Anatomy of a Fall plus Short Takes on some other current cinematic topics

Accident, Suicide, or Murder?

Reviews and Comments by Ken Burke

I invite you to join me on a regular basis to see how my responses to current cinematic offerings compare to the critical establishment, which I’ll refer to as either the CCAL (Collective Critics at Large) if they’re supportive or the OCCU (Often Cranky Critics Universe) when they go negative.  However, due to COVID concerns I’m mostly addressing streaming options with limited visits to theaters, where I don’t think I’ve missed much anyway, but better options are on the horizon.  (Note: Anything in bold blue below [some may look near purple] is a link to something more in the review.)

My reviews’ premise: “You can’t please everyone, so you got to please yourself.”

(from "Garden Party" by Rick Nelson and the Stone Canyon Band, 1972 album of the same name)

Anatomy of a Fall (Justine Triet)   rated R   152 min.

Here’s the trailer:

       (Use the full screen button in the image’s lower right to enlarge its size; 

       activate the same button or use “esc” keyboard key to return to normal.)

If you can abide plot spoilers read on, but this blog’s intended for those who’ve seen the film or want to save some $ (as well as recognizing those readers like me who just aren’t that tech-savvy).  To help any of you who want to learn more details yet avoid these all-important plot-reveals I’ll identify any give-away sentences/sentence-clusters with colors plus arrows: 

⇒The first and last words will be noted with arrows and red.⇐ OK, now continue on if you prefer.

What Happens: (For the sake of concise presentation, I’m going to recount these contents  in chronological order rather than how they’re revealed individually in various scenes throughout the story.  It’s be quicker to read this way, but the original structure is much more interesting to watch.  [Sorry I didn’t catch the names of a few characters, thus no actor credits for them.])  Successful German novelist Sandra Voyter (Sandra Hüller)—who’s bisexual, a situation with a bearing on events as they play out in this plot—some time ago in London met French novelist Samuel Maleski (Samuel Theis), they married, now have 11-year-old-Daniel (Milo Machado Graner), and live in a 3-story-chalet near Grenoble in the French Alps, a hometown area for Samuel who wanted to return there so Sandra begrudgingly-agreed (she doesn’t command French all that well, so English is often spoken at home).  At some point in the past, Samuel was late in picking up his son, which ultimately resulted in an accident leaving the boy almost blind, a source of anguish for Samuel who’s taken antidepressants to ease his constant guilt, stopped the meds 6 months ago but tried suicide with an aspirin overdose, hasn’t been able to write much since the accident (although the idea for one of his unrealized books was borrowed, made into a success by his wife), often plays music very loud as he’s trying to drown out the world, lose himself in mostly-unrealized-concepts for his stagnant career.

 Sandra’s been consistently successful in her work but has antagonized Samuel by having had an affair with a woman, as well as often disagreeing with him.  All this leads to a vicious argument between them on the day before Samuel’s death, a conflict which he secretly recorded on his smart phone, as he often did to capture material he might be able to use for his writing.  As we get into the actual flow of the film, Sandra’s being interviewed by a graduate student (seen in effective shot/ countershot-closeups), although they can barely hear each other because on the next floor above Samuel’s blasting a steel-drum-version of 50 Cent’s “P.I.M.P.,” which finally leads to the interview being postponed (though Sandra’s OK with the noise, as she’s become used to Samuel doing such).

 We see the young interviewer drive away, following soon after by Daniel going for a walk in the snow with his guide dog, Snoop.  When the boy returns he’s horrified to find his father laying in the snow in front of their home, blood around his head and feet (seems he crawled a bit after the fall).  Horrified Sandra calls the police and an old-friend-lawyer, Vincent Renzi (Swann Arlaud); a re-creation of the death by the authorities along with autopsy results show a head wound occurred before Samuel hit the ground, but it’s unclear whether it came from him first bouncing off of a first-story-shed.  Given the conflicting circumstances, Sandra’s indicted, put on trial with the claim she hit her husband with a blunt object, pushed him out the window, while she claims innocence, insisting at first it was an accident, then that he committed suicide, even though during the trial his psychiatrist claims Samuel had no suicidal intentions.  Things get even worse for Sandra when the recording of their day-before-death-accusatory-argument is played in court (we get to see it in action through a long flashback scene), with sounds of violence after the verbal confrontations; the prosecutor then claims the loud music was because of Samuel’s anger over assumed-flirting with the interviewer, resulting in a confrontation between the spouses after she left (by this point Sandra’s convinced the judge to let her speak in English rather than her halting French, so we don’t have to read as much).

 However, Daniel wants to testify on the following Monday, yet he doesn’t want Mom to be with him at home over the weekend so she leaves him in the care of a court-appointed-overseer, Marge Berger (Jehnny Beth). ⇒During the 2-day-break, Daniel remembers Snoop once getting sick from licking up some of Samuel’s vomit so the kid purposely feeds the dog aspirin which again makes him sick until Marge makes the dog vomit, then recover, so Daniel now believes Sandra’s Samuel-aspirin-suicide-testimony.  In court Daniel testifies Samuel once told him he has to be prepared for when tragedies happen, including the eventual death of Snoop or Dad’s own death, so he further supports Sandra’s suicide explanation for Samuel.  We don’t actually see the trial's end, but later scenes tell us Sandra's found not guilty, celebrates a bit with Vincent and his colleagues, goes home to Daniel, says goodbye to Marge, carries asleep Daniel up to bed, settles on a couch with Snoop.⇐

So What? This film has already piled up a hefty collections of wins and nominations (some of which might lead to more wins when decisions are announced), including Oscar noms for Best Picture, Director, Actress in a Leading Role (Hüller), Original Screenplay (Triet, Arthur Harari), Editing (Laurent Sénéchel)—full Oscar noms list is the first entry in the Related Links segment of this posting farther below.  (You’ll find Oppenheimer [Christopher Nolan; review in our August 17, 2023 posting] leads the way with 13, followed by Poor Things [Yorgos Lanthimos; haven’t seen it yet, could impact a lot of my 2023 Top lists] with 11, Killers of the Flower Moon [Martin Scorsese; review in our November 9, 2023 posting—still my Best Picture of last year] with 10, Barbie [Greta Gerwig; review in our August 17, 2023 posting] with 8, Maestro [Bradley Cooper; review in our January 4, 2024 posting] with 7; also, 3 of the 2024 Best Picture nominations were directed by women: Anatomy of a Fall, Barbie, Past Lives [Celine Song; review in our August 31, 2023 posting], yet only Triet made the 5 Best Director finalists; no People of Color are Best Director nominees, but there’s at least 1 in all 4 of the acting categories, with 3 vying for Actress in a Supporting Role: Danielle Brooks [The Color Purple {2023}, Blitz Bazawule; no Two Guys review yet], America Ferrera [Barbie], Da’ Vine Joy Randolph [The Holdovers, Alexander Payne; reviewed in our December 13, 2023 posting]).

 OK, enough Oscar distraction for now (well, almost enough; hard to break away from these fresh announcements), back to Anatomy …, which would seem at this point to be a strong contender for my 2023 Top 10 list (once I get streaming options for American Fiction [Cord Jefferson], the new version of The Color Purple, Nyad [Jimmy Chin, Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi], Poor Things, and The Zone of Interest [Jonathan Glazer] to see what they all look/feel like), but I can already say that for whatever flaws others might find with Anatomy of a Fall, they were smoothed over for me by the magnificent performance of Hüller, whose impact alone in this story easily pulled this film into 4 stars-territory for me, in the same way that Kate Blanchett so-successfully-dominated Blue Jasmine (Woody Allen, 2013 [review in our August 16, 2013 posting]), making up more than enough for any shortcomings that film might have had (including, for some, the fact it was directed by Allen).  Oscar voters agreed as Blanchett won the award for Best Actress in a Leading Role. Yes, yes Anatomy … !

 Hüller’s steadily-building-presence in the courtroom scenes along with her dynamic conflict with Theis on the day before Samuel’s death show a grand escalation of emotional force, building upon her calm, near-ethereal demeanor in that opening scene of the attempted interview.  She flawlessly-reverts to this calm again at the end of the film, sleeping comfortably (so it seems) with Snoop on a couch, not even occupying a bed she previously would have shared with her husband.  I’ve read that she’s equally-impactful as the wife of the commandant of the Auschwitz concentration camp in The Zone of Interest, which might further enhance her Oscar odds for Anatomy … even as she wasn’t nominated for that other film (which did pick up 5 noms anyway for Best Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay [Glazer], International Feature Film [where it may be the favorite, although I know nothing at this time about the other 4 nominees], and Sound [Tarn Willers, Johnnie Burn]), although the Actress in a Leading Role race would seem to be between Lily Gladstone (my favorite so far, Killers of the Flower Moon), Carey Mulligan (Maestro), and Emma Stone (Poor Things), but I think it will a tight race among Oscar voters in this category with many strong contenders for the big triumph.

 For those loath to read subtitles, Anatomy of a Fall may present a problem as some dialogue—from a French film, after all—is in French (translated at the bottom of the screen for monolinguists like me), but much of it's in English—Sandra’s preference—so I hope you’d find the subtitle-distractions, if any, to eventually be a minor enough situation to dismiss, allowing you to fully immerse yourself in a provocative, mesmerizing film I’m emphatic in recommending that you seek out.  If you’re still hesitant, at least consider trading 2½ hours of viewing for an 8:33 video which summarizes the plot, offers a clear conclusion to the mystery (so, obviously, Spoilers; keep that in mind if you do choose watching Anatomy of a Fall, because you don’t want to spoil this ending for yourself in the process).

Bottom Line Final Comments: Anatomy of a Fall began its domestic (U.S.-Canada) release on October 13, 2023, made only about $4 million at the box-office, although it also debuted in many other countries around the globe during last year, continuing into this one—beginning with France on August 23, 2023—for a worldwide total of $23.4 million, but to see it now you’ll need to turn to streaming where for a $5.99 rental you can access it on Amazon Prime Video, Apple TV+, Vudu, and other platforms.  The CCAL would certainly erergeticaly-encourage you to do so, with the Rotten Tomatoes positive reviews at a whopping 96% (no fluke, based on 239 reactions), with the Metacritic average score at a quite high (for them) 86%.  Oh, did I mention that this film won the prestigious Palme d’Or (top prize) at France’s 2023 Cannes Film Festival, along with the silly Palm Dog Award for Snoop (played by Messi, apparently), presented by international critics for the best performance by a dog (or dogs), live or animated, so with all of those reasons (including marvelous Snoop) to spend some time with Anatomy …, I hope I’ve convinced you to go seek it out. 

  In the meantime you can occupy yourself with my usual review-wrap-up-device of a Musical Metaphor, with my choice this time likely to seem a bit odd, given this is an upbeat song (with positive intentions) being paired with a decidedly-serious-film using some harsh negativity, but after you’ve spent 152 min. with a gruesome death, those intense legal attempts to find a wife guilty of murdering her husband, and some crucial testimony from a conflicted child, you might be ready for something of a lighter nature so I’ll offer The Beatles’ “I’ve Just Seen a Face” (from their 1965 albums, Help! In the U.K., Rubber Soul in the U.S. [due to greedy Capitol Records]) at https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=m8LbJfC0SYM where I contend this song, originally intended to celebrate an exuberant-case of love at first sight, can be (twistingly?) applied to Anatomy of a Fall (a title that could easily conjure up a connection to the classic Anatomy of a Murder [Otto Preminger, 1959], thereby indicating an answer [accurate or not] to the crucial question of what happened to Samuel?).

 Following the structure of this song, years ago before marital problems became constant Samuel's response to meeting this intriguing German author could easily have been: “I’ve just seen a face, I can’t forget the time or place / Where we just met, she’s just the girl for / And I want all the world to see we’ve met / Had it been another day I might have looked the other way / And I’d have never been aware,” which is a positive scenario in the original intention of the song, but, I wonder, had Samuel never “been aware” of Sandra would his life taken another, healthier course?   Yet, as it is, his situation is Fallin’, yes, I am fallin’ / And she keeps callin’ me back again,” because I never believed Sandra wanted him dead—except, maybe in the spur of an angry moment she might have acted beyond her true deep feelings and … well, I can’t get into Spoiler territory, now can I?  Or have you already peeked into the blue text at the end of the What Happens segment?  If you haven’t already learned more than you should if you want to keep the ending of Anatomy … available to be fully experienced, I encourage you to stay strong, leave this review behind for now, and go watch the film.  However, if you need something else to help distract you there’s always what Samuel was using (?) to drive Sandra crazy, the steel drum instrumental version of “"P.I.M.P." (the Bacao Rhythm & Steel Band, 2016 55 album) or you might want to explore the full 50 Cent original version (from his 2003 Get Rich Or Die Tryin’ album), but do be aware of some of his R-rated lyrics.

               

SHORT TAKES

            

Related Links Which You Might Find Interesting:   

Some options regarding this year's Oscar awards: (1) 2024 Oscar nominations for 2023 releases; (2) 25 films snubbed by the Oscars (I haven’t seen some of them, others not likely in my 2023 Top 10 list); (3) Oscar snubs and surprises; (4) Where to stream many of the 2024 Oscar nominees.

We encourage you to visit the Summary of Two Guys Reviews for our past posts* (scroll to the bottom of this Summary page to see additional info about your wacky critic, Ken Burke, along with contact info and a great retrospective song list).  Overall notations for this blog—including Internet formatting craziness beyond our control—may be found at our Two Guys in the Dark homepage.  If you’d like to Like us on Facebook (yes?) please visit our Facebook page.  We appreciate your support whenever and however you can offer it unto us!  Please also note that to Post a Comment below about our reviews you need to have either a Google account (which you can easily get at https://accounts.google.com/NewAccount if you need to sign up) or other sign-in identification from the pull-down menu below before you preview or post.  You can also leave comments at our Facebook page, although you may have to somehow register with us at that site in order to do it (most FB procedures are still a perplexing mystery to us old farts).

*Please ignore previous warnings about a “dead link” to our Summary page because the problem’s been manually fixed so that all postings since July 11, 2013 now have the proper functioning link.

If you’d rather contact Ken directly rather than leaving a comment here at the blog please 

use my email address of kenburke409@gmail.com—type it directly if the link doesn’t work.

            

OUR POSTINGS PROBABLY LOOK BEST ON THE MOST CURRENT VERSIONS OF MAC OS AND THE SAFARI WEB BROWSER (although Google Chrome usually is decent also); OTHERWISE, BE FOREWARNED THE LAYOUT MAY SEEM MESSY AT TIMES.

              

Finally, for the data-oriented among you, Google stats say over the past month the total unique hits at this site were 5,579—a huge drop-off from the marvelous 40-50K of  some recent months; never overestimate yourself! (As always, we thank all of you for your ongoing support with our hopes you’ll continue to be regular readers.)  Below is a snapshot of where those responses have come from within the previous week (with appreciation for the unspecified “Others” also visiting Two Guys’ site):

Napoleon plus Short Takes on some other cinematic topics

The Emperor Does Have Some Clothes,

But in the End They’re Not Worth Much

       

Review and Comments by Ken Burke

I invite you to join me on a regular basis to see how my responses to current cinematic offerings compare to the critical establishment, which I’ll refer to as either the CCAL (Collective Critics at Large) if they’re supportive or the OCCU (Often Cranky Critics Universe) when they go negative.  However, due to COVID concerns I’m mostly addressing streaming options with limited visits to theaters, where I don’t think I’ve missed much anyway, though better options may be on the horizon.  (Note: Anything in bold blue [some may look near purple] is a link to something more in the review.)

My reviews’ premise: “You can’t please everyone, so you got to please yourself.”

(from "Garden Party" by Rick Nelson and the Stone Canyon Band, 1972 album of the same name)

Normally, I offer the following warning for anyone who decides to read my reviews in this goofy blog:

If you can abide plot spoilers read on, but this blog’s intended for those who’ve seen the film or want to save some $ (as well as recognizing those readers like me who just aren’t that tech-savvy).  To help any of you who want to learn more details yet avoid these all-important plot-reveals I’ll identify any give-away sentences/sentence-clusters with colors plus arrows: 

⇒The first and last words will be noted with arrows and red.⇐ OK, now continue on if you prefer.

However, given that my review this time around is about a biographical subject you can easily acquire extensive details about, I see no point in that tactic in this instance, so just read all you want.

   Napoleon [2023] (Ridley Scott)   rated R   158 min.

Here’s the trailer:

       (Use the full screen button in the image’s lower right to enlarge its size; 

       activate the same button or use “esc” keyboard key to return to normal.)

What Happens: We begin in 1793 as the French Revolution (started in 1789) is in full-swing with Queen Marie Antoinette (Catherine Walker) dragged to her guillotine-beheading, while watching from the boisterous crowd is young Army officer Napoleon Bonaparte (Joaquin Phoenix) who longs for glory but is generally dismissed as being a mere ruffian from Corsica.  His fortunes change, though, when revolutionary leader Paul Barras (Tahar Rahim) sends him to drive the British from the coastal city of Toulon, which he does with effective use of artillery to damage the British fleet, resulting in Napoleon’s promotion to Brigadier General, soon followed by the end of the Reign of Terror in 1794 (during which the increasingly-demanding-revolutionaries turned on their previous leaders with a crowd attacking Maximillen Robespierre [Sam Troughton] who attempted suicide, failed, was then executed*).  Napoleon’s fame continues to grow when he puts down a royalist insurrection in 1796.  Soon after that he becomes intrigued by widow (husband killed by the revolutionaries) Joséphine de Beuharnais (Vanessa Kirby), leading to marriage as each one tells the other how they are interdependent.  In 1798 Napoleon is attempting to rout the British at the Battle of the Pyramids in Egypt, but he abandons his troops to rush home when he’s told of Joséphine having an affair with young lover Hippolyte Charles (Jannis Niewöhner).  He first confronts her, but she responds: “You are nothing without me”; he agrees (he also had affairs, so he couldn't be too upset).

*Another former leader against the monarchy, Jean-Paul Marat, was brutally killed in 1793, with his later travails explored in The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton, set in 1808 after Napoleon had become Emperor, a play by Peter Weiss (1963), film by Peter Brook (1967).  Some music (written by Richard Peaslee) from this narrative, “Homage to Marat,” “Marat We’re Poor,” “People’s Reaction,” “Poor Old Marat”—noted just as "Marat/Sade"—was recorded by Judy Collins for her In My Life album (1966) which I’ll provide here as an opening Musical Metaphor because it gives a useful context for the chaos facing France in the early 1790s, conditions which Napoleon quickly exploited for his increasing-benefit over the next decade.  (This video is illustrated by a detail of Jacques-Louis David’s painting, The Death of Marat [1793], with another David painting of Napoleon’s 1804 coronation [which actually shows him about to crown Empress Josephine]—done in 1807—serving as a visual inspiration for the scene in this movie noted just below.)  You can read a bit more about other inspirations for costumes here.

 Next he’s admonished by the now-ruling group called The Directory, so he—with the help of some colleagues—overthrows them, declaring himself the powerful First Consul in 1799.  By 1804 he’s become Emperor of the French, agreed to by the pope, although Napoleon breaks tradition by putting the crown on his own head.  In 1805 he defeats a combined Austrian-Russian army, with the cruel tactic of cannon fire onto the frozen lake his enemies are using for retreat, resulting in the horrific drowning of many of them.  The only negative aspect of these years of his rise to increasing-power is Joséphine never becomes pregnant, denying him of the necessary situation of a male heir; to prove that his wife is at fault, Napoleon’s mother has him impregnate a young woman, leading to his divorce from Joséphine in 1810, although they continue to be in contact even after he marries Duchess Marie Louise (Anna Mawn) of Austria who provides him with that long-sought-son.  Having conquered much of Europe by 1812, Napoleon invades Russia, but, despite military victories on the road to Moscow, Russian Tsar Alexander I (Edouard Phillipponnat) outsmarts him by evacuating the city, setting it on fire.  Napoleon makes the foolish move to march through the bitter winter to St. Petersburg, but the combination of harsh weather and strained supply lines to his troops leads to retreat, with only about 40,000 of his 600,000 troops still alive to return, defeated, to France in 1813.

 As a result of this disaster, forces of the Coalition (Austria, Prussia, Russia, Spain, Great Britain, Portugal, Sweden, Sardinia, and some German states—essentially the areas of Europe not previously conquered by Napoleon or free of his yoke [countries he had dominated were largely run by his regents, some of them his brothers]) invaded France in 1814, occupied Paris, restored the monarchy, forced Napoleon into exile on the Mediterranean island of Elba.  In 1815 Napoleon is informed that Joséphine is ill, so he returns to France only to find she’s already dead from diphtheria.  King Louis XVIII (Ian McNeice) sends a regiment to capture Napoleon; however, he convinces them to accept him as their leader again, but he’s later confronted at Waterloo (now in Belgium) by the British army (aided by Prussian troops), conquered by the Duke of Wellington (Rupert Everett), leading to Napoleon’s final exile to the island of Saint Helena (middle of the Atlantic Ocean) where he dies in 1821, seeming to hear Joséphine beckoning him to join her once again.  Epilogue graphics note the numbers killed in his various battles (1792-1815) to be close to 3 million.

So What? Given my previous appreciation for the work of director Scott—nominated for the Best Director Oscar for Thelma and Louise (1991), Gladiator (2000), Black Hawk Down (2001), along with being a producer for Best Picture nominee The Martian (2015 [review in our October 8, 2015 posting]), as well as director of other classics such as Alien (1979) and Blade Runner (1982)—and principal actor Phoenix—nominated for Oscar’s Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role for Gladiator, Walk the Line (James Mangold, 2005), The Master (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2012 [review in our September 27, 2012 posting]), won for Joker (Todd Phillips, 2019 [review in our October 9, 2019 posting])—I was quite intrigued to see Napoleon even though the OCCU has not been very supportive (more on that farther below), so I invested a lot of time plus a good chunk of cash to watch this latest opus from some well-known screen talent (although I wish Scott would hurry up his Alien prequels with the timeline—and the spread-out-release times of these sci-fi movies—getting a bit tiresome).  Unfortunately, what I got was just what the OCCU predicted: a lot of history (but leaving out even more about this famous person) crammed into a longer-than-average-running time, yet little sense of the motivations and ultimate goals of this impactful-history maker, except to see him intending to conquer every square foot of Europe at any cost.  (Even some voiceovers from Napoleon don't help much [technically, his name should carry an accent on the “e,” “Napoléon,” but given that’s been left off the title {I’m surprised I haven’t noted the French complaining about that} I’ll also leave it off any further references to this movie or its protagonist during the rest of this review]).

 The combat scenes of the 1805 Battle of Austerlitz (although various historians reject there were many [any?] drownings in what was actually a shallow pond) and the 1812 Battle of Borodino in the Russia campaign are masterfully done (if anything about the brutality of warfare can be considered “masterful”), but other than that we’re just sailing along through the biographical highlights of a maniacal tyrant (Is there any other kind?  Maybe I’ve just seen too much lately of the multi-indicted-guy who just won those GOP Iowa caucuses.) as we shift from battlefield victories (and, most importantly, defeats) to romance turmoil as Joséphine gets credit for knowing her own worth even as her empire easily bids farewell due to her motherhood-inability (as a military leader Napoleon was often successful using battlefield cannons, though his own “cannon” didn’t bring victory with his wife).

 You could get a lot of this same information in a much more concise manner by simply watching this short video (15:53) about Napoléon from the Crash Course on European History series.  Another series on YouTube, one I often cite in these postings, is the Top 10 Things Right and Wrong in whatever cinematic experience is under review here, with the one devoted to Napoleon (12:11 [ads interrupt at 2:30, 9:29]) mostly agreeing with what’s shown on screen except for M. Bonaparte not being at Marie Antoinette’s execution, Napoleon doesn’t rush away from Egypt when he hears of Joséphine’s infidelity, it’s not true how he learned about her death (he already knew before he left Elba), and there was no bullet shot through the side of his hat during the Battle of Waterloo.  However, if you want to get more deeply into French complaints about Scott’s inaccuracies in this movie you can consult this article which details how historians find much fault with Scott’s approach; not to be outdone by his critics, Scott retaliates here.  Certainly, filmmakers have license to present their own interpretations of historical facts for entertainment purposes, but just as Lisa Marie Presley was upset with her mother’s approval of how Elvis was presented in Priscilla (Sofia Coppola, 2023 [review in our January 4, 2024 posting]), so a good number of French people seem quite put off with how director Scott and screenwriter David Scarpa have depicted the long-ago-Emperor of France.  You’re welcome to whatever response you'll have if you choose to watch this movie, but, for me, it's more about lack of dramatic involvement than historical-presentation failures.

Bottom Line Final Comments: Napoleon opened domestically (U.S.-Canada) on November 22, 2023, is still in a few theaters (none that close to me), has pulled in $61.4 million so far ($216.7 worldwide), but is mostly to be found now via streaming on Amazon Prime Video, etc. for a $19.99 rental, if you care to pursue it (oddly enough, despite Apple as a production company and distributor it hasn’t come to Apple TV+ yet).  Critics are in borderline CCAL/OCCU mode with the Rotten Tomatoes positive reviews at 58%, the Metacritic average score surprisingly-higher at 64%.  Nevertheless, what I truly wish I could recommend to you regarding at least a partial look at the life of Napoléon Bonaparte (what I’m about to describe was originally intended to be 1 of maybe 6 films about him; this one covers his life from 1783 at a military college to his invasion of Italy in 1796) is Napoléon  (note the "e" accent) by Abel Gance (1927), a multi-hour extravaganza by a French master of silent cinema just as the industry was in the earliest days of converting to sound.  There are a several cinematic experimental incorporations in this older film that surprised audiences of those days, with the most dynamic being how the final scenes were suddenly part of a 3-screen-triptych as 2 additional projectors brought the visuals into a marvelously widescreen configuration, with some of the imagery in vast horizontal panoramas, some of it in multi-image juxtaposition.   It also evokes this successful soldier’s fond connections to the ideals of the Revolution, whereas Scott’s version seems to forget that completely once Napoleon is (temporarily) secured as Emperor.

 Due to the extended length, the difficult technological requirements to properly show what Gance had created, and the need for a full orchestra to provide audio accompaniment to match the power of the visuals, this masterpiece was rarely seen after the mid-1930s until film historian/restorer Kevin Brownlow began working on a decades-long-project to bring Napoléon back into theaters, at least for singular special events.  For awhile in 1980 Francis Ford Coppola released his own edit of the Brownlow footage which ran for nearly 4 hours at 24 frames per second (a standard speed for silent films), a musical soundtrack by his father, Carmine Coppola, attached (I saw this version when I lived in Dallas, TX; it was quite spectacular), but the most triumphant version of Napoléon I’ve had the pleasure to encounter was in 2012 in Oakland, CA at the magnificent Art Deco Paramount Theatre where it ran for 5 hours, 32 minutes at 20 fps, with the triptych finale, accompanied by a live orchestra using Clive Davis’ score (there were 3 intermissions, 1 of them an extended dinner break).

 My review of this long-ago-marvel (a rare 5 stars praise) is in our March 30, 2012 posting (early on in this blog’s existence, lousy layout with too much text relative to the visuals; my apologies).  I wish I could easily steer you to a video transcription of it—and there are some—but I have no idea how well they capture the visual impact of this film, let alone what soundtrack (if any?) is used.  You can get the 1980 Coppola version in a U.S. region DVD for only $9.99 from this site, but the (hopefully) best investment comes from another site which seems to be the 2012 Brownlow version DVD for $29.99 ($76.39 for Blu-ray), but this is a Region 2 DVD not playable in the U.S.-Canada market (intended for Europe, most of Asia/Oceania, most of Africa, parts of South America) unless you also buy a Multi-Region Code Zone Free PAL/NTSC player for an additional $29.98; I’ll leave that choice to you, but assuming this all works as intended it would be a marvelous investment to be able to own/see the wonder that is Gance’s Napoléon.  If you don’t want to go to all that trouble, though, you might content yourself with this trailer from that film, along with my chosen Musical Metaphor for Scott’s current biopic of Napoleon, which I think should be Bob Dylan’s “It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue” (from his notable 1965 Bringing It All Back Home album) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pF9 wmfGI0iA (live concert in Manchester, England 1965), choosing it not so much for what happens in most of the movie but more about how it all falls apart for Napoleon by the end: “You must leave now, take what you need, you think will last / But whatever you wish to keep, you better grab it fast […] All your seasick sailors, they are rowing home / All your reindeer armies, are all going home […] Forget the dead you’ve left, they will not follow you […] Strike another match, go start anew / And it’s all over now, Baby Blue.”  No clarity on who the Baby Blue is here (some even speculate it might be self-referential, Dylan’s former-folkie-persona), but for me it sounds an awful lot like the Napoleon Ridley Scott's constructed for us, no matter how he might resemble the historical Emperor of France.

           

SHORT TAKES

            

Related Links Which You Might Find Interesting:   

Options for you: (1) Emmy Awards list for 2023 TV programs; (2) 2024 Critics Choice Awards list (film winners similar to Golden Globe winners; TV winners somewhat similar to Emmy winners); (3) Killers of the Flower Moon now available on Apple TV+ (still my choice, Best Picture of 2023).

We encourage you to visit the Summary of Two Guys Reviews for our past posts* (scroll to the bottom of this Summary page to see additional info about your wacky critic, Ken Burke, along with contact info and a great retrospective song list).  Overall notations for this blog—including Internet formatting craziness beyond our control—may be found at our Two Guys in the Dark homepage.  If you’d like to Like us on Facebook (yes?) please visit our Facebook page.  We appreciate your support whenever and however you can offer it unto us!  Please also note that to Post a Comment below about our reviews you need to have either a Google account (which you can easily get at https://accounts.google.com/NewAccount if you need to sign up) or other sign-in identification from the pull-down menu below before you preview or post.  You can also leave comments at our Facebook page, although you may have to somehow register with us at that site in order to do it (most FB procedures are still a perplexing mystery to us old farts).

*Please ignore previous warnings about a “dead link” to our Summary page because the problem’s been manually fixed so that all postings since July 11, 2013 now have the proper functioning link.

If you’d rather contact Ken directly rather than leaving a comment here at the blog please 

use my email address of kenburke409@gmail.com—type it directly if the link doesn’t work.

           

OUR POSTINGS PROBABLY LOOK BEST ON THE MOST CURRENT VERSIONS OF MAC OS AND THE SAFARI WEB BROWSER (although Google Chrome usually is decent also); OTHERWISE, BE FOREWARNED THE LAYOUT MAY SEEM MESSY AT TIMES.

           

Finally, for the data-oriented among you, Google stats say over the past month the total unique hits at this site were 5,579—a huge drop-off from the marvelous 40-50K of  some recent months; never overestimate yourself! (As always, we thank all of you for your ongoing support with our hopes you’ll continue to be regular readers.)  Below is a snapshot of where those responses have come from within the previous week (with appreciation for the unspecified “Others” also visiting Two Guys’ site):

Saltburn plus Short Takes on some other cinematic topics

A Well-Calculated Under-the-Radar Assault

Review and Comments by Ken Burke

I invite you to join me on a regular basis to see how my responses to current cinematic offerings compare to the critical establishment, which I’ll refer to as either the CCAL (Collective Critics at Large) if they’re supportive or the OCCU (Often Cranky Critics Universe) when they go negative.  However, due to COVID concerns I’m mostly addressing streaming options with limited visits to theaters, where I don’t think I’ve missed much anyway, but better options are on the horizon.  (Note: Anything in bold blue below [some may look near purple] is a link to something more in the review.)

My reviews’ premise: “You can’t please everyone, so you got to please yourself.”

(from "Garden Party" by Rick Nelson and the Stone Canyon Band, 1972 album of the same name)

 Saltburn (Emerald Fennell, 2023)  rated R  131 min.

Here’s the trailer:

       (Use the full screen button in the image’s lower right to enlarge its size; 

       activate the same button or use “esc” keyboard key to return to normal.)

If you can abide plot spoilers read on, but this blog’s intended for those who’ve seen the film or want to save some $ (as well as recognizing those readers like me who just aren’t that tech-savvy).  To help any of you who want to learn more details yet avoid these all-important plot-reveals I’ll identify any give-away sentences/sentence-clusters with colors plus arrows: 

⇒The first and last words will be noted with arrows and red.⇐ OK, now continue on if you prefer.

(Photos retain the film's 4x3 format; side black bars aren’t seen, just show what a widescreen format would be.  Character on the left is Oliver, on the right Cousin Farleigh [couldn't find one of Felix].)

What Happens: 2006, a new class of students enters England’s Oxford U., including working-class Oliver Quick (Barry Keoghan) on a scholarship, intimidated by so very many wealthy, privileged classmates, with a clear understanding of this as he meets with a professor (Reese Shearsmith) who’s surprised but not all that impressed by the kid’s having read all 50 of the suggested books prior to the fall semester yet is accepting/near-differential to late-arriving Farleigh Start (Archie Madekwe), due to his mother being a woman the prof admired years ago from afar when they were both Oxford students (we later learn Farleigh’s a cousin of the Catton family, a major presence here, his Mom a sister of Sir James Catton [Richard E. Grant] who sent her away to America, has cut off her family funding).  Oliver has his own admiration from afar for Felix Catton (Jacob Elordi)—rich, handsome, popular—but feels he has no opening to make contact, until one day as he’s bicycling to return some books he finds Felix on the trail with his bike hobbled by a flat tire, making him soon-to-be-late for an important appointment (seems to run in this family), so Oliver lends Felix his bike, leading to Felix inviting Oliver to join in with his crowd, even providing the excuse at a pub one night that Oliver dropped his wad of bills on the way to the bar to pay for a round for the group (just before Felix showed up with this sudden rescue, Oliver was mortified with no way to afford so many drinks).

 As their friendship grows, Oliver tells Felix he has no useful home life as his parents are addicts, then he breaks the news his father’s just died, so Felix invites Oliver to spend the summer with him at the family estate, Saltburn.  Upon arriving at this grand location with its monstrous mansion, Oliver’s welcomed by the entire extended family—Sir James, Lady Elspeth (Rosamund Pike), Felix’s sister Venetia (Alison Oliver), her friend Pamela (Carey Mulligan)—although cousin Farleigh’s there too, caustic as ever, barely hiding distain for the guest.  As time goes on, seemingly-shy Oliver makes clear his obsession with Felix by seeing his friend masturbating in the bathtub, licking up some of the water afterward; later, he will make useful connections with other members of this group.

 He praises Lady Elspeth’s beauty as a reason Venetia feels insecure, then seduces Venetia with oral sex in the garden one night despite her menstuation—Farleigh sees this, threatens Oliver with the revelation yet Oliver responses with a sexual advance on Farleigh at night, further demanding he keep the Oliver-Venetia incident a secret.  Farleigh’s ousted the next day anyway when Sir James discovers the young man intended to sell some Catton valuables through a London auction house.

 As summer’s end nears, James and Elspeth plan a huge birthday party for Oliver, even as Felix decides to surprise his friend with a trip to Oliver’s home in an attempt to reconcile him with his distant family.  To Felix’s shock, Oliver’s Dad Jeff (Shaun Dooley) is very much alive, he and Mum Paula (Dorothy Atkinson) are quite decent folks with love for their intelligent son, so angry Felix tells Oliver he’s to leave Saltburn right after the party, with Oliver’s pleas about loving Felix to no avail.  Instead, Oliver poisons Felix’s drink that night, killing him, then is asked by Elspeth to stay on.  In one of the most convincing scenes for an R rating, Oliver goes at night to Felix’s fresh grave, prostrates himself on the dirt, gyrating, then takes off his clothes to either masturbate on the plot or simulate sex with the corpse (yet, when the film begins we find older Oliver saying he was never in love with Felix [despite earlier pleas to the contrary], later says he hated his supposed close friend).  Oliver leaves the impression Felix died from drugs supplied by Farleigh so Sir James cuts him off completely, forbids his return to this family.  Soon troubled Venetia is found dead in that noted bathtub, having slit her wrists (we learn that Oliver put the razor blades nearby so she’d easily find them).  At this point, Sir James pays Oliver to leave, which he accepts.  ⇒Forward to 2022: Oliver reads about Sir James’ death, has a chance encounter with Elspeth at a café where she invites him back to Saltburn; he accepts, then sometime later we find her in poor health with Oliver removing her breathing tube, killing her, as he knows she’s left the estate and the family fortune to him in her will.  In the final scene, naked Oliver is dancing through his new home, with a flashback that shows him damaging Felix’s bicycle tire years ago, letting us know he had a carefully-calculated-plan to ingratiate himself with the Cattons (what he might have had to do with Sir James’ death, Elspeth’s illness we’re not shown, but he certainly could have been involved in their situations as well), eventually acquire all of their heritage as he apparently despised his own original station in life.⇐

So What? Maybe it’s tradition for upper-class-Brits to have country estates with odd names, as I now find Saltburn joining James Bond’s Skyfall (from the movie by that name; Sam Mendes, 2012).  That’s not what intrigued me about this film, though; the more-compelling-attractions include my admiration for Fennell’s earlier Promising Young Woman (2020, Oscar win for her for Best Original Screenplay; 4-stars review in our January 28, 2021 posting) along with the presence of Pike and Mulligan (although the latter’s presence is brief here; I definitely wanted to see more of Mulligan after her marvelous work in Maestro [Bradley Cooper, 2023; review in our January 4, 2024 posting] but also was quite pleased with Elordi, who impressed me considerably more in the role of Felix than he did as Elvis Presley in Priscilla [Sofia Coppola, 2023; review in that same 1/4/2024 posting])—for that matter, I didn’t immediately remember seeing Keoghan, even though I’d watched him in Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan, 2017; review in our July 27, 2017 posting), The Green Knight (David Lowery, 2021; review in our November 4, 2021 posting), and The Banshees of Inisherin (Martin McDonagh, 2022; review in our December 22, 2022 posting) and ultimately enjoyed him considerably more in this present role.  Saltburn is a wicked film (some might say darkly-comic, others might be horrified at the casual-regard for human life evidenced by Oliver), exploring the worst aspects of class-privilege, class-obsession, but it’s all done with a discerning eye/attitude by the production team; those unsavory aspects are analyzed well in this short video (10:45; Spoilers [ad interrupts at 8:05]) with eloquent explorations of 2 dominant themes: insatiable desire & exploring the forbidden. 

 For a useful look at Fennell’s own commentary on her film, here’s her extended exploration (13:35 [ad interrupts at 8:20]) about the scene of Oliver’s arrival at Saltburn (including why she used the old, boxy 4x3 format rather than the usual widescreen of today, to be able to include both fabulous floors and ceilings in the same shots within Saltburn [filmed in an actual English mansion] implying the long tradition of wealth and assumed-social-standing of the Cattons, both in what’s shown of their fabulous residence and in the implication of these older images of how this family’s rooted in the past, even though Oliver longs to be part of such a heritage as well, by any mad means necessary).

 A final bit of background material about this rather-nasty-film is presented in another video (13:15; Spoilers [ads interrupt at 2:55, 9:40]), offering additional insights about what we’re watching here.  You certainly would have no reason to expect anything simple or even pleasant in Fennell’s screenplay/directorial work based on the gruesome situations (with an unexpected-yet-satisfying-twist at the end) in Promising Young Woman and the slowly-revealed-atrocious-nature of the protagonist in Saltburn, but, despite how disturbing these cinematic-situations become as the plots unfold, Fennell’s films are fascinating to watch, even as Saltburn becomes a bit too explicit as Oliver’s true nature is made manifest (although Keoghan effectively conveys his inherent sliminess—he was nominated for Best Actor in a Motion Picture, Drama, as was Pike for Best Supporting Actress, Motion Picture, for the recent Golden Globe Awards, but both of them lost [complete winners list as the first item in the SHORT TAKES section of this posting farther below]).  I’m a bit ambivalent overall regarding this film as I was fascinated by much of it, surprised at how it evolved, but didn’t fully feel like it left me with a “Wow!” response, so maybe Ann Hornaday of The Washington Post can help me out: “The kinks and cosseted pleasures of the upper classes are on lurid display in ‘Saltburn,’ Emerald Fennell’s aristo-gothic sexual thriller set amid England’s toniest precincts, from Oxford to the titular estate. The rich aren’t like you, me or any other recognizable human being in this story that adds equal parts F. Scott Fitzgerald, Patricia Highsmith and Daphne du Maurier to the martini shaker and gives it a good tumble. If Fennell doesn’t quite stick the landing — if her story of striving, sexual obsession, class resentment and revenge ultimately feels puny and predictable — she certainly has fun getting there.”  Yes, that’s what I meant!  Thanks, Ann; you rock!

Bottom Line Final Comments: Saltburn had its domestic (U.S.-Canada) debut on November 17, 2023 (7 theaters, went wide to 1,566 on Nov. 22; to date, it’s made $11.4 million at the box-office, $20.4 million worldwide), but down to 65 venues so your best shot now is through streaming for Amazon Prime Video subscribers (or slip in for a month at $8.99, also helping yourself to the rest of their vast catalogue).  Just as I’m not totally able to give a glowing recommendation for this film (though it’s quite entertaining overall, especially if you subscribe to the “eat the rich” mentality), so is the CCAL not enthusiastically supportive with the Rotten Tomatoes positive reviews only at 71%, the Metacritic average score at an even-lower 61% (which puts all of them generally in line with my 3½ stars of 5) so I’ll leave it to you as to whether you'll pursue it or not, yet it’s unlikely to make my 2023 Top 10 as I already have a good number of 4 stars-rated-options to decide among for those honors (plus what’s sure to be my #1 given its rare 4½ stars from me, Killers of the Flower Moon [Martin Scorsese, 2023; review, November 9, 2023 posting; congratulations to Lily Gladstone for her Golden Globe win as Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture, Drama]) with a few others I hope to see in the next month or so to help round out my final choices.

 For now, though, I’ll leave you with my usual review wrap-up tactic of a Musical Metaphor, this time being The Beatles’ “And Your Bird Can Sing” (on the 1966 UK version of Revolver, US Yesterday and Today albums) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g2eU9YGwWQ (this version has some minor, repetitive visuals added, but still more interesting to watch than just the Revolver cover for 2 minutes), even though the song’s originally about the singer distancing himself from someone (some say Frank Sinatra, with “bird” referring to his penis [!]; some say Beatles-Rolling Stones rival Mick Jagger and his girlfriend of the moment Marianne Faithful [a more appropriate surname for her than him] with “bird” mid-‘60s slang for “girl”; some oddly enough say Paul McCartney [?]), stating that no material goods or accomplishments by this other guy will lead to any remorse by the singer.  Yet, when you think of this tune as being deviously-sung to the Cattons by Oliver you might agree he’d say “When your prized possessions / Start to weigh you down / Look in my direction / I’ll be round, I’ll be round,” even though, through his clever manipulations, he’d tell them—after the fact—that “You don’t get […] see […] hear me,” you fools, as he pulls the expensive wool over all of their eyes.  It’s ultimately a mean story with no confirmed clue that we can believe anything superb-con-man-Oliver says, especially about loving Felix (or not), the foundation of whatever fascination this film may offer.

              

SHORT TAKES

             

Related Links Which You Might Find Interesting:   

Some cinematic-related-options for your consideration: (1) Winners of the 2024 Golden Globe Awards; (2) Golden Globe Awards broadcast is a flop; (3) 2024 Screen Actors Guild award nominations; (4) Jacob Elordi (Felix in Saltburn) will play Frankenstein's monster in Guillermo del Toro's upcoming adaptation of this famed story; (5) Imax has a big year in 2023, thanks partly to Oppenheimer; (6) National Society of Film Critics chooses Past Lives as 2023's best.

We encourage you to visit the Summary of Two Guys Reviews for our past posts* (scroll to the bottom of this Summary page to see additional info about your wacky critic, Ken Burke, along with contact info and a great retrospective song list).  Overall notations for this blog—including Internet formatting craziness beyond our control—may be found at our Two Guys in the Dark homepage.  If you’d like to Like us on Facebook (yes?) please visit our Facebook page.  We appreciate your support whenever and however you can offer it unto us!  Please also note that to Post a Comment below about our reviews you need to have either a Google account (which you can easily get at https://accounts.google.com/NewAccount if you need to sign up) or other sign-in identification from the pull-down menu below before you preview or post.  You can also leave comments at our Facebook page, although you may have to somehow register with us at that site in order to do it (most FB procedures are still a perplexing mystery to us old farts).

*Please ignore previous warnings about a “dead link” to our Summary page because the problem’s been manually fixed so that all postings since July 11, 2013 now have the proper functioning link.

If you’d rather contact Ken directly rather than leaving a comment here at the blog please 

use my email address of kenburke409@gmail.com—type it directly if the link doesn’t work.

             

OUR POSTINGS PROBABLY LOOK BEST ON THE MOST CURRENT VERSIONS OF MAC OS AND THE SAFARI WEB BROWSER (although Google Chrome usually is decent also); OTHERWISE, BE FOREWARNED THE LAYOUT MAY SEEM MESSY AT TIMES.

            

Finally, for the data-oriented among you, Google stats say over the past month the total unique hits at this site were 5,579—a huge drop-off from the marvelous 40-50K of  some recent months; never overestimate yourself! (As always, we thank all of you for your ongoing support with our hopes you’ll continue to be regular readers.)  Below is a snapshot of where those responses have come from within the previous week (with appreciation for the unspecified “Others” also visiting Two Guys’ site):