Casanova

[selenak]

I still owe wee_warrior the Casanova meta I promised, or, why that two parter is instructive on both Russell T. Davies' strengths and weaknesses as a writer. Readers of either the "Rusty die die die!" or "he can do no wrong" persuasion should consider themselves warned that this isn't something for either of them. Also, I honestly don't care whom Jack Harkness romances, and I don't 'ship the Doctor with any companion (Doctor/TARDIS all the way!) (well, okay, Doctor/Master, too, in the "it's totally doomed" way), so I'd appreciate the lack of 'shipping fervour in possible comments.

On to Casanova then, which is a two-parter Julie Gardner commissioned RTD to write for the BBC before they both went on to restart Doctor Who. Now, this was about the 1004454th screen version of Giacomo Casanova's life. Having seen only some of these (regrettably not the one starring Bela Lugosi before the later became Dracula, that would have been interesting), and having read parts of the memoirs - which btw you can read in their entirety here, thanks to Project Gutenberg, I feel vaguely qualified to conclude that there are some things most of these screen versions have in common. If they're not entirely fantasy, just using the name (see also: the Heath Ledger thing), or picking up one specific period or event in Casanova's life (there is one with Alain Delon who does this, which uses the "aging screen idol" thing to great effect because it captures Casanova at the transition of his life where he has to realize age and failure have finally caught up with him, and another one which has old Casanova making a last attempt to leave his librarian existence in Bohemia, and he ends up in France just at the outbreak of the French Revolution; again, uses the "relict from another age" element to great effect), they can be relied upon to tackle the problem of how to narrate that long life and adventures with something of a coherent story arc when it actually didn't have one by absolutely including the following elements:

- the actress mother abandoning her son
- old Casanova in Bohemia, writing his memoirs, contrasted with young Casanova living the life
- the Henriette episode as the great romance complete with "love of his life" status
- the escape from the lead chambers as the biggest action sequence
- the lottery business in France.


Anything else (either actually episodes from Casanova's life or something the screenwriters in question came up with) varies. It's pretty obvious why these elements always stay. The escape from the lead chambers is what Casanova was most famous for in his life time, other than the obvious, the lottery was probably the biggest con he ever pulled, and the first three story elements have to be there to give the audience a main character with some vulnerabilities they can identify with instead of, well, a Don Juan archetype.



RTD, for his part, actually downplayed the big prison escape; it takes far less time and has far less narrative importance than in any of the other "complete life" renditions I've seen. The overall tone is comedy mixed with melodrama, which is fairly typical for Davies as a writer. He also wisely reduces the gigantic cast of people Casanova's life contains and uses the knack he has for making characters come alive with little screentime to make the ones he keeps memorable. Not that this ever pretends to be an "authentic" biopic in the traditional sense. There is constant breaking of the fourth wall, starting with the opening sequence which has young Casanova escaping from an enraged husband (complete with a gag stolen from the Angel pilot episode, though I'm sure Joss and David Greenwalt stole it elsewhere, too - I'm referring to Angel jumping heroically into a car in pursuit of the villain, and it's the wrong car; in Casanova Casanova whistles for his horse, jumps Errol Flynn style and promptly lands on the pavement), quipping at his pursuers until he suddenly runs out of dialogue because old Casanova stops writing him. The language, music and dancing sequences are unabashedly modern, as is the colour blind casting. (You could handwave Casanova's servant/best friend Rocco being played by a black actor because Venice used to be one of the all time big slave markets, and Rocco could be a descendant of a freedman. It's trickier with Bellino being black. And suspension of disbelief breaks down with various black French aristocrats. But then, you don't have to suspend your disbelief exactly because the two-parter never claims to be that type of story.)

The serving girl Edith, whom old Casanova tells his life to, is a pretty obvious stand-in for the reader/watcher, sceptical at first (and critisizing the narration), then won over, and pretty soon starting to root, even to 'ship. RTD had the good forturne of getting Peter O'Toole as old Casanova, and Rose Byrne is excellent as Edith, but the fact these framing narration scenes never come across as dull is also due to the writing using the pathos of Casanova's old age well, meaning not too easily, as old Casanova isn't exactly a sweet old man, and blatantly manipulative even while he points out he manipulates.... until the last sequence, which is where Rusty ditches both post modern narration, comedy and balance altogether and goes for the pathos alone. As I said, strengths and weaknesses. For this ties into how the overall storyarc he chose for Casanova works as well.

Casanova is written both as a picaresque adventure story - Casanova, here nicknamed Jack, literally as the Jack of all trades (and master of none), a con man charming his way through life and society until both lash back at him irreversably - and a star-crossed romance. And the star-crossed romance part is where it gets tricky. As mentioned, RTD wasn't the first writer who felt the need to hone in on the Henriette episode, though he basically took little more than the name (which was a pseudonym Casanova gave her for the memoirs at any rate), Casanova's assertion that he truly loved her ("people who believe that a woman is not enough to make a man equally happy all the twenty-four hours of a day have never known an Henriette", writes the historical C.) and the fact she left him; everything else - notably Henriette as an Italian con woman instead of a French aristocrat, her marriage to Casanova's enemy Grimani, her as the true reason for Casanova's stint in prison and the reason for their separation not her decision but Grimani blackmailing her into marriage - is pure RTD. And there you have it. On the one hand, he does his best to sell Henriette as an equal, though at least the dreaded word "soulmate" is never used; she and Casanova both start as young and poor and determined to make it in Venetian society, and the scenes where they communicate via sign language (shrugs, grimaces, smiles etc.) during events do convey something of that, and have an effective pay-off in part II, the last time they see each other. On the other hand... on the other hand, there is a lot, and just a part of it is that the actress, Laura Fraser, doesn't come across as that gifted or charismatic. But more problematic is that whole "separation by cruel fate" business. The script does its best to make Henriette a pure victim here, only marrying Grimani when Casanova is in prison because she needs the financial support for her family (whom we have never seen), and then into a noble martyr (watching over Casanova from afar). Which actually undoes the earlier, more human and more interesting characterisation of her as a con woman, who like Casanova himself uses what she has to make it in society and is determined, a la Scarlett O'Hara, not to be hungry again. And then there is the placement of her brief period of happiness with Casanova (before cruel fate (tm) intervenes). Because that comes directly after the Bellino sequence, and here we run straight into RTD creating unintentional subtext again.

I'm not surprised Davies used the Bellino episode at all (though as opposed to the Henriette episode, most film/tv versions I've seen didn't); it's one of the most interesting segments in the memoirs. The RTD version is highly fictionalized but retained all of the important elements save one. Here's what he had to base it on in the Histoire de ma vie: Casanova is introduced to a supposed eunuch singer named Bellino. He is intrigued, powerfully attracted, confused by the idea he could have fallen for a man and insists Bellino has to be a girl. He tries to get Bellino to admit as much, pointing out the breasts. Bellino refuses, pointing out eunchs develop these, too. We get about 25 pages of Casanova struggling with the idea that he's in love with another man, and a eunuch at that, and spirited declarations from Bellino like:

“Oh no,the male would not evoke a feeling of repulsion in you. I am convinced of it. Your hot temper would triumph over your reason and your reason would even serve your passion.” ... “You shall not have any peace, you shall seek what cannot be found. How can you believe that you will stop to love me when I prove that I am a man? Will the beauty and the charm you find in me disappear? You shall be able to convince yourself that you can change me into a woman or, worse still, you will imagine that I myself can change my sex.”

Then finally they get to the point where Casanova doesn't care anymore and promptly finds out that yes, he is in fact a she, Bellino is a woman. He proposes. And then he basically runs away, telling her she shouldn't sacrifice her career as a singer for him, and admitting he doesn't want to be the husband of an actress/singer. (Insert your Freudian theories here, considering the mother who ditched him as a child was one.)

Now, in the RTD Casanova, we basically get a condensed version of this, without Bellino's family and various travels together, and a significantly different reason for the separation. Here, Bellino spots Casanova and Henriette together doing one of their sign language communication things during a ball, comes to the conclusion that they're meant for each other and magnanimously tells Casanova she wants to devote herself to her career, and that he deserves to be "a husband, not a wife", so they better part. Handwaving historical sexism, this still leaves us with girl B nobly giving up central character because he's truly meant to be with girl A, expecting the audience to feel the same way. I can't speak for the rest of the audience, but I inevitably found Bellino far more interesting, and hence rolled my eyes at the blatant audience manipulation. (Also, as with Henriette being freed of all decision blame regarding the Grimani marriage later, here you have Bellino freeing Casanova from decision blame by saying goodbye first. This annoys, though a bit less than in the Henriette case because otherwise the script does take Casanova to task for his not so endearing traits. The second part could be subtitled "Consequences". More about that in a moment.) And of course, by casting Nina Sosanya (who went on to play Chloe's mother in Fear Her, the season 2/29 Doctor Who episode) as Bellino, RTD made it black girl B nobly resigning in favour of white girl A. Actually I think that's the least problem with this storyline - if Bellino had been played by a white actress, we'd still have the problem of star-crossed romance superceding more interesting romance and the script basically cheating - but it's there.

Here's the part of the RTD invented Henriette saga that really works, though: Grimani. The name comes from the aristocratic family who were the patrons of Casanova's actress-mother and her husband (and he suspected one of them might have been his biological father), but the character, like Rusty's version of Henriette, is entirely made up for this tv version. In RTD's Casanova, Grimani is introduced as a young aristocrat who snubs Giacomo on the later's first arrival on the society scene and is annoyed when Casanova quips back. They soon proceed to hate each other on sight because of Henriette. Part I has Grimani scoring by getting Casanova arrested and blackmailing Henriette into marriage, part II has them reencounter each other in England where Grimani is the Venetian ambassador where there is much mutual showing off and finally a duel. Why does this work instead of being trite? Because RTD avoids making Grimani into a moustache twirling villain by making him sincerely in love with Henriette, and because, Davies being Davies, he confronts the possible homoerotic subtext of the whole rivalry/ arch nemesis business head-on.

On to other matters. Something that I thought was an inspired authorial choice was picking one of the galores of illegitimate children Casanova was bound to have and making him the living embodiment of those consequences I talked about. As I said at the start, pretty much all the screen versions that go for an entire life of Casanova use the story of his mother the actress ditching him. Our Mr. Davies, however, chose to mirror this with "Jack" (the second), Casanova's illegitimate son. Just as child!Casanova is introduced to us silently staring at his mother, child!Jack is introduced silently staring at Casanova. Who never even considered all his shenanigans could result in offsprings, and can't connect to this one any more than his mother could to him. We see this in a series of scenes alternatingly serious and funny (for example, Casanova and Rocco strolling through Paris while Casanova talks about how Jack's existence now gives him a new center while completely ignoring the kid and missing entirely that the boy is in sequence drenched in piss, covered with waste and chased by a dog), until it segues into one of the most sinister scenes of the two-parter. A scene, btw, based on a description of the torture and execution of Damiens, a would be assassin of Louis XV, which Casanova gave in his memoirs, but I don't recall it being used in any of the other screen versions of his life that I saw. The sight of a man being torn apart limb by limb was treated, as executions were at the time, as a fun spectacle to watch, and one of the most revolting aspects of said scene in the memoirs is that most members of the aristocratic party Casanova was with were sexually turned on by the sight, and one of them (not Casanova himself, btw) did have sex with another spectator. In the RTD Casanova, Rocco the servant suggests this isn't a sight the boy should see, Casanova carelessly ignores this, the execution starts, and then he and we the audience see the excited and aroused faces of the aristocratic party. Ending in the gleeful expression of Casanova's son. He takes the boy away, but it's too late.

(The film then cuts to Old Casanova commenting that every single one of the French party-goers who watched that execution ended up beheaded by the revolution, which reminds me of the way Christopher Hampton ends the stage version of Les Liasons Dangereuses (something not in the film; the Marquise de Merteuil raises a glass to a defiant toast to the next year - 1789, and the curtain falls to the sound of the guilllontine). It's not exactly deep analysis, but as a pointed comment of what kind of society the French Revolution ended, it works.)

There are more consequences to come. If the first part concentrated on the joyful, liberating aspects of sex, the second part tackles the darker aspects, the seeking out the next sensation, the next thrill as sheer nihilism. The execution party in France is just the purgatory, and after the interlude in England (already mentioned, as it's mostly about Casanova and Grimani, and also offers Rusty the opportunity to get in as many jokes at the expense of his country as he can), we get into the true underworld sequence, taking place in Naples. At which point the costumes have said goodbye to history altogether and are completely in fantasy land, which is part of the nightmarish quality of the scene, which is pretty much Poe's Red Death story, a doomed society waiting for their death as the ultimate kick and trying as many other sensations as they can in the meantime. Casanova meets Bellino again, and as they talk, she realises that having everything she ever wanted leaves her with nothing to look forward to. She then tells him that her daughter is also his daughter. Since his son has just made off with said daughter, Casanova is worried and then gets shocked because Bellino doesn't seem to mind the prospect of the two having sex, pointing out that he taught her that breaking rules is what it's all about. Casanova heads off to find them, and hears exactly the same thing from his son. What else, challenges the son, did he expect him to learn? It's all about the next sensation, and incest at least is something new. His daughter asks him whether he wants to join. It's the last scene using the younger Casanova and, we're given to understand, the reason why he ended up bitter and alone in Bohemia; being presented with a mirror he had himself created, an alter ego emptied out of everything that made Casanova more than a walking penis. (The two parter has been careful to show us the man having non-sexual relationships proving his capacity for loyalty and kindness, such as the one with his servant or with the old priest whose life he saves, to show us him liking the women he sleeps with beyond the sex and that for all his self-centered thoughtlessness in the past and occasionally acid peevishness in old age, he's not malicious .) Other than Fellini, I can't recall a Casanova getting that dark.

(Mind you, in comparison with the historical source, it's still using the incest incident in a milder manner: in the memoirs, it's Casanova himself who sleeps with his daughter - not by Bellino, btw, by another mistress, Lucrezia, and according to the memoirs he slept with both of them at the same time when meeting Lucrezia agan 17 years later.)

Of course, RTD can't leave it there. Edith the servant girl - who has found out Casanova is ill during the time he told his life to her - is able to give him a peaceful, hopefull death by making him believe that Henriette, now widowed, is returning to him at last, while she and the audience know the letter she intercepted said in fact that Henriette is dead. She also, stand-in for the audience that she is, does what every writer hopes his audience will do: validates the narrative by confessing she fell for his younger persona with all his flaws, even knowing that results they had, and offers absolution. It's all beautifully played and I'm as much a sop as anyone; I do feel touched when I'm watching. But it's one of those RTD things that doesn't bear too much thinking about. Well, perhaps. I mean, you could interpret it as Edith taking over the role of the (somewhat manipulative) narrator, giving Casanova a happy ending of sorts after he gave her his story first, and that would fit with the whole fourth wall breaking going on from the start, but it still depends on the star-crossed lovers arc and its believability. After a two parter demonstrating, for all its wit and comedy along with the melodrama, that there was far more messed up in Casanova's life than the lack of marriage to Henriette (and making it doubtful that if he had married Henriette, he'd have remained in married bliss with her for the rest of his life), the death-believing-his-true-love-will-come just feels like a narrative dea-ex-machina device. Admittedly I'm not sure whether ending the story with, say, a living Old Casanova in conversation with Edith would have been better - it wouldn't have been as definite an ending-and-return-to-the-beginning as the actual ending - but it would have avoided another reminder of my problem as a viewer: that Henriette as a character simply did not have enough impact on me to go along with the main character's feelings for her, and that, in the end, we're asked to believe, to quote the Beatles, that all you need is love, when the story itself rather made a point to show us no, it isn't.

Lastly: casting and acting - other than Laura Fraser as Henriette, the Gardner/Davies team showed the same knack it later proved on DW. Everyone is very good, and despite the fact they don't look anything alike, you do believe David Tennant is going to become Peter O'Toole. Also, if Christopher Eccleston in RTD's The Second Coming practiced for the Ninth Doctor, Tennant here has a trial run for the lighter side of the Tenth. (It's interesting that he plays the darker scenes - i.e. when Casanova is grieving - quite differently, though. Still, imo if one wants to see either actor doing something completely unlike their DW work, one should look for non-Davies-written stuff. Recovery for Tennnant would be my choice - he plays a brain-damaged man there -, and Cracker for Eccleston because it's one of the few examples where he's not an angry notherner (tm).)

Comments

[elisi]

I really like your thoughts here. I enjoyed Casanova very much, and I think you're spot on in most of your observations. (My main gripe was that the guy who played his grownup son was so ugly, and looked nothing like him.)

I used to have a Casanova icon, but it is sadly gone now. This will have to do. :)

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Since I got around the lack of Tennant/O'Toole resemblance, I had no problem with the son's looks.*g*

And hey, any icon of David T. is worthy of display!

[ide-cyan.livejournal.com]

I think I first saw Eccleston in Shallow Grave, where he's pretty different from the Doctor, and not exactly an angry northerner, either. (You seen that?)

Great writeup, btw.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I did see it ages ago, but alas all I remember is Ewan McGregor - the other characters have not stuck in my memory, so I couldn't say anything about his performance there.

Also, thanks!

[beck-liz.livejournal.com]

I remember, when I first really started to love Eccleston (with his time on DW) that I looked at the list of things he'd done and realized he'd been in Shallow Grave. I could not at all remember what character he'd been, and figured he must've had a minor part. *facepalm* He really is so very different in that film.

[joonscribble.livejournal.com]

Ooh! Lovely write up. I haven't caught Casanova yet, but now I want to watch it now, now now.

I'd also suggest Tennant in "The Quartermass Experiment" remake they did. Funnily enough, he plays a doctor who's having a relationship with Indira Varma (Suzie Costello) but the character is just so different from The Doctor.

[kalypso-v.livejournal.com]

Oh, I liked Tennant in Quatermass! And in The Chatterley Affair when he was playing Richard Hoggart. It seems I like him when he's being intense and Scottish or intense and northern. But as a southerner... no.

I think there are quite a lot of Eccleston parts which aren't angry notherners, but I wouldn't have described DCI Bilborough as one of them!

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Funnily enough, he plays a doctor who's having a relationship with Indira Varma (Suzie Costello) but the character is just so different from The Doctor.

...suddenly I realize where the Doctor/Suzie stories came from (because that pairing had me go "huh? How come?" when I saw it).*g* Hm, yes, that sounds definitely like something to watch out for.

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

in Casanova Casanova whistles for his horse, jumps Errol Flynn style and promptly lands on the pavement

Will doubtlessly comment more later, but since I just saw this - it's probably not the origin, either, but the 70s musketeer films had this, too.

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Very interesting read! I ... don't have much to comment, since it has been ages since I watched Casanova, and I found it mostly fun, but all in all a bit slight. I definitely bought Casanova as a likable character, though. I like DT here, but think he's a lot better in Blackpool (not having seen Recovery and not counting his Harry Potter, that's basically my only reference).

As for other DW actors, the one role I would always recommend for Christopher Eccleston is Jude, because he is just amazing here. Granted, that works only if you can stomach Thomas Hardy as interpreted by Michael Winterbottom (believe it or not, it's slightly less bleak). But it has Kate Winslet and Rachel Griffith!

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Good old Richard Lester, right. The Musketeers. It would be fun to find out what is the earliest film to use this particular gag...

I definitely bought Casanova as a likable character, though.

It's one of the most glaring differences to, say, him being played by Richard Chamberlain, where he's also meant to be sympathetic by the script but it just doesn't come across that way.

Jude: my problem here is Thomas Hardy! (Not a fan.) (Which is why I haven't watched the film version yet...)

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

It would be fun to find out what is the earliest film to use this particular gag...

Mask of Zorro has used it, but of course that came a lot later and certainly owes many things to the Musketeer films (yes, I watched that. I like Catherine Zeta-Jones.). Given that it is a very slapsticky gag, I would suspect it's origin somewhere in the early funny silent movies, unless it has been used in plays as well. I would think it is rather too visual to come from prose, though.

It's one of the most glaring differences to, say, him being played by Richard Chamberlain, where he's also meant to be sympathetic by the script but it just doesn't come across that way.

I've never seen that version, admittedly, but I find the archetype so annoying, I'd usually be biased against any version.

(Not a fan.)

I strongly suspect that I'm the only person who actually likes Hardy. I love his style! Well, I am not that enarmoured with his tendency to have all his hapless, adorable characters suffer fates worse than death, but I always put that down to him being a Late Victorian...
(The film, btw, is pretty interesting, since Winterbottom goes for realism as opposed to the usual frilly period elements. Not exactly a jolly film, though, and at over three hours a bit of a masochistic endeavour.)

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

I saw it a couple of weeks ago for the first time -- I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis, especially about Bellino. Knowing Davies and not the canon, I was genuinely in suspense as to his/her gender, to the point that for a while I had become convinced that she was a eunuch being played by a woman. (If you accept the color-blind casting, at some point I am prepared to accept that a woman could be playing a male role as well.)

No shipping comments here, because I tend to be of the party that the Doctor can only hook up with another Time Lord. (My choice is Romana, back from the dead.) Except to say, yeah. Bellino is the more interesting character primarily because of her spirit and independence, but the narrative demands Henriette be the One True Love, and even if the color-blind casting is as color-blind as you would hope, that's kind of a crummy narrative for women.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

If you accept the color-blind casting, at some point I am prepared to accept that a woman could be playing a male role as well

Oh absolutely, and in films like Transamerica, you have a female actress playing a pre-op transsexual as well in an utterly believable way.

Re: Bellino - when watching it the first time, I also thought it was better done than the equivalent scene in Victor/Victoria, because in the later they had James Garner's character find out Victor(ia) is a woman first and THEN declare he doesn't care etc., knowing already what she was, whereas here Casanova doesn't know and gets to the point where he honestly can say "I don't care". And as you say, the actress would have been completely believable as a genuine castrato, too.

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

Transamerica was in fact, exactly what I was thinking of when I saw it. "Well, if Felicity Huffman can do it..."

The Bellino stuff made me love that movie. Not that I would, but fanfiction where the two of them had a happy ending, or Bellino turned out to really be a castrato, etc, might be a lot of fun. Maybe for Yuletide.

[kattahj.livejournal.com]

Very good analysis, I agree with pretty much everything, esp. Bellino. (Because Nina Sosanya is hot as whoah and cool as all fuck and cross dressing.) Though isn't the show a three-parter? It was shown in tree parts in Sweden, at least.

Re: the docs in different parts, I found CE to be very different in The Others. (Sadly, not hot. Not hot at all.) And isn't there some movie where DE is an evil stalking psychopath?

[selenak.livejournal.com]

I saw it in two parts, but then I was given the version as broadcast on American tv, and for all I know they cut it for Americans!

And isn't there some movie where DE is an evil stalking psychopath?

According to that hilarious interview he and Catherine Tate did, he played on in The Bill, but that's a tv show, and I haven't seen it. And you can always count Barty Crouch Junior in HP4, I suppose, but that's a short role.

[skywaterblue.livejournal.com]

Chiming in to say I saw three parts as well, but can't think to what they may have cut you didn't see.

[kattahj.livejournal.com]

Or they chopped it up for Swedes. Wouldn't be the first time!

Found the evil stalker movie (http://imdb.com/title/tt0462520/). Haven't actually seen it, and not sure I want to - the difference may be too unsettling.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

*g* So, watching The Pasdar playing an evil morally ambiguous sociopath is okay, and same for Anthony "Giles" Head as a student-eating alien headmaster, but not this?

Seriously now, I know what you mean, though in my case it's for another reason - I don't like stalker storylines, it creeps me out on a personal level, and hence I avoid films of that description.

Talking about actors playing scum of the 'verse and likeable endearing characters and whether one can make the transfer as a watcher - I think the most radical example for me was Ralph Fiennes whom I first saw as Amon Goeth in Schindler's List where he is absolutely chilling (and not in an operetta Nazi kind of way, or in a demonic ubervillain kind of way - it's really "the banality of evil" and a horrible psychopath personified), and none too many years later saw in The English Patient, where it's absolutely crucial you sympathize with his character.

[kattahj.livejournal.com]

*g* So, watching The Pasdar playing an evil morally ambiguous sociopath is okay

Dude, it took me ages to dare to watch Profit, and for much the same reason. Though I did end up loving it and it's creepy sociopath title character. But Profit is odd in that he's threatening towards people you don't really like anyway, so you kind of in a warped way end up cheering for him.

none too many years later saw in The English Patient, where it's absolutely crucial you sympathize with his character.

See, while the nazi residue didn't affect me (I remember very little of Schindler's List, truth be told), I didn't care much for either Ralph Fiennes or Kristin Scott Thomas in The English Patient. It was all about the second storyline for me. Binoche/Dafoe/Andrews FTW! :-)

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Dude, it took me ages to dare to watch Profit, and for much the same reason. Though I did end up loving it and it's creepy sociopath title character. But Profit is odd in that he's threatening towards people you don't really like anyway, so you kind of in a warped way end up cheering for him.

I would agree that Profit's allure lies partly in the way almost all other characters, save Gail, probably, are completely unlikable. On the other hand, I have to confess that I don't actually like Profit - both the show and the character leave me cold, evident brilliance notwithstanding - so I should probably ask that question in regards to Dexter.

Binoche/Dafoe/Andrews FTW! :-)

I remember being so pissed off about that. I read the book first, and originally Binoche's and Andrews' characters are 17 and 18, which makes both their reactions, especially his, a lot more interesting. I can see now why they cast them older, given that you don't often find teenage actors who could play that nuanced, but at that time, I was ragingly disappointed. ;)

And Ralph Fiennes in Schindler's List was probably the first time I actively separated an actor - and in this case, his looks - from a character, because I really really did not want to find Amon Goeth hot in any shape or form. (And this is so strange, now, to think that I once thought of RF as hot.)

[kattahj.livejournal.com]

I read the book later, so it was all fine with me. :-) But the main romance did nothing for me, which did disappoint me a little since I'd been fangirling KST so massively in Four Weddings.

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

And isn't there some movie where DE is an evil stalking psychopath?

I think it is called Secret Smile, and he plays an eeevill stalker/rapist. It's adapted from one of those thrillers whose authors you are familiar with even if you haven't read them.

And CE was very good in The Others. Why is that man mostly doing crap nowadays? It's frustrating.

[kattahj.livejournal.com]

It's adapted from one of those thrillers whose authors you are familiar with even if you haven't read them.

Not me. Clearly I'm living under a rock.


And CE was very good in The Others.

Yes, he was. I forgot to mention that what with lamenting the not-hot, but he really was.

[wee-warrior.livejournal.com]

Not me. Clearly I'm living under a rock.

Or you've never worked in a book shop. :)

[kattahj.livejournal.com]

Just a school library. We don't really have much books for adults.

[altorogue.livejournal.com]

I stumbled on this through friendsfriends, and I think you've hit a lot of points spot-on. I never got why he was so infatuated with Henriette, because she never inspired anything whatsoever in me. I also really liked your description of the meeting with Bellino later on- that scene creeped the HELL out of me, and you described it perfectly.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Excellent review! It encapsulates why this extremely flippant version of Casanova (come on, RTD does flippant like NO-ONE ELSE) annoyed me (all the historical a-chronicities) while managing to get under my skin.

You don't mention Rupert Penry-Jones as Grimani; and yet it's terrific casting, because it uses RPJ's essential weak-chinned insubstantiality (which spoils Cambridge Spies, his one scene in Match Point, that excruciatingly boring Stephen Poliakoff thing in which he's a Cabinet Minister, etc.) to construct the character and his flaws. RPJ is not a good actor, but on occasion he falls excellently into parts. He's an interesting Adam in Spooks because it's simultaneously about submerging himself into an alias, and making a show of testosterone as a sligtly dodgy version of Edgy Action Man. Adam folds; Tom breaks.

Casanova's memoirs in the original French are amazingly modern. In that respect RTD is the right person to appropriate something of them.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

My school girl French isn't anywhere near up to reading the memoirs in the original, but I take your word for it. (The translations I've read were all 20th century ones, so basically were by necessity modern as well.)

Agreed on the immense suitability of Rupert Penry-Jones as Grimani. In the duel scene, he sells both the breakdown complete with tears and the petty vengefulness when he does shoot later, as well as the "neither of us has her but we have each other" thing.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

...Oh, and I assume you're up to speed on Torchwood? I've been mainlining Season 1 and about to start on Season 2, and I absolutely ADORE it. Another example of a less than stellar actor perfectly cast. That Final Scene in Captain Jack Harkness managed to simultaneously annoy me (because there's no way that ILLEGAL dance would not have created massively antagonistic reactions in 1941), and move me no end, because I did believe in "our" Captain Jack's tears.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Well, Real!Jack was about to die the next day anyway, and I fanwank the lack of immediate reaction by the other dancers by saying they were so freaked out by the BIG BLUE PORTAL OPENING right behind Our!Jack that they decided they clearly were hallucinating the whole thing.

John Barrowman: you know, it wasn't until the first half of season 1 of TW that I realized he really isn't a strong actor, because Jack on DW was tailor-made for him. In the first season of TW, he suddenly had to brood and get thoughtful monologues and well, no Patrick Stewart he, and it showed. But in the second half, he eased into it, plus the scripts generally got better, and "Captain Jack Harkness "is arguably his best performance as a leading man. (Best acting as a supporting actor would be the big talk scene in Utopiaon DW.) In summation, Jack is the ideal role for him, but my vote for best actor on this show invariably goes to Burn Gorman.

And yes, I'm up to speed. Love season 2, which with the exception of one weak episode is fabulous and made me go from reluctant affection to actually loving both show and ensemble. They really did something about the s1 flaws, and build on what was good, so I'm a happy watcher.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

The divine tigertrapped has described JB as "all teeth and trousers", and there's something in what she says. Still there is a very sweet core to him (most in evidence in what I've seen so far in Small Worlds, with Estelle; and that CJH kiss.) Burn Gorman IS a serious actor.

[shezan.livejournal.com]

(And the BIG BLUE PORTAL doesn't open at once. There's a definite lack of Mary Renault-like subtlety here...)

[shezan.livejournal.com]

Oh, and one of the very few first-rate latter-day Alain Delon performances! Wasn't that wonderful? That and the incandescent three-minute Baron de Charlus in Volker Schlöndorff's otherwise bloodless Swann in Love.

[selenak.livejournal.com]

Yes, it was. Of course, the fact the man actually can act when he wants to makes it all the more frustrating when he doesn't bother!

[shezan.livejournal.com]

My feelings exactly.