Anastasia F-B (AnastasiaFB)

London

Anastasia's Recent Reviews


J. Edgar J. Edgar R
I waited an age for one biopic only to have two come along at once! Well, almost at once. Itâ(TM)s not long
I waited an age for one biopic only to have two come along at once! Well, almost at once! Well, almost at once. It's not long since I saw Meryl Streep playing Margaret Thatcher in The Iron Lady, a stunning performance in a less than stunning film. Now Iâ(TM)ve seen Leonardo DiCaprio, one of my favourite actors, play J. Edgar Hoover in J. Edgar, a stunning performance in a less than stunning film.

Hoover, the long standing Director â" Dictator might be a better word - of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is in many ways an even more controversial figure than Thatcher. A man of impeccable moral stature, the self-appointed guardian of all that was good in American life, he had no scruples at all in subverting civil liberties in pursuit of his particular ends. At his funeral then President Nixon said that he was;

"â¦one of the giantsâ¦He personified integrity, he personified honour, he personified principle, he personified courage, he personified discipline, he personified dedication, he personified loyalty, he personified patriotism."

Oh, but how are the mighty fallen. He also, according to his many detractors, personified venality and corruption, a message that his been relentless hammered ever since, to the point where his legacy, his very real contribution to fighting crime and subversion using the latest techniques, has been obscured under a mountain of superfluous and vicious tittle-tattle.

J. Edgar, directed by Clint Eastwood and based on a script by Dustin Lance Black, goes some way towards rehabilitation. It paints a more nuanced portrait of a complex and driven man. Still, it does not avoid the old canards, the wholly unproven contention that Hoover was a closet homosexual and cross-dresser.

That the old queen never came out is clearly the fault of his mother, a commanding performance by Judi Dench, who tells him that sheâ(TM)d rather have a dead son than a daffodil for a son. A life of frustrated sexual tension lies ahead, touched on in Hooverâ(TM)s relationship with Clyde Tolson (Armie Hammer), his long-standing deputy at the FBI.

My criticism here is that Hooverâ(TM)s sexual preferences, whatever they were, are not that material to the story of his life and times. His principle relationship was not with Tolson or with Helen Gandy (Naomi Watts), his life-long secretary and confidant, but with the FBI, the organisation which he created virtually single-handed, or rather shaped into a tough, modern crime fighting force out of the old amateurish and bumbling Bureau of Investigation in the Justice Department.

I admire Eastwood as a director; I hugely admired movies as diverse as Gran Torino and Million Dollar Baby. But I have to say that there is a falling off with J. Edgar, signs that he is no longer quite in command of the medium as he once was. The pace is uneven and too much of the story is taken for granted, particularly over the kidnapping and death of the infant son of Charles Lindberg, the aviator, a defining moment in the history of crime in America.

Incidentally, speaking of aviators, DiCaprio seems to slightly reprise his depiction of Howard Hughes in The Aviator. Like Hughes his Hoover uses a handkerchief to clean his hands after he greets someone, another hint, presumably, of deep-seated personal neurosis.

On a more technical point it was a huge mistake to allow actors playing their young selves also to play their old selves, caked under ever more grotesque and ridiculous layers of rubber, to the point where they resemble puppets. This was an error avoided in The Iron Lady, where the young Margaret and the old Margaret are entirely different people. As J. Edgar cuts back and forward between the present and the past a considerable amount of time must have been spent in donning and discarding prosthetics!

It's a thoughtful film, though perhaps not thoughtful enough. Even so, setting the central performances to one side, itâ(TM)s also a plodding and ponderous one, coming close to its subject, then skipping away. After some two hours I was no closer to understanding the real Hoover than I was at the outset.

The thing I found most frustrating was the failure to draw parallels between the Red Scare that swept America after the First World War, touched upon in detail, and more modern concerns and threats. The central question about Hooverâ(TM)s career surely must the extent to which it is legitimate to subordinate civil liberties to national security in times of emergency, not his chaste and asexual personal affairs. Director and writer are to be commended for humanising the man, but, as another reviewer writes, they have in the process created a kind of bureaucratic version of Brokeback Mountain.
The Iron Lady The Iron Lady PG-13
There is one compelling reason to see The Iron Lady - Meryl Streep's performance as Margaret Thatcher. This is not acting; it's almost as if an uncanny doppelganger has come to life, a performance which seems to clone the real-life Thatcher; her speech patterns, her mannerisms, her movements, her gestures; a fine observation of the finest details. This really is iron. The movie itself, though, is a little more like wood.

I have no hesitation at all in saying that Margaret Thatcher only stands comparison with Oliver Cromwell as the greatest commoner in English history. When people like Ted Heath, her immediate predecessor as leader of the Conservative Party, and John Major, her immediate successor, are long forgotten, her legacy will continue to inspire and divide. She will continue to be loved and hated: a Roundhead for the Cavaliers, a Cavalier for the Roundheads; there can be no indifference here.

Given that the subject is still alive, The Iron Lady, directed by Phyllida Lloyd, was always going to be a controversial film, all the more controversial because there is a strong focus on the alleged effects of Baroness Thatcher's dementia. As a plotting device it works, at least up to a point, focusing in and out of the key events in her remarkable life. But the state of her mental health takes far, far too much time, crowding out so much of greater significance.

It's a sympathetic portrait, certainly; it humanises a woman that so many have demonised, but it really casts her achievements somewhat into the shadows. The highlights are all there but presented in a rather shallow, episodic fashion, sung out, if you like, as political karaoke, appropriate enough, as Lloyd's only other movie was the smash hit Mamma Mia.

The narrative is also rather confusing, events not coming in sequence. Moreover, Thatcher's observation that a woman would never be Prime Minister in her lifetime was made in 1970, not after she became leader of the Conservative Party, when it stood to reason that a woman was likely to become Prime Minister if she managed to win a general election!

In so many ways The Iron Lady is more of a personal odyssey, the Journey of the Grocer's Daughter, from hopeful dawn to sad twilight. As a biopic it simply does not stand comparison with Oliver Stone's Nixon, which managed to humanise another controversial figure without skimping on the political substance. It's also too ambitious in scope, far less focused than The Queen.

As a movie it's really more about aging and loss than anything else, and it might be best appreciated on that level. It managed to beguile and infuriate me by turns; beguile because of the sympathetic intimacy; infuriate because I wanted so much more, wanted to understand just what motivated her to act and believe as she did. I simply got no proper sense of the real Thatcher, the woman within the politician, the politician within the woman.

The play on Alzheimer's reminded me of Iris, the 2001 biopic on the life of the writer Iris Murdoch, all the more so as Jim Broadbent reprises his role as supportive partner in the midst of decline. In The Iron Lady he is there as Denis, Baroness Thatcher's husband, except that he is not there at all, merely a ghostly companion in her own demented mind, the only person with whom she continues to share intimacies. Broadbent's performance is dryly amusing, though perhaps a little too much of the amiable buffoon.

The flashbacks take us to Grantham and the early days of then Margaret Roberts, full of wide-eyed admiration for Alfred (Iain Glen), her grocer-come-politician father, a living representative of the kind of solid, unassuming virtues that made England the greatest nation of shopkeepers in history. Young Margaret is played by Alexandra Roach, another wonderful performance, second only to that of Streep. In what I thought the best scene in the movie we see her from above, freshly elected to Parliament, a flash of young and feminine blue in the midst of middle-aged masculine grey.

There are two other performances I would flag up, that of Anthony Head as Geoffrey Howe, Baroness Thatcher's onetime cabinet colleague and eventual political assassin, and Olivia Colman, who plays her daughter Carol with affection and devotion, receiving little in return from a mother who is too self-absorbed, a mother who clearly prefers Mark, her distant, and absent, brother.

Still, with all of the wooden inadequacies, I came away from The Iron Lady with an even greater sense of affection for the best British peace-time Prime Minister; a woman who was tried time and again and not found wanting; a woman who had the guts and determination to see things through; a woman who had the courage to tackle fascist thugs, trade union bullies and European bureaucrats - enemies without and within - when nobody else did, certainly not the dead sheep and appeasers with whom she was obliged to share office. Her betrayal in the end was the shabbiest act in Conservative Party history, a political assassination from which it has taken two decades to recover.

Anastasia's Favorite Movies


The Reader The Reader R
Is it possible to love the impossible? Let me put this another way: is it possible to love someone even in the face of the most terrible truths? My boyfriend and I went to see The Reader earlier this year. The movie is based, of course, on the novel of the same name by Bernhard Schlink, which I read some years ago when I was still at school. It?s chiefly about guilt; guilt about the Holocaust and guilt about the past; about personal guilt and about national guilt. It?s an impressive book, a tour de force, which made me think deep into the issues raised, but in an entirely cerebral way. I felt a certain guilty sympathy for the character of Hanna Schmitz, but nothing more. Then I saw the movie. Hanna Schmitz is played by Kate Winslet, a part for which she was awarded a golden globe and an Oscar, deservedly so. She brings out the human tragedy of Hanna, a woman whose struggle to hide a personal shame determines each and every choice she has made in life. The story begins in Germany some ten years after the end of the war. Hanna, a tram conductor, meets Michael Berg, the narrator of the story, and more than twenty years her junior. Despite the age difference they begin an affair, strongly sexual in nature, but lacking in real emotional engagement. Hanna continually holds Michael at a distance, and is sometimes quite callous in her attitude towards him. But she loves to be read to, all sorts of things, from Homer to Chekov. She never reads herself, not even the menu in a restaurant. The relationship continues over the course of a summer, the reading becoming as important, if not more important, than the sex. Then Hanna disappears, leaving nothing behind. Years later, Michael, now a law student, attends the trail of some former SS guards in the company of his professor and others in his seminar group. It?s just another exercise for him, but there, among the female defendants is Hanna. As the trail unfolds she is the only one to express just exactly what she had done, in a straightforward and altogether human fashion. She is guilty, yes, but no more than her fellow accused, who dissimulate and evade. When the court tries to establish who is most responsible for the principle crime, allowing hundreds of Jewish women to burn to death in a church, a document is produced, a report written after the event. The other accused collectively say that Hanna was the author. She is asked to provide a specimen of her hand writing. At once she admits that she wrote the document. This is the critical point, the point when Michael, watching from the galleries, understands the full truth; Hanna is illiterate. Everything has followed from this, even her decision to evade a promotion at Siemens and join the SS. She is the victim of her own shame. Michael, carrying his own guilt, remains silent, and Hanna goes to prison for life. Through all these stages, and all these changes, Winslet brings out Hannah?s inner struggles, shows her as a vulnerable and tragic figure, finally living through years in prison, consoled only by tapes sent by Michael; tapes of him reading Homer and Chekov. She ages; she learns to read; she asks Michael to write to her. Nothing ever comes; only the tapes. On the verge of release, after a visit in prison from Michael, their first meeting since she left his hometown all those years before, she hangs herself. Winslet made me understand Hannah, she made me ever more sympathetic to Hannah and, at the end, she made me love Hannah. Yes, it is possible to love the impossible.
Picnic at Hanging Rock Picnic at Hanging Rock PG
Full of magic and mystery

Looking For Someone Else?


Connect with Anastasia


  • Share movie reviews
  • Check out Anastasia's profile
  • Send Anastasia a message
  • Registration is free!
Sign up today!
Server: web111.flixster.com