Juana la Loca

There is no question that director Vicente Aranda has taken considerable liberty with generally accepted history, but despite this and a few flaws within the context of certain scenes, what we have is an excellent story, and one very well recounted and acted.

It will come as absolutely no surprise for those who have seen this film to know that Pilar Lopez de Ayala (as Juana I) and Rosana Pastor (Elvira, Head of Queen´s Household) are nominated in the lead and supporting categories of the Spanish Goya Film Awards, and, despite having been ignored by the Golden Globes, this film should be in contention for Oscar Consideration as Spain´s representation for the "Best Foreign Film" of 2001. Frankly, the performances just mentioned were so stunning, especially Pilar Lopez de Ayala, that I would consider her among nominees for Best Actress at the Oscars, not only given the absolutely pathetic list the Golden Globes presented in the Drama category, but simply because Pilar Lopez de Ayala DESERVES IT, much as did Fernanda Montenegro in the Brazilian masterpiece "Central Do Brazil" just a few years back.

For the historians among the viewing public, my recommendation is to simply look the other way on the bit of revisionism on display, given that far greater crimes have been committed by Hollywood as regards same. The story is excellent, the costumes & design, art direction, cinematography, and above all film editing are simply tops -- and film editing has been a GREAT problem in US films in recent times. Go and see it and I DO MEAN the original version! Rating = 4 stars (of five).

Prior to seeing this film , the fact that it was in Spanish and in Spain(therefore no English sub-titles), gave me the worrying feeling that I would miss the main outline of the story. Now this would have happened were the film slow and psychological. Fortunately this was not the case. The fim was beautifully shot and acting was incredible. Pliar Lopez as Juana La Loca was so believable. You really should look at the paintings of the period to understand what I mean. But for me the best element was the story. In fact there are two stories. The first the historical one tells of Juana, daughter of Isabel, Queen of Castille(spain)(one of the most important figures in history) who is arranged to be married to Philippe of Flanders, heir to the Holy Roman Empire, which consisted of Germany, Flanders and northern Italy. Here you can see the machinations and the politics which went into the building of the greatest power of its day. Juana's son Charles would later rule most of the world, but that is later. The second story is the personal one. Juana falls totally in love for Philipe and it is such an extreme and jealous love that it reminds me of Catherine in Wuthering Heights. To avoid spoiling I'll leave it at that, but to conclude, this was a really worthwhile film, and I cannot wait to see it in its sub-titled version.

True story of "the mad queen of Castile" focuses on the innocent daughter of Ferdinand and Isabella contracted into marriage with the infamous Hapsburg heir of the Holy Roman Empire. Juana becomes so enamored of her young libertine husband that her jealously makes her emotionally unstable. Between the faithlessness of her husband and the treachery of her unscrupulous father King Ferdinand she is declared mad and forced into incarceration for most of her life. For a clearer understanding of the events leading to this, read Lawrence Schoonover's intriguing biographical novel "The Prisoner of Tordesillas." How ironic that Juana's younger sister Caterina (Katherine of Aragon) was also betrayed by a ruthless philandering husband (Henry VIII of England) and incarcerated unto death.

The movie should be seen chiefly for its main actress, the beautiful and talented Pilar López de Ayala. She does the absolute best with what the script gives her.

This should be an entertaining and engrossing film, especially for those interested in Renaissance Europe, but it may be taking just too many liberties with the historical facts. It is highly doubtful that the real Juana became "mad" chiefly out of love for an unfaithful husband, who in this movie is not shown to be particularly interesting anyway. And if the real Juana was anywhere near as beautiful as the actress who plays her, I suppose the real Philip would not have been such a mean husband to her.

Aside from her husband, her father King Fernando of Aragón and most of the Castilian nobles are not depicted too favorably either.

Still, this movie is a good movie if you like costume drama, especially one with a southern European more than an English background.

I liked this film, but I think it could have been better. There were three things that, in my opinion, weakened its impact. The first thing was the presence of a narrator. I happen to believe that using a narrator in a film with characters and dialogue, although sometimes justifiable, is many times a sign of script or directing weakness; usually, if both the screenplay and the director are good enough, conveying all the information should be possible (and would be more powerful) without a narrator explaining what's going on.

The second thing that bothered me was the acting. I found it impossible to connect with the characters, however poignant I found their story (OK, Liotti's looks grabbed my attention quite a bit, but I wouldn't chuck that up to talent...). I felt that de Ayala's acting lacked a certain depth and had a narrow range (most of it consisted of numerous infantile fits of rage in between scenes where she eagerly spread her legs). Liotti seemed lifeless, although I was told his voice was dubbed in Spanish, which usually lowers the power of a performance quite a bit (apparently, he originally delivered a lot of his dialogue in Italian).

The third thing that bothered me was the film's (director's?) incapacity of explaining the roots and justification of Juana's mad love for Phillip. Yes, I know it was a powerful combination of lust and emotional dependency, that Juana was a passionate woman and apparently Phillip was quite a fiery lover, but I never felt the characters' passion.

The film focused too little on Juana's personality/character and the way the chemistry between her and Phillip developed. I realized how powerful her passion for him was, but it was only thanks to the dialogue, not to the acting, neither to the filming style (does anyone else think the film needed more close-ups, mostly during highly emotional scenes?). In my opinion, the film scratches the surface emotionally and artistically, but fails to go deep.

Having said all that, let me assure you that, overall I think it's still a film worth seeing, although definitely not for historical accuracy. The story, loosely based on the Spanish queen Juana de Castilla's life, is quite moving, maybe more for those who have experienced the kind of passion that Juana had for Phillip. A woman so passionately in love with her man, so consumed by her love and so anguished by his philandering and growing lack of reciprocity to her love that she becomes obsessed with possesing him and forgets she is a queen and that her first duty is to her people. I was just sorry to see such a passionate love story idea being presented in a bit of a lethargic manner.