Sister, My Sister

Tags

1990's, Crime, Historical Drama, Jodhi May, Joely Richardson, Julie Walters, Nancy Meckler, Psychological Drama, Sister My Sister, Sophie Thursfield

Inspired by the true life case of two maid sisters in 1930’s France who brutally murdered their employer and her daughter, Sister, My Sister makes for rather disturbing but intriguing viewing like a cross between a period study on class and a darkly historical crime drama. Headed by a fine quartet of performances, be prepared for both shock and horror as the story takes you to some uncomfortable places. 

It’s 1932 in Le Mans, France and Léa Papin( Jodhi May) comes from a convent to work as a maid for stern and stuffy Madame Danzard( Julie Walters) and her slovenly daughter Isabelle(Sophie Thursfield). She has gotten the job on the recommendation of her older sister Christine( Joely Richardson), who has worked in the household for a while. The sisters haven’t seen each other in years and are glad to finally be together with the estranged other. Neither group of women speaks to the other, much in the way that a bourgeoisie household works where people know their place and don’t deviate from tradition. Christine and Léa share a room upstairs and a bed, their workload is such that their main day off is a Sunday until 4 o’clock. Out of the sisters, Christine is the dominant sibling with underlying fury, while Léa is ever so eager to please and green in a lot of matters.Though the sisters are close, we see after they visit their mother that we never see, but know favours over Christine and takes a cut of their wages, that their past is very troubled. Her mother’s actions infuriate the temperamental and controlling Christine, who feels the sting of her mother’s abandonment years before to a convent and her deep devotion to her sister. Despite a jealousy towards her younger sister, the cloistered environment in their room and isolation from outside gives way to feelings of love far beyond just sisterly affection. Madame Danzard is rather oblivious to the attraction going on under her nose and is more interested with how well they are as obedient maids for her and her daughter. Her daughter Isabelle is a lady of not much in the way of prospects due to her sullen demeanour and lack of effort in appearance, though Madame insists and brow eats her over searching for a husband to secure her future. With the unhealthy attachment burgeoning between the sisters upstairs, the maid duties carried out by them begins to slip and Madame Danzard, with her beady eyes and vicious tongue, makes it known that she isn’t happy with them. Madame’s initial delight at getting two maids for nearly the price of one melts away to reveal a picky, vindictive woman who goes out of her way to humiliate her servants. Tensions start to boil over as the relationship between the sisters intensifies and Madame becomes more petty and cruel. Finally after nearly a year of suspicion and mounting tensions, everything comes to a head with a savagely, violent act that shatters the house.

Skilled director Nancy Meckler crafts a very claustrophobic and insular atmosphere of repressed emotions and a feeling on inequality amidst the four women, busting taboos too on the topic of incest between sisters. Meckler clearly knows what she is doing because she hooks you from the opening frame with the prospect of mystery, horror and drama with psychological overtones permeating the relationships explored. Sister, My Sister is in effect a chamber piece as it really only features four characters and all are female. A male photographer is heard speaking yet never seen by the audience, making us pay special attention to the ladies at the heart of this twisted yet grimly fascinating film. Screenwriter Wendy Kesselman knows the power of shared silences and how they translate into the struggle of class within the doomed house. They also highlight how not communicating due to the roles that society has doled out to these women can give rise to resentment and much misunderstanding, in this case of a deadly and vicious kind. I don’t believe the film condones the actions of the Papin sisters, rather Sister, My Sister speculates on what may have lead them to this act and does so with intrigue. A little more detail on certain points in the story might have been beneficial, but the impact of this haunting film more than makes up for quibbles. The cloistered environment transports to the viewer as the film rarely leaves the confines of Madame’s home; further sealing the sisters away from reality and letting them retreat into the taboo world of incest. The bedroom scenes between Christine and Léa are unusual and bathed in a bright, almost angelic light, suggesting that their closeness is a result of repression from being in a convent and that they have found an uncomfortably codependent relationship that goes beyond what is right and wrong. Yet they can’t quite see that and have become that isolated that they are above it, making the bright light of the scenes both ironic(given the murders they commit) and starkly noticeable in a film that’s largely quite dark in terms of visual style. Many scenes don’t have music, the main sound being either a clock ticking away or a tap dripping, allowing when music does appear to have atmospheric impact following pronounced silences and uncomfortable pauses.

What really anchors this already interesting and darkly enticing film is the quartet of lead performances. Joely Richardson dominates as the dutiful yet stifled and resentful Christine. Richardson’s faces burns with alarming and disquieting hate that at first is subtle, then blows up in powerful and shocking ways. It’s a credit to Richardson that we are enthralled by this woman who is coiled and just about to snap emotionally owing to not being able to control love, not knowing when to stop and childhood scars that haven’t gone. Jodhi May matches her as the initially timid Léa, who’ll do anything to please but is so easily lead that she can’t help but feel a bit of rebellious streak in the presence of her sister. May has this feeling of innocence to her, with her youthful face and sympathetic eyes, that could just as quickly turn to despair and dangerous once pushed. Both actresses work spectacularly together, possessing a quivering desire, unspoken bond, shared paranoia and feelings that may come spilling out in unexpected ways if they aren’t careful. Julie Walters, who for me never disappoints, shows off her versatility in convincing portraying a petty, vicious and mean-spirited lady who likes everything just so and is clearly a product of her snooty upbringing. Walters covers the part with prim manners and even a bit of humour, but she gets to the heart of this woman who believes she’s above everyone and won’t tolerate insubordination of any kind. Sophie Thursfield is given probably the most underdeveloped role, yet injects what she can into it. She’s mainly required to be the punching bag for her cruel mother but also strangely close to such a horrible woman. The relationship between Christine and Léa may be disturbing , but the one between Madame Danzard and Isabelle is just as alarming in how unhealthy the heaps of abuse Madame throws on her daughter are, who is then bemused, followed by being a figure of loyalty like a servile dog. 

A haunting movie of repression, jealousy and class struggles, Sister, My Sister will no doubt leave you reeling and disturbed by its content that is grimly rendered but very intriguing to watch. 

Viceroy’s House

Tags

2010's, Gillian Anderson, Gurinder Chadha, Historical Drama, Hugh Bonneville, Huma Qureshi, Manish Dayal, Michael Gambon, Om Puri, Simon Callow, Viceroy's House

Film Title

Viceroy’s House

Director

Gurinder Chadha

Starring

• Hugh Bonneville as Lord Louis Mountbatten
• Gillian Anderson as Lady Edwina Mountbatten
• Manish Dayal as Jeet
• Huma Qureshi as Aali
• Michael Gambon as Hastings Ismay
• Simon Callow as Cyril Radcliffe
• Om Puri as Ali

A bittersweet movie that takes on the final months of British rule in India and the following Partition, Viceroy’s House greatly finds complexity and emotion in what is undoubtedly a difficult part of history to present.

The year is 1947 and Lord Louis Mountbatten has been made Viceroy of India. He, along with his wife Edwina and daughter Pamela, make their way to the Viceroy’s House in Delhi where they will live. Mountbatten is to be the last Viceroy and is charged with overseeing the handing back of India from British rule. This is going to be far from a straightforward task as political issues and opposing stances on what should happen to India. The chief thing to  consider is whether India should be independent and still one nation or the move for Partition and the creation of Pakistan. Meanwhile, downstairs a star-crossed love story is developing between newly arrived valet Jeet and the pretty Aalia. Their union is complex due to the fact that he is Hindu and she is Muslim, though Jeet wants to overcome the odds and be with her. Aalia doesn’t want to disappoint her blind father who has already got a husband in mind for her, but she finds it difficult given her feelings. Back upstairs, and although he has to remain neutral over his opinion in what will happen, with oppositions appearing in what he sees, Mountbatten edges towards the idea of Partition. Yet with violence breaking out across India from different factions things come to a head as the prospect of Partition looms large.

At the helm of this movie is director Gurinder Chadha, who manages to tackle a very touchy subject and not make everything look all rosy. Viceroy’s House is obviously personal to Gurinder Chadha, as we find out in the credits that she had relatives who survived the events following Partition. Her greatest skill is how she presents how difficult and conflicted the process of change was; it was far from easy for anyone involved in it. There’s a refreshing bluntness to her movie that takes the time of the British Raj and views it through a more critical angle than most historical dramas. There’s no real romanticising of the time, instead it discovers more darkness and machinations than that. Yes it can seem like a more exotic version of Downton Abbey in the early stages( which to be honest isn’t a bad thing at all) but Viceroy’s House has much bigger fish to fry in its running time. The movie is careful not to demonize either the side that wanted to leave and form Pakistan and those who wanted Indpendent India. That’s what makes it interesting, there is no easy or straightforward answer to it all. The love story and various parts may have benefited from some expansion as the story it takes on is big and important on a lot of levels. The romance angle drags the film down somewhat, but there’s still some small virtues to be had despite the melodramatic treatment of this chapter. But by and large, Viceroy’s House succeeds in what it sets out to do. I’ve read some quibble that the film doesn’t quite play to the facts and simplifies events( I am no expert on the topic, so can’t really judge how soundly truthful the movie is), but even so it is very gripping viewing. On a visual level, this is a movie where the words sumptuous and gorgeous come out.

Hugh Bonneville is on familiar but fine ground as Lord Mountbatten. He has a way with projecting an air of dignity and class, tempered with uncertainty about the future. Mountbatten, in this incarnation is painted as a man attempting to make things as peaceful as possible but struggling with the inevitable fall out. Supporting him is a great Gillian Anderson as his open-minded wife, the strong woman behind the man. She exudes a witty yet caring demeanor that is a breath of fresh air in a time of unrest and Anderson rises to playing the part beautifully. Despite their story being the thing that sags in Viceroy’s House, Manish Dayal and Huma Qureshi still have a nice rapport with one another. Reliable British thespians Michael Gambon and Simon Callow are on hand for great supporting roles. Om Puri, in one of his last film appearances, projects a quiet sense of worth and heart despite having suffered in his life.

A movie that is deeply felt, despite a few shortcomings, Viceroy’s House dramatises it’s events in manner that thankfully doesn’t sweeten or brighten anything for the audience. Rather, it strives and largely succeeds at discovering depth in a time in history that has been somewhat ignored on screen and presented with both effectiveness and bluntness.

Ever After

Tags

1990's, Andy Tennant, Anjelica Huston, Dougray Scott, Drama, Drew Barrymore, Ever After, Historical Drama, Jeanne Moreau, Judy Parfitt, Megan Dodds, Melanie Lynskey, Patrick Godfrey, Romance, Timothy West

Film Title

Ever After

Director

Andy Tennant

Starring

• Drew Barrymore as Danielle de Barbarac
• Anjelica Huston as Baroness Rodmilla de Ghent
• Dougray Scott as Prince Henry
• Megan Dodds as Marguerite
• Melanie Lynskey as Jacqueline
• Timothy West as King Francis
• Judy Parfitt as Queen Marie
• Patrick Godfrey as Leonardo da Vinci
• Jeanne Moreau as Grand Dame

The Cinderella story is given a lively and entertaining retelling, with a fresh historical fiction slant and modern view of the heroine. Ever After boasts heart and good humour, along with some unexpected touches that give the often told story a new coat of shiny paint.

In Renaissance France, little Danielle de Barbarac lives with her caring father. She never knew her late mother and has been raised with kindness by her father on his farming estate. Her father marries the Baroness Rodmilla de Ghent, who comes with her two daughters Marguerite and Jacqueline. Tragedy strikes when Danielle’s father dies following a heart attack and the nastiness of the Baroness really emerges. Years later, Danielle has grown into a beautiful young woman who has been reduced to a life of servitude under her stepmother. Jacqueline is nice to Danielle, but often stays quiet as she is frightened of her mother. The estate has fallen into ruin, while most of the servants have been cruelly sold and Rodmilla frequently spends money she hasn’t got trying to afford a life of luxury she thinks she’s entitled too. Though frequently mistreated by her stepmother and spiteful Marguerite , her spirited demeanor and feisty personality provide her with the right temperament to not simply be a doormat for others. Danielle is no ones fool and is a girl who will speak her mind when she’s pushed too far. One day, she encounters a must unexpected visitor; the dashing Prince Henry. He is attempting to evade his Royal protocol of an arranged marriage and tussles with Danielle when he tries to steal her father’s horse. He offers her payment if she remains silent about seeing him. This fleeting meeting doesn’t mean much to either at first, but it sets up that they will soon meet under more different circumstances. Shortly after, using the money he gave her, Danielle attempts to buy back a servant that her stepmother sold. Dressing up in her mother’s prized dress, Danielle once again meets Henry, who slowly becomes more curious about her. Her passionate manner stirs something within Henry and Danielle too develops feelings, even though he believes she is a member of nobility. Meanwhile, Rodmilla is plotting a way back into court and hearing that Prince Henry is expected to find a wife, sees snotty Marguerite as her ticket to prominence again. As Henry and Danielle fall further into love and she wears down his snobby attitude, complications arise with Danielle feeling guilty about having to hide her true identity. Add to this the presence of wise Leonardo da Vinci, who acts as something of a guardian angel, and it’s about to get fun and adventurous.

When doing an adaptation of a well-known story, things can go either way. You can be overly traditional or go down a fresh path. Ever After takes the latter road, though it manages to still reference the original source material. Andy Tennant strikes a nice, sprightly balance with the two throughout Ever After. The magical fantasy of other versions is stripped away to focus on the budding romance and spirit of the heroine. There are still touches of tradition to be found( the masked ball and the glass slipper) but everything else discovers a fresh and vibrant take on the material and is all the better for it. framing device employed here. In it, we witness an old duchess telling the ‘real story’ of Cinderella to The Brothers Grimm. Through this usage, we get an old storybook feeling but one that is more fun and modern than a lot of other versions. The fact that it presents the story as being a legend is also a cause to like Ever After, further placing it as one of the most interesting interpretations of the tale. The romance is heightened in Ever After, finding time to develop Danielle and Henry as gradual lovers with distinct personalities. Their encounters have a charm that reminded me of an old screwball comedy, with them running into one another and not quite knowing what to make of the other in the confusion. Danielle is especially well written and defined, coming across as resourceful, kind and full of spirit. Her primary goal isn’t to discover a prince( though romance obviously does figure into things) but to help those closest to her. It is definitely the most independent and tomboyish version of Cinderella there is and for that, one of my favourites. There are languors in the pacing in patches, but the irreverent and playful events in the film more than compensate in their effectiveness. The visual style is breathtaking; largely consisting of a gilded sheen that ties in with the setting and the content on display. The location work is as sumptuous as the elegant costume design on show. And of course, the film wouldn’t be the same without its wistful and lively score to keep things generously fun and engaging.

Drew Barrymore makes for a beautifully spirited and reliable heroine in the form of Danielle. Far removed from the sometimes passive and needing a man to save her incarnations of the Cinderella, Barrymore deftly translates a feisty toughness and genuine sympathy in the part. Danielle is very much a modern woman in an old-time, a strength that the luminous Barrymore plays to and delivers on with her likable charm and clever wits. Anjelica Huston is delightfully malicious and conniving as the stepmother, who dishes out biting remarks and executes underhand sneakiness like a pro. You really can see that Huston is having a ball being so wicked and even a little seductive to. Such diva like personality and slyness is ideal and splendidly conveyed by the fine Anjelica Huston. Dougray Scott is given more to do than most with the Prince Charming part. Scott plays the snobbish yet searching Henry with just the right amount of charm, restlessness and humour that causes him to spark with Danielle. And the gentle, bristling and growing chemistry between him and Barrymore is a lovely sight to witness. Megan Dodds is a bratty and selfish presence as the quite nasty stepsister, while Melanie Lynskey sweetly plays the kinder sibling. Humour and great support comes courtesy of Timothy West and Judy Parfitt, who star as the king and queen who can’t quite seem to work out their son. And special mention must go to Patrick Godfrey’s work as Leonardo da Vinci, whose inspiring speeches and pushes for romance helps Danielle and Henry get closer. The appearance of Jeanne Moreau as the narrator adds immense class and room to reflect, as her voice is so engaging and full of deep wisdom.

A lovingly rendered and fun take on a classic story, Ever After springs to life with both intelligence and care. It all contributes something strikingly modern film with a great protagonist who is anything but a damsel.

The Scarlet Empress

Tags

1930's, Historical Drama, John Lodge, Josef von Sternberg, Louise Dresser, Marlene Dietrich, Sam Jaffe, The Scarlet Empress

Film Title

The Scarlet Empress

Director

Josef von Sternberg

Starring

• Marlene Dietrich as Princess Sophia/Catherine the Great
• Sam Jaffe as Grand Duke Peter
• John Lodge as Count Alexei
• Louise Dresser as Empress Elizabeth

An exotic, visually bursting at the seams movie that loosely follows how Catherine the Great became that very person of majesty, The Scarlet Empress has to be one of the most unusual and ornate movies of the 30’s. Which doesn’t come as a surprise because Josef von Sternberg is behind the camera and his favourite subject of Marlene Dietrich is shown in an almost fetishistic way that makes the whole package a spectacle and then some.

It is the 18th Century: Sophia is a German princess who is selected to marry Grand Duke Peter of Russia. Peter is the heir to the throne and nephew of the commanding current Empress Elizabeth, whose idea it is to marry her nephew to this girl in the hope that she can provide a son who will one day rule. The young Sophia is a sweet-natured and innocent young girl who sees this as her duty to perform. She is escorted to Russia by the darkly handsome Count Alexei, who is struck by her beauty and quickly falls for her. Upon arrival in Russia, the romantic Sophia discovers that her betrothed is nothing more than a slithering imbecile and she has to change her name to Catherine. And matters don’t much improve once she is married as the domineering Empress Elizabeth pressures the girl to produce an heir as quickly as possible. The newly renamed Catherine frequently clashes with the Empress and though innocent, she starts to rebel against order. In this, she finds excitement with Alexei, as well as other men in the army. When the Empress dies, the drooling and malevolent Paul becomes ruler and sets about his duties with tyranny. Meanwhile, having slowly become quietly intelligent and able to use her allure to her advantage, Catherine evolves into a calculating and ambitious woman, who eventually strikes and seizes the throne for herself.

Historians will obviously take issue with the presentation of events here as they are romanticized to a high degree, but I don’t believe the intention of the film was to produce something of indisputable historical fact. I think the overall presentation of The Scarlet Empress was to chart the transformative journey that Catherine took and of course to show off the luxurious detail and decadence, which Von Sternberg orchestrates with Svengali like precision and command. And when I say detail, man is this movie packed to the ceiling with a supernatural level of abundance that refuses to leave. Josef von Sternberg paints the Russian court as a phantasmagorical and almost logic-defying place of scandal and pressures. Darkness is never far, as visualized through the persistent shots of grotesque gargoyles and emaciated frescoes. Here is someone who doesn’t need you to feel credence towards what he displays, as he is drawing things through his expressionistic view. The director is clearly firing on all cylinders by utilizing a high level of techniques, from montages to overlapping shots, his detailed hands are never that far from the audience’s view. It’s like stepping into another world and it all feels rather mystical, something this particular reviewer enjoyed immensely. One of the best examples is the wedding dinner. In the scene, we are shown a gluttonous banquet as the camera surveys the residence, occasionally stopping to pick up on Catherine. The level of grotesque decadence is tangible and it enables von Sternberg to indulge in a most unusual spectacle of cinema at the height of fevered exoticism. The film covers a lot of ground and it does cram a hell of a lot into its running time; this sometimes making the venture a bit uneven and occasionally ponderous. Yet the sheer amount of frenzied excess is more than enough reason to view this film for lovers of striking cinema. The Scarlet Empress could almost play as a silent film and still have an impact, especially as it has intertitles that carry the plot on and the thundering score that you would expect to back up the strange happenings and demented display. Though saying this, the dialogue for the time is pretty suggestive and has a certain naughty value to it, that gets you to ponder how some of it made it past the censors.

Marlene Dietrich never looked more beautiful or aloof as she does here in the role of the changing member of royalty. While the camera is in love with her and the main focus of the film is for Josef von Sternberg to circle and display the magnetic Dietrich, she also contributes a finely tuned performances among the excess. Morphing from a naive innocent to powerful seductress with her eye on power in a subtle yet expressive way, Marlene Dietrich holds the attentions with her spellbinding impact and unmatched aura of glamour. Sam Jaffe is scarily effective as the idiotic and very mad Peter; I will admit to shivering quite a few times watching his character sneak around the castle with his eyes ablaze with insanity. John Lodge, though a little flat, cuts a dashing figure as the nobleman entranced by Catherine, while stealing the supporting honors is Louise Dresser on bolshie form as the possessive and much angered Empress.

Lush in the extreme and stylish with a capital S, The Scarlet Empress won’t be too everyone’s taste because of its many excesses. But as an example of visual cinema at its most evocative and fruitful, it can’t be missed.

Marie Antoinette

Tags

2000's, Asia Argento, Biopic, Historical Drama, Jason Schwartzman, Judy Davis, Kirsten Dunst, Marianne Faithfull, Marie Antoinette, Rip Torn, Rose Byrne, Sofia Coppola, Steve Coogan

Film Title

Marie Antoinette

Director

Sofia Coppola

Cast

• Kirsten Dunst as Marie Antoinette
• Jason Schwartzman as Louis XVI of France
• Judy Davis as Comtesse Anne de Noailles
• Steve Coogan as Florimond Claude
• Rip Torn as Louis XV of France
• Rose Byrne as Yolande de Polastron
• Asia Argento as Madame du Barry
• Marianne Faithfull as Empress Maria Theresa

Sofia Coppola’s third picture, loosely based on the life of the notorious French queen, is not the average historical drama/biopic we are used to seeing. If it’s cold hard facts you are looking for, turn away now as this takes liberties with history. But if you can accept the film as an MTV style, rock and roll story of a young girl stuck within the alienating boundaries of monarchy and pressure, then you may enjoy this sympathetic, visually sumptuous and ambitious account of the much debated Queen and her life.

At the beginning of the film the year being 1768, we are introduced to Marie Antoinette. She is the 14-year-old daughter of Empress Maria Theresa of Austria and is charming, beautiful and naive. She is selected by her mother to marry the Dauphin, who will later become King Louis XVI, in an attempt to form an alliance between Austria and France. The young girl travels to France and meets the current king, Louis XV. After her marriage to Louis the Dauphin, who is nervous and not at all intimate with her, she is encouraged by those around her to produce an heir. This proves hard for Marie as there is hardly any passion within her union to Louis.The naive Marie is further alienated by her courtiers for being Austrian and for the fact that she hasn’t produce an heir yet. This leads to her feeling trapped and lonely within the many rules and customs of Versailles that she frequently dismisses as ridiculous . To ease her loneliness, she begins to spend large sums of money on fashion, gambling and throwing lavish parties.  This or so we are led to believe is one of the many reasons that the French people revolted against the monarchy and ultimately led to her downfall.

The first thing to note when watching the film is the visual appeal, which can’t be faulted. Making stunning use of Versailles, we are shown the lavish and equally decadent side to Marie’s lifestyle. Versailles, in the hands of Coppola almost becomes a pre-revolution high school, complete with gossip around every corner and scandal at every door. Differing from the conventional classical music of period pieces, Coppola lets loose with a soundtrack of 70’s and 80’s anthems, the results of which are sometimes interesting and other times intrusive to the narrative. Sofia Coppola’s script paints an interesting portrait of the controversial Marie, this time showing us a misunderstood young girl trapped within her new lifestyle whose choices incurred the wrath of many. I personally found this account an interesting one, there also were a few times in which events could have been expanded, but on the whole it was a curious spectacle nonetheless. One thing that can’t be faulted is Kirsten Dunst’s expressive portrayal of the eponymous queen. She captures the skittish, carefree and naive side to her whilst revealing a melancholy uncertainty arising from her loneliness and alienation. Jason Schwartzman is a hoot as Louis XVI who doesn’t often see the attractiveness of his bride and is initially unable to feel intimacy with her. Judy Davis ably stars as the lady in waiting who scolds Marie for her carefree attitude when it comes to the traditions of the French court. Rose Byrne adds a comedic side to the film as the money spending best friend of Marie who is one of the few people who amuses her in her life. In a brief but memorable role, Marianne Faithfull is icily imperious as the Empress who knows exactly what she wants. Look out for Steve Coogan as a witty diplomat, a stately Rip Torn as the ailing Louis XV and Asia Argento, delightfully sultry as the dishonorable mistress of the king.

I often thing that Marie Antoinette gets a lot of dissent because of its modern ideas and contemporary casting. But if you can handle a slightly revamped film that paints an original portrait of the monarch in question, Sofia Coppola’s ambitious Marie Antoinette may be the film you’re looking for. Yes it may have its flaws, but then again, history lessons where never as interesting and original as this.