One can not be but startled by the incredibly high reputation that Zeffirelli has in some quarters, where he is revered as an artist, an author, Visconti's heir, a consummate aesthete ,when the guy is so obviously much more banal--a buffoon, a hack, a charlatan, a bluffer, a hustler, a swindler. He began as a Viscontian minion, torchbearer as well as an able _toadie. His skills, abilities and deftness, real and admirable, are often spoiled, miserably wrecked by his hideous personality (and persona). I have seen a documentary about Zeffirelli, featuring interviews with him as wellthe man, with his evil, viscous, mean smile, has something sinister and eerie, corrupt and decadent (in a real life way), nasty and filthy, disturbing and deeply, severely, strikingly unpleasant. This is in accord with his career. In fact, he is like Demme, like R. Scott, like Scorsese, Mann, Shyamalan, Coppola, etc.where he is bad, he is horrendously so. Not an author, but a hack with occasional (significant) achievements. Some talk about him as if he has an art, a project, a continuityas if he is a Bergmanand not only occasional, almost random successes. Returning to the man, the public persona, he is, beyond the paranoid elements and megalomania, fascinatingly unsettling. He looks somewhat like a reptile, a mean, voracious ,shrewd one. (I liked the looks of Visconti, Antonioni, even the plebeian Fellini.) On a second viewing, I liked much and fined exquisite and pleasing his HAMLET.
Review of Callas Forever
