What Was The Last Movie You Watched?

[Edward]

Yes, that suit is awesome. And if you look closely, you'll see his tie has a selvedge.

The whole outfit is sublime - but it's also how he wears it. It's what's wrong with a lot of modern period films as well, while other just soar: you really can sense when people are comfortable in their own clothes. Sometimes you see an actor on screen in a 40s suit and he just looks all wrong, forever fidgeting, like a child dressed up for a family wedding. Then you get those who just inhabit those clothes, so natural in them, and they look like they would belong in a picture from back then, just like that. Dicaprio is one of the latter. I don't know what he wears off duty, but it's a rare actor now who looks as at-home in 40s & 50s period pieces as he does, imo.

 

[Fading Fast]

Howards End from 1992 with Emma Thompson, Anthony Hopkins, Helen Bonham Carter, Vanessa Redgrave, and Samuel West


"Stop being a jerk and just get the man a job" – said no one in the movie, but someone should have, as all the bad stuff that followed wouldn't have happened.


To be fair to the above, the plot of Howards End is, at best, the third most important piece of this beautiful English period drama from Merchant Ivory Productions, based on the E. M. Forster 1910 novel of the same name.

The number one and two most important pieces are a competition between the lavish period scenery, details, and mise en scène – and the incredible performances by Emma Thompson, Anthony Hopkins, Helen Bonham Carter, Vanessa Redgrave, and Samuel West.

It is the kind of movie that you "absorb" in repeated viewings. You can't take in all the period details – the costumes alone are a treat – the scenery, fine performances, and the layered story about class distinctions, arrogance, and obsession by watching it just once or twice.

The plot itself sees three families – the very wealthy "aristocratic" family of business led by Hopkins, the upper-middle-class "artistic, slightly bohemian" family led by Thompson, and the working class poor family led by West – interact in often quiet but, ultimately, dramatic fashion.

Today we talk about "class," but it's fluid and squishy. It wasn't at all fluid or squishy in England in the early twentieth century. Hopkins' family, thus, is content being near the top of the pyramid and, well, quietly (and sometimes not so quietly) contemptuous of those beneath it.

Thompson and her brood see life with more of a socially conscious perspective, where they consider art, culture, and charity to be "above" business and money. Yet, while they are charitable, they don't give much of their cosseting income away.

West's immediate family, which is just his wife and he, is simply trying to survive. That is especially true after Thompson's family's failed attempt to help them leaves the Wests worse off. Thompson had pushed Hopkins, against his will, into "helping" with this effort that went awry.

Thompson then tries again to get Hopkins to help West, since his initial advice hurt him. But Hopkins' attitude is "I didn't want to get involved in the first place, so now I'm done." It's one of those situations where he has a small point and leverages it with arrogance to his advantage.

The irony, as noted in the fictitious quote at the top, is had Hopkins just gotten the "lowly" West a clerkship somewhere – which would have been easy for Hopkins to do – none of the ensuing problems that rocked them all would have happened, but alas.

The titular Howards End, a pretty country retreat, plays into all this – and those ensuing problems – mainly as a symbol of the artistic sensibilities of people like Thompson's family versus the financially- and status-calculating insensitivities of people like Hopkins' family.

Hopkins' family owns it but doesn't truly appreciate its beauty – other than Hopkins' first wife, played by Redgrave. When she dies, though, the heirs jockey to see who'll control it after Hopkins passes, but he just lets it out as a way to take it off the table for the time being.

All of these threads weave in and out as the story ambles toward a climax, but the joy is in the journey. It is in seeing the characters expose their true selves and maybe grow a bit.

Look for the scenes between Thompson and Hopkins whose eventual marriage is managed like a peace treaty between two friendly countries who don't truly trust each other. Look also for any scene with Bonham Carter as she completely embodies her annoying-as-all-heck character.

There really are, though, no bad scenes. Even when the drama flags a bit, you can still marvel at the period details and the acting. You'll almost be happy for the opportunity to be able to focus on these qualities of the movie – qualities that defined the Merchant and Ivory brand.

Producer Ismail Merchant and director James Ivory created that brand – Merchant Ivory Productions – which reached its peak in the 1980s and early 1990s. It came to stand for lavish, thoughtfully filmed and cast adaptations of respected literary works.

Howards End represents one of the collaboration's highpoints. It is a movie that stood outside of the mass-market products of Hollywood of its era.

Over three decades later, the greatest compliment one can pay Howards End and Merchant Ivory Productions is that the movie has stood the test of time: in an era of CGI "blockbusters," a Merchant Ivory Production today feels like an oasis of artful moviemaking.

 

[Edward]

A Complete Unknown (2024), via Amazon Prime. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11563598/?ref_=fn_all_ttl_1 James Mangold has form with the biopic format, having turned in 2005's sublime I Walk The Line. Here he handles Dylan's legend well indeed. A much more traditional biopic format than the (also wonderful, if much more surreal) I'm not there (2007), in which multiple performers, perhaps most notably Cate Blanchett, play a version of Dylan at different stages in his career. Mangold's picture neatly sidesteps the trap of sameness that rock biopics can fall into (rise to fame, fall from grace, rise again as Treasure Legend) by concentrating on a small portion of Dylan's life, specifically the years 1961 to 1965, from his arrival on New York's burgeoning folk scene to the infamous negative audience reaction to Dylan Gonig Electric at the Newport Folks Festival in 1965. The sense of period - insofar as I can judge, Not Having Been There - is superb. As are the performances; there's a case to be made that despite this being Dylan's story, it's really an ensemble piece, with very strong performances by all the main players, particularly Edward Norton as Pete Seeger. Young Timothy Chalamet is striking as Dylan. He's clearly put huge work into it. The production employed the same vocal and movement coaches as worked with Austin Butler on Elvis, and the result is compelling. Chalamet moves and sounds like a young Dylan. All the actors performed in character at certain points, with live scenes performed and shot as live, and all of the "Dylan" vocals on the film (as well as his guitar and harmonica) are Chalamet performing. It's quite a stunning feat to pull off, and they do it. Ironically, while the Covid-19 pandemic that delayed shooting this production almost killed the project at one point, it also made this realisation what it is as Chalamet used the time to learn to play as he does. One of the most impressive elements of this is the simultaneous harmonica and guitar playing. As anyone who has ever tried will tell you, the harmonica can be a deceptively tricky instrument to master. I don't know if he also learned to ride specifically for the picture, but Chalamet also rides a beautiful Triumph Bonneville T100, helmetless. Bob's bike was a Tiger (hence the 'T') back when, but the bike provided was one of Triumph's beautiful reissue series that they have been producing in recent years, and the new ones are branded as Bonnies (back in the day, Bonnies and Tigers were separate lines). Close enough that few if any will spot the difference. The bigger bending of the true story is that Bob didn't buy his first Triumph til 64 - it appears earlier than that here. The film also shows Bob playing Girl from the North Country some years before Martin Carthy taught him the old, English Scarborough Fair song which inspired the former. There's a little playing around with the timeline in some small ways as you get in most biopics. Which somehow feels appropriate for Dylan, given the way he has always mythologised himself and his story (as indeed he's depicted doing here, with his tales of being a carny).

This is obviously a picture which has been approved by the man himself (who was consulted and involved to some degree), but for all that it doesn't hold back on showing that Dylan could be difficult, particularly in his relationships. In ending at the point where Dylan Goes Electric, it gives a nice closure to this part of his story. As the noise of the motorcycle riding away can be heard, though, it does leave me wondering if the success of this picture might tempt those involved to return to Dylan to explore his once much-mythologised motorcycle crash, and the years thereafter before he returned to touring in, as memory serves, 75.

I've grown up with a healthy distaste for The Sixties (which especially in Britain,, and to a somewhat lesser extent Ireland, are the equivalent of The Fifties as a corporate nostalgia machine in the US) being peddled as the pinnacle f popular culture, chiefly by those whose formative years fell in that era selling it (or a version of it, at least) back to their peers, and pushing it on everyone else too. But I've loved Dylan since I discovered him in my relatively early punk days so I had high hopes for this picture. Whereas Elvis, for all its positive points, fell somewhat short (part of its problem being, I felt, that it rather held back on a lot of stuff as a piece designed to sell rather than explore the man behind the mythology), this for me delivered.