Aria

I have long wanted to comment on this film but have found doing so extremely difficult. When released it was promoted as a major work of art, whereas in practice it is a hodge podge of short sequences, unrelated in either style or content, so why bother with it? By its nature it could never have been a great film. Think of any film that you personally regard as a great work of art and imagine what it would have been like if it had been divided into ten segments, each created by a different Director commissioned to portray a different but fundamental aspect of human existence................

Aria "bombed" badly when it was first released - I left the cinema feeling that, despite many interesting sequences, I would not want to see it again. But some sequences proved very seductive, and I rented a tape to re-watch them a few months later. After this happened a second time I knew I must have my own copy; this has since become one of the most frequently viewed tapes in my private collection. The film comprises a collection of short segments, each presented against the background of a well known operatic aria, but illustrating or featuring some vital aspect of life as we live it. We can quickly decide which of the various segments mean most to us, but we need much longer to decide why and in what ways the others are less satisfactory. Such thoughts keep returning even when we believe we have basically forgotten the film, and ultimately make it virtually unforgettable. Clearly, even though we are not dealing with a great film, it is a very important one.

The only link between the ten segments of this film is the fact that each is presented against the background of a well known operatic aria. I would have expected opera buffs, who are totally familiar with each of the arias (and their context in the opera concerned), to have been much less enthusiastic about the very different and individualistic interpretations created by the selected directors than other viewers who are not really familiar with opera as an art form, and who accepted the aria concerned simply as background music. But from comments already recorded in the IMDb database this does not seem to be the case. Opera buffs as described above mostly seem to be significantly more appreciative of the various segments of this film than other viewers. This suggests both that the main appeal of opera lies in the music rather than the libretto; and that opera lovers are more ready to associate the arias with the emotions which the individual film directors are attempting to arouse, even when these are not those of the original opera.

Ultimately we are left with ten short films by leading directors, each visually creating an emotional experience associated with ordinary life. Inevitably each viewer will find that some segments will appeal whilst others do not. For each viewer the segments which appeal most will depend upon their individual character and life experiences. There are no rights and wrongs in this respect; and reviews of this film which suggest that segments A, B and C are excellent, whilst X, Y and Z are failures, are of very little value. A more helpful approach seems to be listing those aspects of life that the ten directors felt were brought to the forefront of their attention when they first studied their aria, and subsequently attempted to interpret visually in their segments. Not surprisingly love seems to be the most important of these, it is featured in half of the ten segments. One shows the love between a newly married couple; a second shows a not much older couple who have retained their love but have become disillusioned by the life they have lived, have few expectations for the future, and are prepared to end their lives together; a third shows the pain of unrequited love; a fourth the faded love between a married couple who are cheating; and a fifth the obverse side of love, obsessive hatred that has festered to the point where one human being is driven to plan the final destruction of another. These segments (as well as some of the others) feature extensive nudity and have led to comments that the film is little more than soft porn. This seems unfair - nudity still has a strong emotional impact and is therefore a useful tool for a director faced with creating imagery that effectively conveys the message he intends within a very brief ten minute film sequence.

Another universal aspect of human life is death, not surprisingly this is also recognised in several of the segments, Other emotions featured in these ten segments include humour and pathos, the subconscious urge felt even by the most beautiful women to adorn themselves, and the tranquility that old age can bring to those who feel they have done the best they can with their lives. An interesting challenge for those who do not know this film but are familiar with other works by the directors involved would be to watch these various segments and then try to identify the director responsible. Overall, it would be hard for anyone to watch this film without experiencing a strong emotional reaction to one of more of these segments; and it would be almost impossible for any individual review to do this film justice even if IMDb relaxed their length restriction on comments. This above all is a film where I would have expected that the opportunity to exchange comments about the various segments on the IMDb message board would have appealed to all those who have viewed it. For some reason this does not seem to have been the case.

Ten directors make short films based on their favourite operatic arias. Lots of pretty pictures, but most of the segments are either pointless, senseless, or dull. Exceptions: the contributions of Jarman, Russell, Sturridge, and Temple.

I took very brief notes on each: "Un ballo in maschera": dull, clumsy, amateurish-looking and incoherent. D- "La virgine degli angeli": weird, dream-like story works; good cinematography. A- "Armide": weird and seemingly pointless, though not boring and vaguely artistic. B- "Rigoletto": this funny segment tells the most straightforward story. A- "Die tote Stadt": pointless, uneventful pretty pictures. D+ "Les Boréades": pointless incoherence. D "Liebestod": baffling sex and death story with pretty pictures. C- "Nessun dorma": clever, disturbing abstract art. B+ "Depuis le jour": somewhat effective. B "I pagliacci": slightly affecting opera scene is too simple. C+

"Aria" as a whole is a pretty underwhelming experience, as most compilation films are. No one segment is very long, so the whole thing is painless to sit through, but I can't really bring myself to recommend it to anyone.

The standout segment for me was Ken Russell's, which depicts a woman hallucinating while on the operating table after a terrible car accident. It helps that the segment is set to "Nessum dorma," one of my favorite opera pieces -- I would find a filmed toaster glorious as long as it was set to that particular piece of music. Franc Roddam's segment is pretty decent, and features Bridget Fonda in her film debut. I liked Jean-Luc Godard's segment, which is set in a gym and features a bunch of body builders completely oblivious of the naked women dancing around them -- perhaps a comment on male narcissism? Robert Altman's segment, which is primarily the reason I wanted to see this movie at all, is utterly forgettable -- the only notable thing about it is that you can tell he was filming "Beyond Therapy" at the same time, as many of the same actors are in both. Nicholas Roeg's segment, which opens the film, is pretty bad, as is Julien Temple's painfully unfunny contribution (though it features a smokin' Beverly D'Angelo), while Bruce Beresford's is just boring. Watch Derek Jarman's segment for a glimpse of a very young and pretty Tilda Swinton.

There's not much to say about films like this. Some portions are better than others; none of them are masterpieces.

Grade: B-

I watched ARIA for the first time on DVD and boy, did that movie ever put me to sleep. This is not a criticism. The film is OK but the I can't imagine anyone not feeling sleepy while watching it. It's slow, sorta hypnotic and soundless. There's basically no dialogue. The film is only visuals and classical music, which combined together create a very calming, peaceful experience. There are very few moments when the film rises above sereneness.

Nicolas Roeg - I didn't like it.

Charles Sturridge - Interesting but it's very short.

Jean-Luc Godard - The kookiest segment. Fun to watch.

Julien Temple - Typical Julian Temple nonsense. This segment looks like a wacky music video. Didn't like it.

Bruce Beresford - Elizabeth Hurley is naked. That's all I have to say!

Robert Atlman - Forgettable

Franc Roddam - Probably the best segment. Very slow and calm, though.

Ken Russell - Tacky. Only Ken Russell would think that tacky plastic jewelery would look good. And the nudity is totally gratuitous.

Derek Jarman - I didn't like it.

Bill Bryden - I don't even remember this one. I was probably asleep by then.

Robert Altman, Nicolas Roeg, John-Luc Goddard--you were expecting a fun film the entire family could enjoy? These and other directors were obviously chosen because they have not followed the mainstream, but created it. For those that complain that they did not adhere to the original story of the opera--How often does the music in a film directly relate to what is going on in the film? It is the mood that counts. This is what I believe the directors of these movies were doing: creating a contemporary mood for old operas. For the most part they succeed wonderfully. With all these operas, who is going to like them all. We could have used more Beverly Sills.

Finally, what is art (even opera) without a few naked women?