Today's Review: Howards End

Tussen alle ophef die momenteel heerst in het EYE Filmmuseum rond het Scorsese-retrospectief en het Cinema Erotica-evenement zou je het bijna over het hoofd zien, maar er verschijnt deze maand ook een 'reguliere' klassieker in een glanzend nieuw jasje. Howards End verjaart anno 2017 voor alweer de 25ste keer, wat reden genoeg is voor EYE om een fraai gerestaureerde kopie in roulatie te brengen. Geen slechte keus, want de door James Ivory weelderig geregisseerde registratie van een bikkelharde klassenstrijd die sluimert onder typisch Engelse deftigheid mag zich nog steeds scharen onder de fraaiste Britse kostuumdrama's.

Liefhebbers zullen Ivory herkennen als de man die in de jaren tachtig en negentig van de vorige eeuw een specialisatie voor het kostuumdrama ontwikkelde en de ene na de andere geslaagde toevoeging aan het genre regisseerde. Het werk van schrijver en landgenoot E.M. Forster vormde daarbij een dankbare bron, die met Howards End leidde tot Ivory's beste werk. Het meeslepende romantische drama bleek goed voor negen Oscarnominaties, waarvan er drie verzilverd werden. Desondanks is de algemene kennis over Ivory's klassieker, zo niet zijn hele oeuvre, sterk naar de achtergrond verplaatst. Tijd om Ivory's goede oude tijd weer eens te doen herleven, dachten ze bij EYE ongetwijfeld.

In Howards End neemt Ivory ons mee terug naar het Edwardiaanse tijdperk, zo rond de eeuwwisseling. Een tijdperk vol verandering en sociale onrust, waar de regisseur meermaals dankbaar gebruik van maakte in zijn werk, waarin de standenstrijd een doorlopend thema vormt. Dat geschil wordt in deze film belicht vanuit het standpunt van twee families, de welgestelde Wilcoxes en de ruimdenkende Schlegels uit de middenklasse. Inzet is het Howards End uit de titel, een schitterend landhuis dat toebehoort aan de stervende Ruth Wilcox. De oude vrouw sluit in haar laatste maanden een onwaarschijnlijke vriendschap met de vrijgevochten Margaret Schlegel (de rol waarvoor Emma Thompson terecht haar Oscar verdiende) en schenkt haar op haar doodsbed het huis. Dit tot woede van haar familie, die al het bewijs van de overdracht vernietigt. Maar het lot neemt een frappante wending als de weduwnaar Henry Wilcox Margaret tot ieders verrassing ten huwelijk vraagt. Een onwaarschijnlijk verbond tussen een conservatieve oudere zakenman en een intellectuele jongere dame, goed voor dramatische dynamiek en sociaal vuurwerk tussen de diverse maatschappelijke standen.

EYE heeft puik werk verricht met het oppoetsen van Howards End, want de wereld van de overdadig formele Britse high society spettert als nooit tevoren van het scherm. Toch is de beeldkwaliteit niet zo gladjes scherp als bij sommige digitale verfraaiingsbeurten in 4K. De soms wat merkwaardige scèneovergangen zijn gebleven en de film heeft visueel de onmiskenbare esthetiek van de vroege jaren negentig behouden. Howards End mag gerust zijn leeftijd verraden. Dat was hoe dan ook onvermijdelijk als we de jongere versies van de crème de la crème van de Britse acteerwereld met groot genoegen terugzien. De jeugdige Emma Thompson en Helena Bonham Carter schitteren wederom als de vooruitstrevende zusters Schlegel, die zich in een haat-liefdeverhouding geplaatst zien met de onwrikbare zakenman Henry, waarvoor Anthony Hopkins heerlijk heen en weer schmiert tussen vilein en sympathiek. Dat alles in een onweerstaanbare setting vol bruisende jurken en stijlvolle maatpakken, weelderige sets en de mooiste vroege automobielen ooit op het witte doek. Maar feitelijk slechts allemaal decor in Ivory's vertelling van een conflict tussen de lagere standen en de rijke klasse, die van geen wijken wil weten ondanks de voortschrijdende modernisering. Zelfs niet in een letterlijk verstandshuwelijk.

Zo theatraal als Howards End worden kostuumdrama's vandaag de dag amper nog gemaakt. Of het moet voor de televisie zijn, met vergelijkbare waar als Downton Abbey, dat Ivory's werk meer dan waarschijnlijk als inspiratiebron benutte. Maar in de bioscoop lijken 'period films' die in vrijwel elke zin een 'heavens' of een 'jolly' laten vallen helaas hoe langer hoe meer een uitstervende soort. Dat is jammer in een wereld waarin de verschillen tussen arm en rijk, tussen progressief en conservatief en tussen ruimdenkende en beperkte wereldbeelden met de dag weer meer aan de orde lijken te zijn. Hoewel een zekere mate van oubolligheid Howards End niet ontzegd kan worden, blijkt maar weer dat Ivory's standenstrijd nog lang niet tot een einde is gekomen. Een Ivory-retrospectief is misschien ook niet zo'n slecht idee.

Today's Mini-Review: Dial M for Murder 3D

Dial M for Murder 3D: ****/*****, or 8/10

If you think the contemporary 3D craze is a new phenomenon, think again. Though the current output of 3D movies far surpasses those of bygone eras, there have been two previous waves in cinema featuring the addition of a third dimension to draw audiences away from their television sets – first from the sets themselves, the second time from the choices offered by VCR technology: these days it's a combination of high quality television production, the relatively large size of the home cinema screen and the ease in digital technology for users to watch whatever they fancy that threatens audience attendance – the previous one during the Eighties, the very first one in the Fifties. Then, like today, some high profile directors, fascinated by the narrative and visual possibilities offered by the three-dimensional aspect, tinkered with the technology to see what it could accomplish and add to the overall viewing experience. During the short lived fad of the Fifties, the most notable director to explore the new dimension was Alfred Hitchcock, who used it only once, for his 1954 crime thriller Dial M for Murder. Though its 3D release was almost as brief as the interest in 3D technology itself in that decade, it cannot be denied the 3D version of this classic film still makes for a fascinating watch, both with regards to the use of the third dimension and the story itself. Thanks to the EYE Filmmuseum in Amsterdam, I got the opportunity to experience this film as Hitchcock shot it, in a beautifully restored print that utilizes the modern 3D techniques, which also benefits the vividly rich Fifties' colour palette that would have been absent in the original 3D print with its notorious red & green glasses.

It's clear upon watching the film Hitchcock made ample use of the added layers of depth 3D offered, as we get a clear sense of persons and objects in the foreground, the middle and the background of the frame, the depth perception shifting as another person or object moves into frame prominently on a closer layer. Considering most of this Kammerspiel type film takes place in a single room, 3D actually comes in quite handy to make the environment feel more alive and diverse than it otherwise would have felt. Especially notable is the scene where two characters are in mid-conversation and a vase enters the shot, basically right in our faces as we see the two men continue to talk behind it, though separated (both visually and in terms of their narrative interests) by the vase which is positioned in the middle of the shot composition. Of course, a few more typical in-your-face shots are also present, and these work far better than the ones we have grown used to, outstretched arms feeling almost tangible as they seem to hover right in front of us. Also charming to behold is the blue matte lines that appear around characters as they are in motion: the modern 'high frame rate' technology might have been of benefit to avoid such visual oddities, but in this case it makes the movie feel even more historically intriguing from a technological viewpoint. Nevertheless, after the first hour it seems Hitchcock was running out of ideas as no particularly noteworthy new use of 3D is witnessed and the novelty of its sensations wears off. Until that point, this film makes some of the finest use of 3D to this day. The incomparable Grace Kelly never looked more beautiful than she does in all three dimensions in this remastered 3D print.

In terms of story Dial M for Murder is simply a little outdated, through no fault of its own. The problem is it has been emulated, copied and parodied for almost sixty years. Though Hitchcock's famous mastery of suspense and the delivery and timing of his actors' dialogue is still of the highest order, it cannot help but make the movie feel like its dragging its feet just a little too long. The moment police inspector Hubbard (John Williams; not that one) enters the crime scene and displays just how brilliantly deductive the mind of a British inspector works as he spends the next 30 minutes explaining the details of the murder attempt for longer than we care to hear it (we got the point!), while occasionally touching his moustache in every conceivable clichéd manner, the movie drones on a little too much. Until that time though, the exciting plot offered by a man (Ray Milland) who means to murder his wife (Kelly) by blackmailing a former schoolmate who has fallen on hard times (Anthony Dawson), only to have the assassination gone horribly awry, makes for s striking crime drama of the highest order, good for many a scene of emotional tension like only Hitchcock managed to deliver. 1954 proved a good year for Hitchcock, as the celebrated director released his even more highly acclaimed (and superior) suspense masterpiece Rear Window – also starring Grace Kelly – only a few months later.

Today's Review: Jurassic Park 3D, at last!

Fresh off MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/146189/imagine_2013:_jurassic_park_3d_-_recensie

Needless to say this was the best moviegoing experience I had in twenty tears time. I have never felt both so old and so young at the same time. All the good experiences I had as a kid (and there have been many!) I relived, while simultaneously it dawned on me just what an impact this film has made on my life for two decades, most vigorously in the last eight years since I became a true die-hard JP collector. Despite having undergone a digital makeover, it is clear Jurassic Park has aged more gracefully than I could ever hope to do myself.

This anniversary celebration (though to be strict, for the Netherlands the exact mark would be September 30 of this year) also marks another milestone (possibly and quite probably) in my cinematic life, my first visit to EYE in Amsterdam. Much to anybody's surprise if they ask me what I think of the new Filmmuseum, I never actually went there until two nights ago. It took my all-time favourite film to persuade me the time was now, and I do not regret it. It's a wonderful building for sure. It works great as both a museum, which it strikingly appears to be in every conceivable facet - grotesque overly futuristic visual look, overuse of bare white walls, big dining facility, funky gift shop selling books, umbrellas and postcards (all overpriced), etc. - and as a genuine movie theater, housing several large theater rooms where one can sit in the dark and enjoy good cinema endlessly. It was kinda fun to see the actual theater looked in no way like the rest of the building on the inside, but more like any decent 'bioscope' theater. It was a pretty big theater at that, with a capacity of some 300 spectators I reckon. The show wasn't fully sold out (for shame!), but with at least 200 to 250 people still rather crowded. Thankfully all of them were pros when it came to watching films, so they behaved properly and sat quietly, undoubtedly as awestruck as I was myself. The 3D glasses were not my favorite model, being those pesky electronic, battery run devices, that are placed tightly around your head (cutting off some of the blood flow around the ears after a while) and are overly cumbersome in terms of weight: but they did their job adequately, and considering the nostalgia extravaganza I was undergoing I couldn't be bothered noticing them all that much, except of course where it concerned good use of 3D effects in the movie itself, which could be found surprisingly often. But for that I'll just let you read the review above. Here I'm just informing you of my first visit to EYE, which beyond the shadow of a doubt won't be limited to this single experience (though I doubt there will be any trips that can surpass or even equal it in quality).

The funniest thing about EYE I consider to be the restaurant, which completely lacks the feel of the rest of the building, except for that huge screen forever showing the movie that is the life and times of Amsterdam (I'm referring to the giant panoramic window over the IJ, for those of you who did not get the gist). Basically the restaurant is a separate entity inside EYE, a parasitic organism thriving on those audience members who feel the need to whet more than just their visual appetite. It's devoid of the stylistic touch of the rest of the building and has a menu to match, which one can use to order all kinds of stupendously fancy food, among them quails' egg pastries and other exotic dishes containing dead animals. The whole menu had an 'elite' feeling to it. Heck, even the butter for the free bread sidedish was some classy brand with a label that mentioned some ancient Duchess used its secret family recipe (now clearly open to all) only for royal occasions. Say what you will, it did have a sort of theatrical touch to it, as if you were in a movie yourself. Or maybe I just don't go out to restaurants enough. Sorry, I'm too busy going to the movies, and I did exactly that after finishing my plate of French Fries (they did have those too, but not on the menu, you had to ask for them specifically). After all, I came here to watch a film, my detour to the restaurant was only meant to satiate my appetite and to have a nice place to sit down and talk to my friend. I didn't go alone as you might have thought. Jurassic Park after all is far too good a film to watch alone, especially if you can watch it with someone else who thorougly appreciates its supreme quality. EYE sure delivered in that regard, as we both had the time of our lives. Again, after so many years.

It's ridiculous really: EYE's been open for over a year, yet I never bothered to cross the water and go there so far, despite the many classic movies they have exhibited there. Of course, none of those classics could ever be as classic for me on a personal level, but in hindsight I really should have made time for sweeping epics like Lawrence of Arabia or marvelous adventure flicks like Raiders of the Lost Ark. Oh well, JP 3D turned out such a great experience the ice has definitely been broken. Now if only they had more vacancies available so I might get the chance to get to know EYE on a truly professional level. And I don't mean serving quails' egg pastries...

Today's News: Old Star Wars must make way for the new

Just posted this on MovieScene:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/144110/3d-release_star_wars_ii_en_iii_uitgesteld

So the original planning to re-release both trilogies in 3D already was messy, quickly deviating from the one-film-a-year concept, but now because of J.J. 'Rape Trek' Abrams it's on hold indefinitely. In the case of Episodes II and III that's not a total disaster, though I was very curious as to just how much improvement Attack of the Clones showed over its lackluster 3D performance of its already poor predecessor. But it's a bitch to know the original trilogy won't hit the screens again for many years, in 3D or otherwise, in favor of Abrams' upcoming Episode VII. Granted, J.J. has been known to be an avid Star Wars fanboy (something he never claimed about Trek, which showed a little bit too obviously in 2009 for my taste), which showed in his abysmal Star Trek Episode I (it truly had everything its Star Wars counterpart featured, from an annoying alien sidekick meant for comic relief (and failing) to an overly digital 'there's always a bigger fish' scene taking chunks out of the FX budget over spending it on better writing). Big FX and grand spectacle are obviously what J.J. wants in his space operas, and Star Wars is historically the franchise that has done it best so the guy might be in the right place for once. If not, he'll destroy yet another much beloved Sci-Fi franchise and everyone will let him, standing by idly while I cry my eyes dry and beg for divine intervention (but I'm an atheist so such powers are not bestowed upon me). I had hoped his turn to the Dark Side would mean he'd leave Trek alone for now (or maybe even give it to somebody who actually cares!). Fat chance. He says he thinks he can manage both. Greedy bastard...




Oh well, no classic Star Wars in 3D. I'm sure it'll happen eventually down the road, but for now we'll have to make due with the home cinema and remember the 3D fail that was The Phantom Menace. At least that means Lucas won't secretly slip in some more pointless alterations to bug the legions of fanboys (it really was his only reason in the most recent case, blinking Ewoks and all).