I thought I'd offer up a little extra Almodovar reading for those taken by the film:
1). Here's a Volver-era excellent LA Times piece. Although students place him in "foreign," or "independent" categories, and ones who've read a bit on him might throw out the word "melodrama" the Times interview really explores how deep his genre roots are, including his desire to direct a Western. Here's some good parts:"A big influence on Almodóvar were movies, all kinds of movies. In fact, he claims that "my dream is to be able to shoot a western, but I need someone to write a script for me." The first movies he saw as a child were "Mexican genre films, science fiction and vampire movies, very kitsch. I learned what kitsch was very early." When he was an adolescent, Almodóvar discovered the Italian neo-realists. "They were the best movies in the world at the time," he says, noting that "Volver" is in part "a tribute to the Italian movies of the 1950s, crowded with wonderful women's parts." The director especially admires Luchino Visconti's "Bellissima," starring Anna Magnani as "the best symbol of glorious motherhood," a clip of which found its way into "Volver."
...
ALMODóVAR is also, no surprise, a major admirer of melodramas of all kinds. "It's a genre that talks more about human beings and the human way of life," he says. "If a movie is a melodrama, it may not seem that much is happening, but what is going on is in the feelings of the characters, and that can be as powerful as an Indiana Jones movie. I like to cry when I'm in the cinema, though not in my real life; it's good therapy. And melodrama is an opportunity for actors to give wonderful performances."
2). Senses of Cinema has a good piece here.
As for movie recommendations, I'd really push for you all to see All About My Mother as the best complement to Volver. I guess the second one to see would be Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown which really introduced him to mainstream art house America. it's a very funny film. It also stars Carmen Maura, who plays the mother from Volver.
Okay, I'll also include in my list a non-Almodovar Penelope Cruz film -- Abre los ojos (1997)which was remade very badly as Vanilla Sky.
4 comments:
I compared Penelope Cruz's performance in Volver to Helen Mirren's performance in the Queen the other day. Perhaps I’m comparing apples to oranges (although I feel any dramatic performance is comparable to another when one keeps them in the context of their own storyline, thus Mirren’s character ought to exhibit restraint, Cruz’s ought to have a more palpable expression of frustration and grief) but apart from comparison, this article made me realize why I personally am more moved by a performance like Cruz's than Mirren's (and I don’t even like Penelope Cruz…) Almodovar said: "I like to cry when I'm in the cinema, though not in my real life," which is my own preference, meaning that I like to share in the emotional state of the character or alternatively, be so afflicted by it that it taps into my own experience. The scene where Cruz sings, or when she sees her mother under the bed and rushes away- that’s the kind of performance I enjoy, where the actor is so overwhelmed by their character’s emotional state that it translates vividly on the screen. That’s not to say I don’t recognize the value of subtly (though I have a whole other bone to pick with the obsession with subtle movies probably because of my love for far-flung heroic epics that may or may not involve Shakespearean-esque speeches… and maybe I just like the fantasy of truly profound emotion rather than the reality of emotional restraint) but I felt it was an easier task for Mirren to play the part of a prim and proper older woman who shows flickers of emotion but maintains a sort of agonized self-possession (I can’t help but think back to Judi Dench in Shakespeare in Love) than for Cruz to assume the position of a matriarch who has to deal with some very painful issues. I agree Almodovar framed Cruz in a blatantly sensual way, but that almost acts against the actress, making the task of showing human emotion removed from sexuality even more difficult when the actress is as beautiful as Cruz. I could go on about how I don’t think that the Queen really developed the relationship between Blair and the Queen as it could have, and I never felt the situation as dire as it was made to appear, but my point I guess rests more with the characters. Also, I feel that imitation is actually easier than creation of a whole new character…I mean Jamie Foxx just had to imitate the actions of Ray, rather than construct the personality of a whole new character, and it's also too easy for someone like Charlize Theron to gain weight and wear false deeth in order to portray an ugly malicious character). Any thoughts? I'm not an actor, so I can't say I have personal experience... Oh and I had a lit class where we discussed whether it was really possible to center a story around a matriarchal family (we read During the Reign of the Queen of Persia) so it was interesting for me to see this film with that in mind.
Was it that the performance moved you more, or is it really that the Cruz character moved you. Aren't you perhaps saying that you get more pleasure out of characters who display emotions on their sleeves? In which case, it's really not a critique of performance but of character.
On matriarchal families, I'd suggest seeing Antonia' Line, described on IMDB as "A Belgian matron establishes and, for several generations, oversees a close-knit, matriarchal community where feminism and liberalism thrive." I have it on tape still if you want to borrow it.
And don't you dare stop blogging here! If you do I'll cut off your video supply.
I would say that the potential of great performance is tied into how the actor interprets the character, so my critique is of both. For example, Helen Mirren must have felt compelled to portray the Queen accurately, so an emotional display on the level of Cruz's would have been inconsistent with character. So yes, there was less of a chance of her character really moving me in an emotional sense. Still, I was prepared to be impressed by Mirren's interpretation/imitation but was left a little cold. I mean, there was the whole scene where she cries and then sees the deer, but I found that fairly contrived (and that was a moment where she showed emotion plainly). As for Cruz, it's true there were tears all over the place, but that wasn't what got me- it was more how she shut her eyes and seemed to be really feeling the music (which i always look for in live performances) and it wasn't that when she rushed away from her mother that she was dropping tears left and right but that I could sense apart from that how overwhelmed she/the character was by what she had just seen. If I'm comparing the level of theatrical skill each brought to their character, then I'd say Cruz really made me understand her character, whereas Mirren portrayed her character well but still didn't humanize her for me. It's like in the movie the Station Agent, the main character has little emotion, and even less dialogue, but the way he interacted with other characters, and slowly warmed to them only to withdraw again was rather moving. Of course, he had his "moment," although I do think that deer scene was Mirren's moment, and it didn't work for me. But to respond to your other question, I take pleasure out of characters who normally show extreme resilience to emotion but experience something where it becomes vital to express it in some small or large way...does this mean I get another rental from the Jim library? haha
one more push, this guy said it for me (Moriarty in his top ten list for 2006):
"There is a dynamic between mothers and daughters that is universal to every culture, but in the Latin culture, there are specific details that Almodovar captures perfectly here. It’s funny, it’s sweet, it’s maddening at times. And in that one perfect moment... Penelope singing in the restaurant... one of my favorite moments in anything this year... there was no film that broke my heart with such clarity this year."
Post a Comment