AMMONITE

Kate Winslet     Saoirse Ronan     James McArdle

     A film about identities—perceived, altered, and evolving across time.  We see two women thrown together by outside forces, one naïve and entitled and one jaded, expecting nothing from anyone.  They couldn’t be farther apart; yet because of circumstances and the blooming curiosity of one of them, they are drawn to one another.  But that’s not the whole story.

     Mary (Winslet) is a paleontologist denigrated by men in the profession, even though she has earned a reputation for discovering many valuable fossils. Charming Roderick Murchison (McArdle) comes seeking her out to “learn” from her and participate in her work. She is only nominally interested, and endures his presence with only a modicum of patience.  And, oh, by the way, he has a wife Charlotte (Ronan) who is ailing and not able to accompany him on his scientific forays. Wouldn’t Mary be willing to care for her, take her along on her daily visits to the shore in his absence? She would be paid handsomely.

     A number of scenes show very clearly how subjugated women were in the 19^thCentury.  They tended to follow orders with no sense of being able to refuse.  In her role of supporting her aging mother and achieving some respect in her work, Mary has achieved a certain degree of both self- efficacy and resignation in the face of power.  But she agrees to allow Charlotte to stay with her and her mother.

     We will see that scenario play out by two of our best actors in moviedom.  Kate Winslet has made at least a dozen movies for which she was nominated for major awards since the mid-90’s.  She was awarded an Oscar for The Reader.  About twenty years her junior, Saoirse Ronan seems on the same path toward high regard, being nominated by major awards for five of her six films in the 2,000’s.  The two pair together extremely well in Ammonite, each bringing the best of her talents in portraying complicated characters.  Winslet’s is probably the more difficult because Mary’s life has so much internal depth that rarely emerges and she must convey much by facial expression, posture, etc.  Ronan must come across as more inhibited and in the shadow of her ambitious husband in the beginning.  In his absence, we see her more dynamic assets blossom.

     Francis Lee has mostly been an actor on television during his career, and it’s remarkable that Ammonite, his second film to direct (and in this one he is screenwriter as well), is not being nearly as well received as his first, God’s Own Country, for which he won a BAFTA.  The pace in Ammonite seems to have made some people yawn, but delving into characters’ makeup—something I’m attuned to—issomething I actually enjoy, so the pace worked well for me.  As to its being too similar to previous films, I see it as being very different from, say, Portrait of a Lady, in which even though it is British and set in an isolated beach venue, it is very different in the characters of the two women in each film.

     Although Ammonite has some of the marks of a new director, I find the acting performances and script bring it to a level I can endorse.

 

Ammonite is for viewers who love period dramas and relish actors who are exemplary in their portrayals.

 

Grade:  B                                    By Donna R. Copeland 

LITTLE WOMEN

Saoirse Ronan     Emma Watson     Florence Pugh     Eliza Scanlon     Laura Dern

Timothee Chalamet     Tracy Letts     Bob Odenkirk     Chris Cooper     James Norton     Meryl Streep

     Greta Gerwig updates this traditional story based on Louisa May Alcott’s book for girls by emphasizing the March girls’ ambitions, particularly those that depart from the standard get-married-have children tale.  Most notable are the lines inspired by Gerwig’s conversation with Meryl Streep, who plays Aunt March in the film, during first conceptualizations of the film.  The lines are spoken by Amy March (Pugh), the youngest sister, complaining about women not having rights—they can’t own anything; if they leave a marriage, even property they had before marriage, even their children, would belong to the husband.

     Much of the film, however, adheres to Alcott’s novels.  Four sisters are being brought up by their mother while their father is serving as a chaplain during the Civil War.  Marmee (Hurd) is a strong female model for them, managing—with the help of the two older daughters Jo (Ronan) and Meg (Watson)—financially, and beyond that, instilling strong values (helping the sick and the poor, with a strong commitment to forgiveness) in her daughters.  

     The family reflects the temper of the times, particularly where women are concerned. What makes the story most interesting are the differences in personality and temperament among the four sisters, and how these play out with family and friends.  Jo departs most from the norm by pursuing independence at almost any cost, Meg by marrying for love over “prospects”, Beth (Scanlon) by her musical ability, and artistic Amy at first by her self-entitlement and later by her practicality. 

     A bonus in this rendition of Little Women comes at the end when Jo is clearly taking charge of her career by cannily negotiating with the editor Mr. Dashwood (Letts) on a cash advancement, copyright, and share of the profits.  (Although she does have to make one major compromise so that the story ending will sell.)

     Yorick Le Saux’s cinematography with its warm, bright palette and vividness of interior and outside scenes contributes majorly to the production, helping to give it soul, along with the pleasant, era-capturing score of Alexandre Desplat. Saoirse Ronan’s performance is exemplary, attaining the promise of her work in Hanna, Brooklyn, and Atonement, and being a major force in capturing our attention.  She is well supported by Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Eliza Scanlen, and Laura Dern as sisters and mother.  As love interest to more than one sister, Timothee Chalamet glitters as an honorable heartthrob not just for the sisters, but for some audience members as well.  It is a treat to see Tracy Letts playing the discerning publisher with a soft heart, following on his bombastic performance as Ford in Ford v Ferrari. Likewise, seeing Chris Cooper as a benevolent, wealthy Mr. Laurence after the revolting father he played in A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is refreshing.  Finally, Meryl Streep proves her value once again in playing a rich dowager who is bound to the past.

     Perhaps because I personally was never an impassioned devotee of Little Women, I’m not enthralled with Greta Gerwig’s remake of the classical tale.  Interesting and entertaining as it is, it makes me question remakes in general. That is, this tale has been told on stage, on television, and in film almost continuously since 1933.  This version, although set in the 19^thcentury, is meant to capture the sentiments of today.  And it does, with flair to a great extent.  I just have a problem with telling a story already well told.

19^thCentury women being little women—already a tale well told.

Grade:  B                        By Donna R. Copeland

MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS

Margot Robbie     Saoirse Ronan     David Tennant     Guy Pearce     Jack Lowden

Joe Alwyn     Brendan Coyle     Martin Compston     James McArdle

     The movie reflects the views of historian John Guy in his book, My Heart is My Own: The Life of Mary Queen of Scots, which departs from previous historical accounts that were more critical of Mary and her leadership, but nevertheless won the 2004 Whitbread prize for biography.  In this version of history, Mary was betrayed numerous times, ending with her beheading by order of Queen Elizabeth I of England.  Whether it is regarded as historical truth or a biased perspective, I’m not one to judge; but as a movie it is fascinating, and contains more than a kernel of truth about human nature and the willingness to stop at nothing in the interest of personal ambitions.  Beau Willimon’s (of HBO’s “House of Cards” fame) screenplay brings excitement, suspense, and a realistic(?) view of political intrigue. As much as one can rely on Guy’s accounts, the viewer will feel better informed about   English-Scottish conflict, particularly as relates to Mary, Queen of Scots.

     Whether factual and intended, or simply a reflection of male-female relationships in general, the movie illustrates the difficulties many men have when women are in power.  In this case, both queens rely heavily on male advisors who may or may not have their superior’s best interest in mind.  It seems that men in both realms have their own agendas—which always seem to include weakening of the female power to be replaced by a male authority.

     Both queens are pressured to produce a male (or secondarily a female) heir to the throne. Elizabeth, who identifies with men, refuses to marry (because she can’t find a man willing to be a wife) and remains single throughout her life, despite her chief minister’s urging to find a mate.  There are rather comical scenes when she sends Robert Dudley, her favorite advisor whom she is sweet on, to woo Mary, as an ultimate plan to control Scotland; but Mary sends him back to England, and he is a pawn for a time after that.

     Mary takes matters into her own hands, and when the first seducer comes courting, she makes sure she will bear a child.  Unfortunately, he is Lord Darnley, a man of weak character dominated by an ambitious father, who will have undue influence on him against Mary. Nevertheless, she does get pregnant and bears a son she names James, after her father and an uncle.

     Major unrest and military encounters ensue through the years, with one side or the other winning, and always planned and executed by the men surrounding the queens.  In this account, Mary comes across as a strong military leader as well as one with sound principles (she is accepting of both Protestants and Catholics, a bitter divide at the time) and astute political sensibilities, as attested to by Queen Elizabeth herself.  Her pleas with Queen Elizabeth are eloquent, but unfortunately may be followed by what appears to Elizabeth to be insubordination.  

     The work of Saoirse Ronan and Margot Robbie are both award-worthy performances. Each captures her character’s essential elements and makes us forget the actress and “believe” in the character. They “own” this film so much that even though we get strong performances from Guy Pearce and other actors, it is really Ronan’s and Robbie’s film.  

     Kudos to Beau Willimon for the script, Max Richter for the music, James Merifield for production design, and John Mathieson for cinematography. Director Josie Rourke shows talent in this her first major film to helm, I will be looking for her work in the future.

History is presented as the amazing drama it so often actually is.

Grade:  A                                    By Donna R. Copeland

ON CHESIL BEACH

Saoirse Ronan     Billy Howle     Emily Watson     Samuel West     Anne-Marie Duff     Adrian Scarborough

     It’s the 1960’s in England, and Florence (Ronan) and Edward (Howle) have just met in a love-at-first-sight moment.  They joke with each other, have fun, and talk about things that are important to them.  She’s a classical musician and he is a history expert, but has a wealth of knowledge about the world around him.  They seem to have a lot in common despite their different backgrounds—hers upper class, his working class.  His father is headmaster at a school and his mother an artist, so they are educated, but she had a brain injury that has resulted in odd behavior.  Florence’s family is rather snobbish, so it takes a while before they can accept Edward.  But things are coming along; Florence loves Ed’s family and they love her. 

     The day comes for them to be married.  This is a very long day, but director Dominic Cooke breaks it up by interspersing scenes from their childhood and the early days of their courtship, which helps to make sense of what happens on their wedding day.  Their honeymoon is in a fine hotel on Chesil Beach, known for its distinctive rocks, which serves as a metaphor for the rocky time their relationship will have.

     The book on which the film is based is by the acclaimed novelist, Ian McEwan, who wrote the script as well.  Many of his novels have been adapted to film, including Atonement, which won an Oscar.  His characters are well conceived, with psychological depth and a kind of realness that reminds us of people we know or can imagine.  That’s the strength of this film, along with the actors who play the main characters, Ronan and Howle.

     Although the director has done well in many respects, the film sags in its lingering on Florence’s obsessiveness and need to be in control and to be controlled in her every move (thanks to an overly critical father), making the audience squirm and look at their watches.  Another drawback is the loud rock and roll/rhythm and blues blasts that occur during opening scenes and periodically throughout.  It frequently drowns out the dialog, and makes it stand out in a bad way.

     But another strength of the film is its brilliant illustration of how important sex education is.  Although not unusual for the 60’s, these young people have not been taught the basics—either formally or informally—and your heart will go out to them in their pain and inability to express themselves or get any guidance.  A minister and a father offer their help, but the young people have been taught to suppress emotions and concerns, so can't discuss the issue.  

     Cinematographer Sean Bobbitt deserves praise for his camerawork, which captures the landscape contrasted with the emotional turmoil and shots that express so well the agitation and angst of the characters.  There has probably never been a wedding night scene quite like this one in film—although I have no doubt it has occurred too many times in real life.

     Saoirse Ronan is a consummate actress skilled in playing young, cheeky characters; and here she demonstrates her skill in portraying a woman truly afraid. Billy Howle is newer to film, but shows up extremely well here in a complex character who is trying to integrate his aggression, tenderness, and competitive feelings, and develop patience.  He made the picture of humiliation and regret come alive on the screen.

Even today, this film might be relevant for couples considering marriage.

Grade:  B+                                    By Donna R. Copeland

THE SEAGULL

Annette Bening     Saoirse Ronan     Billy Howle     Corey Stoll     Elisabeth Moss

Brian Dennehy     Mare Winningham     Jon Tenney     Glenn Fleshler

     Unrequited love and artistic aspirations take center stage in this production based on Anton Chekhov’s play written at the end of the 19^thCentury and performed onstage in the U.S. numerous times—a demonstration of its popularity. Director Michael Mayer indicated in an interview that he wanted to do a film version of the play, because it would allow audiences to get into the “soul” of the characters more than they could when it is performed onstage.

     And what a mix of characters!  Annette Bening plays the role of Irina, a successful and still adored actress, who has come to rely on her success and popularity to the extent that she finds it difficult to empathize with troubles of those around her, even those of her son Konstantin (Howle).  He is an aspiring writer/producer of plays, struggling to make it in the world his mother has mastered.  To add insult to injury, she has bonded with Boris (Stoll), a successful writer who seems oblivious to what Konstantin is trying to achieve.  Konstantin finds himself consumed in jealousy, not knowing whether he can ever become as accomplished as either of them. 

     The action takes place at the summer home in the country owned by Irina’s brother (Dennehy), so the majority of the characters are local to that area. One of the locals is the daughter of a wealthy neighbor named Nina (Ronan), whom Konstantin adores.  But the daughter of the manager of his estate, Masha (Moss) is hopelessly in love with Konstantin. (She contributes much of the comedy in the film, snorting coke and gulping vodka while making statements like, [the reason I only wear black is that] “I’m in mourning for my life.”  [Actually, that may be another theme of the film:  mourning for one’s life as it has turned out.]  The one longing after Masha is a schoolteacher (Fleshler), who isn’t very smart, “but is a good man.”  When they meet at this vulnerable time, Nina becomes star-struck and smitten with Boris, Irina’s mate.

     You can see, this is all set up to be a farce of shifting romantic liaisons; but it has more depth than that in its examination of art (idols are not necessarily to be worshipped and the issue of how much one is supposed to sacrifice human relationships for art); the challenge of continuing to pursue dreams and cope after rejection; and how much to “settle for” to have an intimate relationship.

     The actors are the strength of The Seagull, with Bening securing her place as a star performer. Impressive as well is Saoirse Ronan, always right on, and especially in her delivery as an ingénue in the film’s play by Konstantin (If I didn’t know better, I would swear she had never acted before!).  Billy Howle plays the young tortured artist with skill and pathos.

     The weakness lies in the film’s not being able to wrest itself from a staged performance.  It’s usually difficult to make this transition, and, unfortunately, this—along with other movies before it—does not succeed.  Why does this matter?  I’ve thought about it many times, and have concluded that seeing real actors onstage is very different from seeing actors in a film.             The former is more realistic because the actors are “real” people; whereas in a film, the reality shifts to a much broader field, all of which must be incorporated into the “realness.”  Plus, it also seems that actors deliver their lines very differently in a play vs. in a movie. 

This is a film primarily for those who love classical theatre and plays.  

Romantic charades in a beautiful country home setting.

Grade:  C+                                    By Donna R Copeland

LADY BIRD

Saoirse Ronan     Laurie Metcalf     Odeya Rush     Beanie Feldstein     
Lucas Hedges     Timothee Chalamet     Tracy Letts

     There is always a challenge for comedies to have substance as well as humor, and writer/director Greta Gerwig has achieved just such a balance in Lady Bird.  Comedy runs throughout, but underlying it are observations about mother-daughter relationships, adolescence, male-female relationships, friendships, truthfulness, religion, and economic hardship, all presented naturalistically and with precise timing.  The characters speak as real people expressing themselves, as opposed to a series of comedy routines.

     Young Christine (Ronan), who has adopted the name of “Lady Bird”, is in the throes of first loves, struggling to make good grades in high school so that she can go to a “good” college and get out of Sacramento, and slogging through multiple applications to college.  Interestingly, she has more faith in herself than does anyone around her.  And true, she has committed some infractions and does not always have the self-discipline she needs, but she is reasonably smart and knows what she wants—to break out of living on the wrong side of the tracks and all that implies.  She is not unsympathetic to her parents’ economic problems, it’s just that she is optimistic about being able to do better.

     Her mother Jenna (Rush) has no such high hopes; she is a practical, organized woman who is appalled about things like a messy room and disrespectful behavior, but is sorely lacking in emotional responsiveness and psychological insight, although she does appear to be some kind of counselor in her job.  She doesn’t have enough empathy to see how similar she and her daughter are.  Fortunately for both mother and daughter, the father (Letts) acts in a positive way as mediator.  And fortunately for both, they always manage to maintain some degree of understanding and love for each other.

     Then there is Lady Bird’s life with her friends at school, where there’s a bit of a caste system between those who live on right and wrong sides of the track.  She and her very best friend (super bright but overweight and perhaps not as creative as Christine) Julie (Feldstein), are tight and have great fun together until Lady Bird begins to branch out and think she can be on the “right side of the tracks” if she manipulates situations.  She is attracted to a fellow Thespian, Danny (Hedges), and when that doesn’t turn out, she goes for Kyle (Chalamet), and it’s interesting to observe her exploring different ways of being in her romantic relationships and in different social classes. 

     This well written story has a beginning, middle, and very satisfying end.  The acting is superb, starting with Saoirse Ronan in a different role from her usual that highlights her considerable talent.  Odeya Rush and Trace Letts as Christine’s parents are skilled actors whose strengths are readily  evident in their very different relationships with their daughter.  I found Beanie Feldstein’s performance as Christine’s best friend right on, and I appreciated its truth about very bright, chubby girls not getting the recognition from society that they deserve.  The two young men, Lucas Hedges and Timothee Chalamet, who play Christine’s boyfriends, live up to their promising reputations for achieving their potential as actors.

     In addition to the quality of writing, directing, and acting, Jori Brion’s music aptly evokes the period in which the movie takes place, the 1990’s (e.g., The Monkees, The Doors), in expressing the mood of each scene.

An award-worthy production that marks the accomplishment of its writer-director, Greta Gerwig.

Grade:  A                                    By Donna R. Copeland

LOVING VINCENT

Voices of:  Douglas Booth     Chris O’Dowd     Saoirse Ronan     Eleanor Tomlinson

John Sessions     Robert Gulaczyk     Jerome Flynn     Martin Herdman

     This beautifully rendered film advances like a detective story, beginning with Vincent Van Gogh’s childhood and moving through his life and on to his death, all depicted in meticulously drawn images in brilliant colors like those used by the artist in most of his work.  It seems almost like an eerie prediction/curse when we learn that a son was stillborn before Vincent was born, and his parents chose to use the same name for their second son.  It did not help that his mother was depressed and followed an austere set of religious beliefs.  These circumstances may have set him up for his life.

Vincent did not fit into his family with generations of accomplished men.  Many were informed about art, including Theo, his brother, who supported Vincent financially throughout adulthood when he took up painting seriously in his late twenties.  According to the film, he survived only eight years after that, but left behind an impressive body of work—800 paintings.

     The film is noteworthy in several respects.  First, it traces Van Gogh’s personality and mental issues throughout his life plausibly, showing some of the important antecedents related to his distress. 

     Secondly, the story is told in the manner of a detective trying to establish the actual cause of Van Gogh’s death.  In the film, Postmaster Roulin (O’Dowd) gives his son a letter that was written by Vincent to his brother, but had never been delivered because of the death of both men.  Mr. Roulin had been a friend to both brothers, doubts that Vincent had killed himself, and felt duty-bound to see that the letter is delivered to him if he is still alive.  His son Armand (Booth) must go to Auvers-sur-Oise, France, Vincent’s last whereabouts, and uncover the mystery.  Although initially reluctant, and only wanting to indulge his father, Armand proceeds to the village and gets acquainted with everyone he can who knew Vincent:  His doctor-friend Paul Gachet (Flynn) and his daughter Marguerite (Ronan), the inn keeper and his daughter Adeline (Tomlinson) where Vincent lived, the local policeman Rigaumon (Herdman), the art supplies shop, and the local boatman.  Armand is given conflicting accounts, and he has to reason out the truth for himself—which maintains the viewer’s interest.

     Finally, images for the gorgeous animation are created by a team of 100 artists who pattern their drawings after Vincent’s artwork, primarily in the style of “The Starry Night.”  Some historical scenes are shown in black and white, reminiscent of pictures from the late 1800’s.  The music of Clint Mansell supports this work of art perfectly.

     Writer/directors Dorota Kobiela and Hugh Welchman should be praised for coming up with this format to tell the story about a tortured artist who did not live to see his acclaim, part of which is that he is regarded as “The Father of Modern Art.”  This tragic figure only had one of his paintings sold during his lifetime.  Although he knew at some level he had the talent, he felt at a loss for convincing others.  Although I’ve heard some of this history and seen the one-of-a-kind Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam, it was gratifying to be reminded of what I knew and to learn more about Vincent Van Gogh.

Loving Vincent is a fascinating way to acquire some art history.

Grade:  B                                    By Donna R. Copeland