Had to
“save” “Late Night”, as an instance of exceptional reading – and acting! – but first
of all because something happened when I saw it, and I had to find out what
that was. I knew that I would if I could find the time … In fact, this might
have been my “Woody Allen” of the year. (Meaning: A text that is analyzing ME
even though the content has nothing to do with me in the first place.)
I went to
the “Cinema” because of Emma Thompson, but was also cheered by the expectation
of seeing a comedy for once – as a break from all the sad stuff I have seen or
listened to lately. (Though it is certainly due to menopause when I find life’s
deep sadness in “Marple” ?!!!) But it wasn’t. I mean, it wasn’t a break. And
“Late Night” certainly isn’t a comedy, rather this complex, almost unbearably
truthful, kind of tragic character study. There is a lot of great humour too,
especially in the beginning, but after a while I stopped laughing and started
wincing, and squirming in my seat.
I am
being inconsistent, I know, because I am usually not really delighted with
comedy. I usually enjoy the wincing and squirming. And, of course, it was
exactly what I expect of Emma Thompson – just STILL better. My absolute
favourite scene in “Love Actually” – a film I see every year on Christmas Eve,
and which is brimful of favourite scenes - is the moment she is standing in her
bedroom crying after she has discovered that her husband gave a present to
another woman. Of course, really good crying is always so convincing, and so
few actors are able to do it, but what I love is the COMPLEXITY of this moment
– the way I can see everything crumble and her life being irrevocably changed …
And “Late Night” has LOADS of this stuff. There is probably no other actor I
know who can “hold down” so many different “sides” and facets of a character
and show them AT THE SAME TIME. So, a film I’d absolutely recommend – if there was
somebody to recommend it to. Just don’t watch it in a state of menopausal
depression …
It might
just be that everything with a tiny bit of depth can make me feel bad right now
– even Agatha Christie. How much more so when the writing is so exceptional as
in “Late Night” where I actually SAVED – more or less - EXACT QUOTES from
seeing it once. This is something I have never done before, and this was how I
knew that something must have happened. Both the great writing and “deep”
acting makes this film stand out from other representations of a world “we”
think we know so well from films and social media: the world of the successful
and famous, and the predicament of staying at the top and having a private life
at the same time. Of course “we” – who never were there – know everything about
it already, but the extraordinary depth of analysis in this case made me look
twice and find a completely new and, I think, more truthful description of this
predicament.
„If you
give of yourself you have overstepped a boundary. You CANNOT step back,”
certainly
made me sit straight and prick up my ears. Of course it is nothing I will ever
have to worry about. Nonetheless I find the notion – that, if it just happens
ONCE, you have already lost because you are already “out there” – as accurate
as it is utterly terrifying. How clever do you have to be to know this BEFORE
it is too late? So, basically, before you actually ARE famous! Of course,
people who finally arrive “at the top” – wherever that may be for them, but at
any rate in a place for public scrutiny! – “always” knew that they would, some
day. Even if they never admitted it to anybody - and EVEN if they were prudent
enough not to admit it to themselves! – in their heart of hearts they always
knew where they were headed. Nowadays there isn’t even a chance to deny that
you are famous, if it scares you, because there is indelible proof when you
count your followers on twitter. The only thing you can do, I suppose, is to
focus on your work and avoid the fatal trap of actually giving a piece of
yourself … This “poisonous” quote made me understand still better why I try to
clinically avoid stumbling on any private input about the very few famous
people I care about, and why I am always so utterly pissed off when I do …
Though I
THOUGHT I knew this, it actually came as a bit of a shock … and this was only
the beginning. Emma Thompson, playing the talk show host Katherine so
truthfully and “completely”, made me see that the relationship of a public and
private persona is exactly the opposite of how “we” - that is: the ignorant
majority to which I belong! - usually see it. The private space is NOT the area
where people want to be, where they can be “themselves” whereas “out there”
they always have to pretend. It CAN be so, in certain respects, because
everybody needs a break from being great – but the truth is that what people
WANT to be is out there where they can shine and give their absolute best. The
private life is vitally important, though, because it is NECESSARY. No matter
if it is rather common or full of sordid secrets, or great, or reasonably happy
- or if it consists of clinical depression and total dependency on the one
person who really knows them, as in the film – it is necessary to SUPPORT the
person they endeavour to be. What we are is what our life is about, at least in
my opinion. It MAY be about fame and fortune and glamour, but it may just be,
as Katherine’s husband puts it, about “excellency”.
Of
course I knew this, but sometimes knowing is not the right category. It’s
understanding why. The reason why the obsession with the private lives of “our”
idols actually is so stupid is that it is based on the misapprehension that
they are LIKE US – whereas the whole point of our relationship with them is
that they are NOT.
So, this
was about the dark side of the film, and there certainly is a “lighter”, comical
side as well. But, as it does when it is great comedy, it is getting WORSE …
(There IS a reason I am still sticking with tragedy when I am reading
Shakespeare.)
The
comical - or fairy tale – bit consists
of the story of a young woman who works in a factory – sorry, a chemical plant!
– and who gets hired as a writer on her favourite show just because she is
female. But, in this case, the fairy tale bit gets swallowed up and bogged down
pretty quickly by the truthfulness of the original set-up of the story. I loved
the scene where the female writer gets hired back personally by Katherine after
having been sacked. To convince her to come back she enumerates all the reasons
why she needs her on the show. After a while it dawns on the young woman, and
she says: “You love me!” – “I wouldn’t say THAT …”. As always with comedy, the
point is in the acting, not just the dialogue. It has to be SEEN. However, both
their assessments of the situation are absolutely precise.
I think
this scene is so good – or rather “bad”! – because it is about one of the NON
TRIVIAL truths of life which may concern “mere mortals” like myself: that
people never love one another IN THE SAME WAY. The young woman will probably
never be loved in the way she wants to be because
“Famous
people hate their admirers.”
(that
is, they might even love them very much - if they meet them for less than five
seconds or on twitter … which the Emma Thompson character hates as well, but:
“They made me use it.” Luckily for her, because, at some point, twitter will
save her career!)
I always
knew this. I am certain I knew this was true BEFORE I saved this quote from
“The Two Gentlemen of Verona” for my proverbial fridge:
“I am very
loath to be your idol.”
I liked
it that the RSC made Silvia into some kind of Paris Hilton in their recent
production of the play, somebody with a lot of “followers”, whose life might
appear absolutely perfect to most people. This makes it immediately evident why
she says this to the young man who is stalking her, but throws her picture at
him because she knows that, giving that, she doesn’t give him ANYTHING … I
always thought this was brilliant – the writing and what they made of it in
this production! Of course, Silvia hates her admirer because he actually wants
a PIECE of her – but WHO would she be without the general admiration and
approval …?
The only
“good” bit about “asymmetrical” love relationships also is in this dialogue,
and it is also important: Even though people never love one another in the same
way, they love one another NONETHELESS. There are probably many relationships
like this which are quite unspectacular and not at all “comedy-worthy”. And quite
unlike anything “we” imagine when we are day-dreaming. Like any meaningful
relationship, they are mostly hard work.
So,
serves me right for going to the cinema! (At least I can now skip the next
Woody Allen without the least bit of a guilty conscience …) And, on top of the
discomfort of being analyzed, there is yet another actor I should add to the
“unlimited credit” section, just because of the overwhelming excellency … But I
won’t. Of course I “filed” her a long time ago, and certainly in the “top drawer”,
but I noticed just the other day that my fictional love relationships have
nothing to do with excellency in the first place. As they have nothing to do
with physical attraction - in the FIRST place. They are extremely personal. As
I noticed a few times, they are really about me.
I noticed
it again when I was watching a series with Christopher Eccleston after I hadn’t
seen anything by him for quite some time. It was a rainy day, and I had done
all the boring and exhausting stuff and ended up watching DVDs I had already
seen, to file them. And I hated everything. Everything made me feel bad and
unsettled me, even “Marple”. (As I found out, Agatha Christie can be a lot more
unsettling than I gave her credit for …) Then I hit on “The A Word” which I bought
because of Christopher Eccleston. I didn’t even like him that much in the
series, but, as soon as I saw him again, I became totally calm and serene. It
might just be because what he does is always so COMPLETE. There are no “fuzzy”
bits, or nondescript areas. He always convinces me that he knows everything
about the character he is playing. No – every great actor does that! It is that
he, somehow, manages to EXPRESS everything he knows. As I realized earlier: he
never misses the point about any character or situation, he always brings the
hidden content out into the open. Consequently, I am fascinated no matter whom
he is playing. Maybe, in his case, the relationship is purely AESTHETICAL – as
if this special kind of energy and structure he brings to any single character
he is playing is exactly what I need … But I cannot KNOW this. With Ralph
Fiennes the feeling is exactly the same, even though I think it is about
something different, more emotional. I think it is about the INTENSITY of
feeling that he is able to convey. I always feel completely safe with him, even
if it is about something frightening or ugly. (I finally have his “Red Dragon”
now, by the way. Special treat for Halloween!!!)
With
Richard Armitage it is totally different because he unsettles me almost all the
time. It is my most demanding fictional relationship because, with him, it is
never the same thing twice. I have learned by now that I am always in for a
SURPRISE. This makes me skittish, and I am not at all sure if I will even enjoy
seeing him in the theatre next year … (if I can make it.) And there is always a
genuine possibility of being disappointed – which is not so with the others.
But, when it actually happens, the way he surprises me is worth any
disappointment. As he probably does himself, I like it more than anything to go
where I HAVEN’T BEEN, and UNDERSTAND what is happening there.
My
relationship with Simon Russell Beale is again completely different. I think
that it is the way he ANALYZES text and characters which we share. But he has
this huge, inventive repertoire of SHOWING the results of his analysis, and it always
makes me completely HAPPY when I see it. But I miss him less than the others
when I don’t see him, probably because I am doing this kind of analysis myself
all the time.
So,
either of my intense fictional relationships is about something I NEED, and
which I actually GET by seeing – or listening to – their work. (As I found out
recently, there are great audiobooks read by Richard Armitage – and I am not yet
ready to accept that I cannot get the Bernard Cornwell – from my beloved “Making
of England” series!!! – that he has performed, on Amazon. Shhh… 😢😢😢) As sad as this may be, this is
much better than what I get out of non-fictional relationships – which are
NECESSARY nonetheless, but, most of the time, not really about me.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen