Change Your Image
mcjadt
Reviews
Leonard Cohen: I'm Your Man (2005)
Predictable, but good, renditions of great songs
Most reviews of this documentary start off in the same general way, with the reviewer stating that he or she is a big fan of Cohen's work. This makes sense, after all, it would be pretty miserable to sit through ninety minutes of songs and interviews by / about /with someone whose work you despise.
So, let me say now, I am a big fan of Leonard Cohen.
As such, it is natural to regard attempts to pay tribute to an artist's work with some dubiety. There are two forms 'tributes' take, generally - "We're not worthy" grovelling or shameless gold-digging. Often it is hard to tell the separate the two. This documentary has a lot of the former, but this tendency towards veneration is balanced by the fact that many of the renditions of Cohen's songs are really good, if predictable.
The film consists of three strands - footage of performances of a tribute concert staged in Sydney in 2005, discussions of Cohen's work by the performers and Cohen himself talking about his life. By pursuing these different routes, the film makers reach no clear end.
There is SOME concert footage, but not enough. There is SOME discussion of Cohen's work by his admirers, but too much. There is some interesting information about Cohen, from the man himself, but it is too restricted and disjointed. It is frustrating that an interesting observation by Cohen isn't explored further, or that a riveting performance of one of his songs is followed by Bono offering his arid thoughts.
Stand out performances included Martha Wainwright's bleak performance of 'The Traitor,' brother Rufus singing 'Chelsea Hotel,' Anthony's rendition of 'If it be your Will,' and the duet of Julie Christensen and Perla Battala on 'Anthem.' Nick Cave provides a couple of workmanlike performances, though there is a feeling that he should have been able to find something more than he delivers. Jarvis Cocker - perhaps the most interesting inclusion - gives an odd rendition of 'I Can't Forget' - which irritated me at first, but which I've subsequently come to admire.
Which raises a question about the purpose of the concert. As we watch the concert footage, are we seeking a Cohen adulation-fest with his songs rendered straight, or looking for something strange and unusual with them, and encourage us to see the material in new ways? Given the conservative choices of performers, and the tribute concert setting, and the songs selected, it's pretty obvious that the producers had the former in mind as they planned the concert, which is a shame.
There are three types of people in the world - those who are not familiar with Cohen's work, those who know it and want to be reminded about how nice it is, and those who know it and want to be reminded how great it is. The second category will enjoy this unreservedly. They'll hear great songs well presented, but the exercise is suspiciously middle of the road - here is a good song, sung pretty much the way you know it, so everyone can join in with the chorus.
Basically, a lot of the concert seemed to be pandering to people's preconceived idea of what Leonard Cohen's music was. If he was as influential as is claimed, let's hear the reggae and afro-beat versions of his songs, let's hear them translated into Afghan and sung by choirs of amputees (that might be in rather poor taste, but you get the idea). If Cohen's music is as vital as it is meant to be (and I believe it is), it doesn't need to be preserved in aspic. If Leonard Cohen's fans are as discerning as they think they are (I think, unfortunately, they are not) then they would find the experience at least interesting, perhaps exhilarating.
Most likely, of course, a tribute concert along those lines would be a commercial disaster. It would work, perhaps, as a straight album, or performances recorded in a studio setting, rather than in an opera house in front of thousands of fans wanting to hear the songs the way they like them.
As for the Cohen interviews, they are interesting, but presented in a disjointed manner that allows little more than a general picture of the man to emerge. He was from Canada, he went to New York, wrote a dirty song about Janis Joplin, but wasn't as much of a ladies' man as people think and became a Bhuddist monk. There should be more of this, or less.
Then there are the interviews with the performers and various Cohen devotees. These are, pretty much what you would expect. It is, after all, unlikely someone asked to give an opinion for a project like this would be gauche enough to say something bad, and it is even less likely that such a comment would have made it to the final cut. You learn little beyond the fact that those involved really like Leonard Cohen, which is nice, but it is repeated a few times too many. Bono appears, as he seems to do in every thing these days, and provides some unintentional comedy with his praise of the Godlike genius of Cohen. He is given too much screen time and he doesn't have much to say, though the film makers provide some sort of service by capturing him mispronouncing 'chasm.' Hah-ha. Plonker.
It is worth watching, though there are a thousand different versions of the concert and film that Might Have Been, all of them holding out more promise than this one realized.
Macbeth (1997)
Meagre version of a great play.
MacBeth, I've always thought, is the most accessible of Shakespeare's 'Great Period' plays. Compact, focused, with heaps of violence, it should have been the play most open to screen adaptations. I'm not aware of a really good rendering of the story, however - the best effort being Orson Welles's vigorous shoestring version. To the list of MacBotches we must add the Connery/Baxendale effort.
(It seems it was not a 'film adaptation' at all, but a TV version that was given a theatrical release, post Luhrman's Romeo + Juliet and Branagh's Hamlet. That might explain some of its flaws, but doesn't excuse them.)
It starts well, with a feisty battle sequence with pleasingly grisly witches looking on. Poor old Gray Malkin and Paddock are cut from the opening scene, but they aren't alone for long. In quick order they are joined by the bloodied Sargent and his account of the battle, the treachery of the Thane of Cawdor, the luckless master o' the Tiger, even MacBeth's meeting with Duncan when he is invested as thane of Cawdor. All of these had virtues that plead like angels trumpet tongued against the dark damnation of their sending off, but sent off they are. These aren't the only cuts, either. This is MacBeth in a hurry.
From the opening battle we are pitched directly into MacBeth's encounter with the witches, which is well done. Brian Blessed, curiously, directed the witchy sequences, and he has great fun with the special effects as MacBeth and Banquo are told of their fates. Jason Connery as MacBeth is awkward, obviously unsure what to make of the verse. Graham MacTavish as Banquo, on the other hand, is capable, making his lines natural and easy. Within a few minutes of Connery's mumbling, the viewer is struck the urge to see the roles reversed and MacTavish in the title role. No wonder MacBeth felt he needed to kill him.
These first few minutes marks the high point of the film. From there we move to Helen Baxendale receiving word of her husband. She's as lost as Connery, and denied the beard that he gets to hide behind. Her "Unsex me here" invocation of evil is embarrassing, not unsettling. There are some reasonably clever touches - MacBeth's "We will speak further" is not a sign of his hesitancy in the face of his wife's wicked ambition, but his attempt to silence her prattling as he throws her onto the bed.
The acting of the leads is the biggest let down. Connery's method consists of staring glazedly about the screen while he mumbles his monologues via voice-over. Baxendale looks pinched and neurotic. An attempt to do something interesting with "Is this a dagger" - the fantastical dagger is a shadow cast by a cross on an altar - falls flat due to Connery's poor delivery and sloppy direction, which mars the production throughout. We accompany Lady MacBeth back into the murder chamber, where she gets to stab the reviving Duncan, but the effect is comic, not dramatic.
Big scenes are botched - the appearance of Banquo at the feast is made incomprehensible through attempts to mix subjective rendering of MacBeth's delusion with what those around him see, or don't see. The second meeting with the witches is even less coherent, and the prophetic visions are confusing. Timing seems to be an issue here - Banquo's banquet is the centrepoint of the play, but the film moves rapidly towards conclusion after it, giving it an unbalanced feel and no scope for the intricacies of the riddles MacBeth is caught in to be appreciated, or for his descent into madness to be convincing. Another crucial cut is the scene where Malcolm tests MacDuff, and MacDuff learns of the murder of his family. This robs his revenge of most of its emotional force - and the character of a lot of the screen time. He's a virtual stranger when he turns up to kill MacBeth.
A point for trying. MacTavish's Banquo earns another. The first few minutes garners another. But that's all. From then on it's sound and fury blah blah blah.
Hamlet (2003)
A good cast in a decent attempt to film something pretty damn near unfilmable, on a shoestring.
This version of Hamlet bears all the marks of a very low budget production but has enough going for it to make it worth while.
It looks like a theatre production opened up and filmed. The cast range from competent to very good - a hint they are presenting a well rehearsed stage production - but some are incongruous. A very contemporary looking Osric, for example, or the youthful Polonius. On stage oddities such as there are less noticeable than on film. The production looks cheap, with the final duel between Hamlet and Laertes taking place in a small, drab room that doesn't reflect well on the majesty of the Danish royal house. A badly presented ghost doesn't help either.
The text has been edited heavily. The film bravely dumps the brilliant opening Shakespeare envisaged on the dark battlements of Elsinore. "To be or not to be" is shunted forwards to just before the entrance of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern. This gives Hamlet's melancholy a more genuine feel - no question of him hamming it up for Claudius and Laertes - but it also means the audience has empathy with him, and less sympathy for his plight. We've only just met the guy, and he's telling us about how he wants to off himself. Don't you hate people like that? Fortinbras is gone entirely - the final catastrophe that befalls the Danish royal family leaves a power vacuum with no cynical warlordling ready to stride into it.
The film stutters at the start. The opening scenes are stages in Elizabethan buildings and look awkward and staged. Subsquent scenes are more effective, and the Elizabethan settings are discarded in favour of pleasingly medieval look. It's possible the director was trying for something similar to Olivier's Henry V in mind, which started with a facsimile of an Elizabethan staging of the play. It doesn't really work, and the opening scenes are ragged but it does pick up after that.
The main strength of the film is the cast. It looks like they have been playing the parts on stage and they are generally very good. Will Houston as Hamlet is very good, after a shaky start. Gareth Thomas is a sympathetic Claudius, and Lucy Cockram - after another dicey first scene - is good as Ophelia. David Powell Davies is too young for Polonius, but provides the character with a more dignity than he is usually allowed. He doesn't come across as pompous or foolish. This combination of a fairly likable Claudius and a wily Polonius makes our identification with Hamlet more provisional than is often the case, and this is good, for me at any rate.
The staging of the Mousetrap and the confrontation between Hamlet and Gertrude are very well done - the latter is superb. Houston imbues his lines with manic energy to make them more menacing than they are often read. This Hamlet's witty retorts seem to be teetering on the edge of madness. He carries this over onto the following scene, where he is quizzed about the fate of Polonius. Our sympathy here is actually with the hapless Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, as they try to keep pace with the Prince, and it works very well. Hamlet's verbal sparring alienates us, as it should - he has, after all, just killed someone. That Houston manages to pull us back to him in the final scenes is a credit to a young actor who should shine in years to come.
All in, a brave attempt to film one of the difficult texts in the cannon. It is flawed, but the flaws relate more to the realities of film making. Its virtues, on the other hand, are most noticeable where they are most needed - the acting, the poetry, and the staging. There has been a glut of Hamlets recently. None have been perfect, including this one, but this is the one I like best.