Showing posts with label Heavenly Creatures. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Heavenly Creatures. Show all posts

Wednesday, 27 April 2011

Last week I gave a listing of films with duo-male leads, and this week it’s time for the women. There are a number of films which depend on strong female ensembles - The Hours, Hannah & Her Sisters, Howards End, Sense & Sensibility, but in each there’s always one player who takes precedence - if they were eligible you know who I'd vote for, right? For me, these five films below do a fine job of paying equal attention to both participants in the duo making for some strong girl on girl action. Interpret that as you will.
               
Melanie Lynskey and Kate Winslet in Heavenly Creatures (1994)
I know it subverts the entire film’s existence as a vehicle for Pauline’s development, but for me Heavenly Creatures doesn’t really begin until Juliet appears on screen. Lynskey and Winslet are two starkly different actresses, which allows them to do such good work opposite each other – added to their youth which makes their performances less pretentious than older actors might have played it. As far as screen-time goes, Juliet is a supporting player – but I can’t think of this one in any other way than as one with c0-leads.

Shirley MacLaine and Debra Winger in Terms of Endearment (1983)
I, with my high sense of cynicism, like to think of the Oscar win for Terms of Endearment as the most bogus picture win of the eighties – which is saying something considering the slate of winners that decade. The film itself doesn’t particularly hamper the mother and daughter bond of MacLaine and Winger, though a significant amount of it develops with them away from each other. At her best I’d support MacLaine’s win, though there are times I side with Winger. Either way, it’s a fine alliance.

Annette Bening and Julianne Moore in The Kids Are All Right (2010)
There’s little doubt in my mind that The Kids Are Right worked so well because of the alliance of Bening and Moore. It was the first thing that drew my interest to the project, and the chemistry they maintained throughout was what kept me interested in it long after. It’s not just because they’re playing lovers, there’s a striking rapport between them – even as actors (just watch them at the Golden Globes) and it’s that modulation which the film depends on.

Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon in Thelma & Louise (1991)
I feel a bit ridiculous admitting this, but for a long time I couldn’t warm up to Jodie Foster’s work in The Silence of the Lambs because I resented her winning Oscars not only over the Countess de Mereteiul but over one of the strongest female duos – Thelma and Louise. Excessive parodying has turned this into something of a cliché – but the redheaded twosome of Sarandon and Davis is a highpoint of the nineties. Of the five pairs on the list, I don’t think any complements each other as well as they did, but Sarandon has a way of working well with her women (even in lesser fare.)

Anne Baxter and Bette Davis in All About Eve (1950)
There are so many reasons that this one’s a classic. What ii find most interesting about All About Eve when it comes to the duo lead front is the fact that both Bette and Anne have brilliant scenes opposite each other, and on their own and yet the film still manages to foster excellent supporting roles for Celeste Holme and George Sanders (among others). Like with Amadeus last week, I can’t choose between Eve and Margot. Both women are legends of classic cinema, and both offer up legendary performances.
           
Do you think these five duos have evenly matched players? Which is your favourite? Who’s missing?

Wednesday, 6 April 2011

Heavenly Creatures is an especially succinct film (especially for a quasi-biopic) clocking in at just about 100 minutes. What makes it so special, though, is how saturated with different themes it is and for me it’s the power and implicit danger to be found in imagination that always me thinking when the credits role. I was one of those children who grew up allowed to watch even the goriest of films, so I was Heavenly Creatures well before I was into my teens. The ever looming figure of Diello was a constant source of terror for me the first time I saw it and while re-watching it this week, Diello remains as the most visceral source of terror in the film and Jackson’s decisions to mark the alternate universe with clay figures instead of actors always makes me ruminate.
                 
The first shot of Diello is so incidental as the bedridden Juliet makes him in the hospital. It’s all about perspective, and there’s little terror to be found in something so small and unanimated. Even that close-up of the “toy” is hardly appalling....and yet...
                   
And it’s such a marked difference from Diello’s next appearance, less than ten minutes later when the priest arrives to “deliver” Juliet. His image is obscured by the priest, and yet it’s terrifying. 
 
Pretending that your toys are real is one thing, but having them actually get up and do is something completely different. They’re miles apart but I always think of this arc in conjunction with that old movie The Indian in the Cupboard which exists as a fine example of childhood fantasy where a child’s toys become corporeal; and I often wondered how we would really react to seeing our toys reveal themselves with humanistic traits to us.
           
Even though that baleful image of Diello is Juliet’s projection, but it never fails to shock me – even now that I’m all grown up, sort of. It underscores the whole issue of perspective, really, which is something the film touches on effectively. It’s one thing for us to create imaginary worlds, children are so constantly playing “house” with their toys – pretending they’re real, even some in their teens but we take comfort in the fact that these things can’t really happen which is why my favourite shot of the film always haunts me.
It goes to show that my favourite shot of the film is also the one I find most horrific, and there really is little that’s expressly horrific about the shot of the clay figures in the throes of passion, but never before has lovemaking seemed so menacing. Which makes me return to my question: why clay? Had Jackson realised the imaginary world as if it were real this shot would have none of its profundity but it marks – for me – the film’s strongest theme. As much as we try to immerse ourselves, there’s something significantly grotesque about forcing imaginary things to be real. It’s a bit of a stretch, but it makes me think of the Tennyson poem “The Lady of Shallot” – when the woman in the tower, indicative of the artist in the imaginary world, goes down into the real world she’s destroyed – the two can’t mix. And it’s the same with the clay figures. The act of sex seems almost like an explicitly human which only underscores the unnaturalness of the image, before they were strange....but now they just seem particularly disturbing. There’s something distinctly awry in the images which their realisation in clay emphasises. It’s a brilliant decision on Jackson’s part, he’s always been a visual director and the decision here is not just aesthetically based it highlights one of the film’s more profound themes – the dichotomy between illusion and reality.
             
This is a part of Nathaniel's series Hit Me With Your Best Shot.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
 

FREE HOT VIDEO | HOT GIRL GALERRY