|
Sometimes actors take on the role not because they
think the film will be brilliant (there is always that hope
however and even when the script IS brilliant the results
can often be underwhelming in a weird sort of polar opposite
of synergy) but because the role fascinates them. When critics
see the film (and audiences) they immediately ask, "What
was he/she thinking?" ***
A good example is "Goya's Ghost". While on paper this
project directed by Academy Award winners Milos Foreman,
producer Saul Zaentz and starring Javier Bardem ("No Country
for Old Men"), Stellan Skarsgard and Natalie Portman probably
seemed like a great project. Set during the 18th century's
Spanish Inquisition, "Goya's Ghost" focuses on artist Francisco
Goya (Skarsgard) and the beautiful Ines (Natalie Portman)
both of whom come under fire from the Catholic Church during
this reactive time in history. She is arrested and tortured
for her work as a model in Goya's paintings by Brother Lorenzo
(Bardem) a self righteous member of the Inquisition so reptilian
he should be shedding snake scales. ***
Bardem is brilliant as Lorenzo demonstrating that the
Academy's instincts were right when it came to rewarding
him with an Oscar for his portrayal of the sociopath Anton
Chigur in "No Country for Old Men". Equally as good is Skarsgard
and Portman more than holds her own. So what's wrong with
the film? Foreman's script promises a good glimpse into
the behind-the-scenes workings of the Catholic Church at
its worst when it victimized anyone in the 18th century
equivalent of the Communist Witch Hunt except that the church
pulled confessions out of innocents via brutal torture and
put them to death in equally painful ways without any concept
of justice. The flaw, it seems, is not in the casting nor
in the beautiful cinematography but in the director's focus
and the clumsy, clunky structure of the film itself. In
many respects one can see Foreman's film as a contemporary
commentary on the United States' practices with suspected
terrorists (for example water boarding which President Bush
decided was OK) as much as it is a period piece about the
bizarre schizophrenic nature of the church during the 18th
century and the conflict between art & religion. ---
Image & Sound:
As mentioned before one of Foreman's strengths as a
director has always been the look of his films. The outstanding
cinematography is beautifully rendered from contrast of
golden tones of a room lit by candlelight to the earth tone
colors of those same rooms during the day time. Skin tones
are beautifully reproduced here as well. Detail is very
sharp as well. ***
Audio sounds quite good although this is primarily
a dialogue driven film, Foreman takes advantage of the format
to create ambient audio tracks that put is firmly in the
often dirty and unsettling world of 18th century Spain.
---
|
