Shakespeare in Love easily notes the richness of our heroine, and though it's Wessex's reason for marrying her it's never made an issue out of. Of course this is because it's the Elizabethan era and our characters have bigger fish to fry - Shakespearean fish. I just love seeing Paltrow in this mode, though. She's so personable and has such a beautiful lilting voice.

VIOLA: Did you like Proteus or Valentine best? Proteus for speaking. Valentine for looks.

In case we don't already know, she's speaking of The Two Gentlemen of Verona, one of Shakespeare's earlier comedies. It's a fair pice, though nowhere near his best (of course Viola will quote a beautiful soliloquy from it later) but Viola is almost like a "groupie" for Shakespeare and she's so caught up in the "poetry".

NURSE: I liked the dog for laughs.

And on that note can we please discuss the brilliance that is Imelda Staunton here? Why does no one remember her excellent comedic timing here. She's not even "acting" like you'd expect, she's so completely in the character and refuses to play it prosaicly. The relationship between her and Viola is lovely, even if they really are speaking over each other.

VIOLA: Sylvia I did not care for much. His fingers were red from fighting and he spoke like a school boy at lessons.

She's referring, naturally, to the custom of men playing women and her annoyance is palpable. I don't think of Paltrow as particularly physical in her acting but she's acting with her entire body here. Notice how she slumps her shoulders just slightly, so impassioned about something like the injudicious lot of a badly played Sylvia. She really is a fan of "Master" Shakespeare.

VIOLA: Stage love will never be true love while the law of the land has our heroines being played by pipsqueak boys in petticoats

I wish you could hear how she delivers this line. Her stress on the word "boys" is a nice slight touch. Her brilliance here is often forgotten, even  I sometime forget that she really did a fine job. And there's more going on in that shot. Like the Nurse cleaning Viola's ears for her, and the obvious dynamic of the servant/mistress that still manage to attain a personal bond - very Shakespeare. The two will soon have a slight banter about Lord Wessex. Viola of course will have none of the Nurse's suggestion. Marry Lord Wessex? A pox on Wessex!

VIOLA: I shall have poetry in my life.

The words are lovely, but you must give Gwyn credit for pulling off the trueness of the period. And, as always, the Nurse is not far behind to ask her: Like Sylvia and Valentine?

 

VIOLA: No not the artful postures of love. Love that overthrows life. Love like there has never been in a play. I shall have love, or I shall end my days...

NURSE: As a nurse?

Love that portion. viola is so enamoured with the postures of love (even if she doesn't realise) and Staunton is ready to inject wisdowm without being condescending about it. She is, after all, paid help and with almost no life of her own. Yet, she continues to be so devoted to her charge and never sinks into self pity. Her line reading there is precise, but never pitiful.

VIOLA: Oh, but I would be Valentine and Sylvia, too.

Her earnestensss is so infectuous, how can anyone root against this lovely woman?

VIOLA: I would stay asleep my whole life if I could dream myself into a company of players.

I love that shot above, Viola stares out wistfully and she is framed soooo beautifully and Stoppard words read as if they're almost poetry. I choose to end the scene there, even though Viola's poetic words are cut by the Nurse's matter-of-fact "Clean your teeth while you dream then." Such a perfect blend of comedy and olden aged drama. I do love this scene.

Forgotten Characters 2:12: Finale

I like to have my own weird ideas of continuity, so it makes sense that my final entry in Forgotten Characters* will be a continuation of the original entry. So many months ago I covered a performance that I would have given an Oscar nomination to from an excellent 1999 entry. It is weird how one exceptional could manage to have so many excellent – and forgotten performances. I’ve been having this woman on my mind for some time, so it makes sense…

                         
Gwyneth Palthrow in The Talented Mr. Ripley

 As Marge Sherwood

Gwyneth really impressed with that 1998/1999 one-two punch of Viola DeLesseps and Marge Sherwood. It’s also more than a little ironic that she was once again in direct contention with a certain Ms. Blanchett. Marge plays the girlfriend to Dickie – Jude Law in a performance for the ages. When the duplicitous Tom Ripley wheedled himself into the duo he becomes a contented confidante to both Dickie and Marge and it’s the portion of the performance where Palthrow thrives. With it’s obvious feeling of overt darkness in the latter portion, there’s something oddly enticing about the film’s first half and Gwyneth is a large part of that. It’s easy to think she’s doing too little but it’s just her character of Marge (an excellent one, I might add). She manages to make Marge’s inclination to Tom unromantic and believable and perhaps it’s this reason that her performance in the second half doesn’t hold up quite as excellently.

The only false note I can find in the performance is her hysterical confrontation of Ripley towards the film’s end which is not exactly her fault – it’s also Minghella’s only false note, and I forgive her for it nonetheless because she’s so willing to portray Marge as self-deprecating it ends up working even when it shouldn’t. Like Jose, I hope that Palthrow’s familial duties eventually subside so she can return to the big screen. She’s not given enough credit for her natural cadence and affability which is something that’s decidedly difficult to forge. Of course with Jude and Matt giving performances of their lifetimes it’s not difficult to forget Gwyneth (and her psychological doppelganger) but it doesn’t hurt to take a few moments of your time to recall her brilliance. Like her costar, she would have rounded out my Supporting Actress line-up that year with Jolie, Bonham Carter and either Keener or Diaz. But, oh well, such is life.

                   
*as the post title implies, Forgotten Characters will be in recess for the next few months. Next week I’ll debut a new feature.
  
Did you remember Gwyneth’s subtle performance? Or were you too caught up in the main duo?
            
Forgotten Characters: Season 1
Blanchett in The Talented Mr. Ripley
Richardson in The Hours
Hawke in Training Day
Monroe in All About Eve
Castle in The Lion in Winter
Bean in The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Rings

Payne in Walk the Line
     

Forgotten Characters: Season 2
Mulligan in Pride & Prejudice
Law in The Aviator
Poehler in Mean Girls
Firth in The English Patient
Bates in Revolutionary Road
Farmiga in The Departed
Richardson in Harry Potter & the Goblet of Fire
Noni Rose in Dreamgirls
Beymer, Tamblyn et al in West Side  Story
Ryan in Changeling
Friend in Pride & Prejudice

"Can you love a fool?"

"Can you love a player?"

Apparently, the answer is yes on both counts.

Bigger, Faster, More…

…all the things this movie wants to do…all the things this post is not….

          

Iron Man has always been rooted its cynical take on the contemporary world – contemporary America to be exact. It’s steeped in its glitz, the glamour, cheap thrills. The first film toed that line between decadence and intelligence that made it less of a by-the-book “superhero” movie and something not necessarily better, but more original. When watching Iron Man 2 my mind immediately went to the other sequel I saw recently. Sure, it’s for an entirely different audience but in its way Nanny McPhee routine “saving” of children is an incarnation of Downey Jr’s superhero. It’s obvious though, Thompson’s tale improves on the original… Iron Man 2.

                       

I can’t explain how it’s taking me so long to give my thoughts on this; I guess the general apathy I feel towards doesn’t help much. I have to purge, so on with the words.  

It’s an action flick, and in that realm I suppose Favreau feels the duty to give his audience what they want – endless thrills. The thing is, the film starts out for thirty minutes without trying to give us any outlandish, or obvious thrills and this is where it works the best. Sure, Stark is still something of a prick, but Downey Jr. can pull that off. And sure Palthrow’s Pepper continues to be written as little more than a caricature making her work even harder, but she can handle it. You’d think that with a fairly good starting it’d be off to a good film, but no – false alarm. Moreover, I can’t even be certain why, but I have my ideas. It’s as if Theroux thinks that by injecting the film with character after character, and plot point after plot point he’s going to make the film better. But we can’t build any one character in such a muddle. The film seems to be lacking any significant plot, even as I’m well aware that there’s quite a lot going on. Stark has revealed he’s Iron Man, he’s dying, Pepper is the new CEO of the Company, he’s being pressured to turn over his “weapons”, Ivan Vanko wants to kill him, so does Justin Hammer, a new assistant is more than the benign girl Stark believes her to be, oh and his father also arrives from beyond the grave to order words of wisdom. Did I miss anything? In this way Iron Man 2 reminds me of a huge roll of cotton candy, eye catching and ostensibly sweet but  ultimately unfulfilling (and unhealthy too). But it’s not a bad film….

Iron Man 2 reminds me of Alice in Wonderland - but whereas Alice in Wonderland despite it’s obvious poorness at times, stays on point and features excellent performances from Bonham Carter and Anne Hathaway Iron Man 2 doesn’t succeed as much. Downey Jr. charms wear thin eventually and Palthrow is wasted, even if Pepper has an ostensibly large role. Samuel Jackson, Scarlett Johansson and even the much feted Mickey Rourke add nothing substantial to the film – not because they’re not trying but because no one seems sure what exactly they’re supposed to be offering. I’m not mad at it, though, because it does all it does with honesty at least, and truthfully I hope it makes all the money it can. But really, I’m neither here nor there on it…which is shame considering on all that could have been…

                             

C+