Illuminata

This film shines from the loving direction that Tuturro lavishes upon Brandon Cole's screenplay. The entire cast is delightful, with Katherine Borowitz's loving and tormented Rachel and Christopher Walken's sexually aggressive Bevalaqua truly standing out. It was great to see a film about the theatre done so passionately, after the dull and trite "Shakespeare in Love".

I was mesmerized by the performances. Tuturro, Borowitz and Sewell moved so seamlessly in and out of characters that you often felt that you were in "Illuminata".

This film reminded me with an equally remarkable film, Louis Malle's "Vanya on 42nd Street". I'm going to have fire up the laser disc player on that one tonight.

If you are a fan of the theatre or works on the theatre, then "Illuminata" is certainly going to work its magic on you.

I don't know how this ended up with such a middling rating. It stands out as one of the wittiest, strangest and well-constructed films I've seen in years. Well photographed, with many characters wonderfully and unexpectedly acted. Appropriate for almost any mood, occasion or atmosphere.

Superficially about love (isn't everything?) this effort really concerns itself with a recurring question in theater: how important are the actors?

In recent years, there have been a dozen or so movies by actors that deal with this and insist they are paramount. The most entertaining (in a camp way) is "Wag the Dog," perhaps the most intelligent "Vanya on 42nd St" and the most interesting Branagh's "Midwinter's Night." The most financially successful is "Shakespeare in Love."

This is not a sex farce, nor about love. That's all just grist for motion. Here we have a message from the "puppets," underscored by pleasant framing of the film by puppets. What the writers of this work have done is suggest that the life of any play comes from the lives of the actors. This is in contrast to plays written by genius playwrights like Ibsen, that are merely "performed." For this troupe to have to participate in such an enterprise is seen as hell.

Thus we have their (thinly distilled) lives appear on the stage. Along the way we have an audience that is purely incidental since they don't know what's good anyway. We have the theater owner who likewise is ignorant, but married to a failed thespian who suspects. We have the all-important critic whose real interesting characteristic is not his flamboyant gayness, but his views on art: he values writing, values the fulfillment of the author's intent. So he is particularly vulnerable to being abused. The character is a parody of Wilde who came down strongly on this controversy.

We have the vain celebrity (Sarandon) who does not have the commitment to the art of acting. She briefly tempts our author who really in his heart loves and respects the actors, here represented by the head of the troupe. Sarandon has a speech where she claims she loves the art, but it is clear she loves herself only. Is she a parody on Ellen Terry? Walkin and Sarandon clearly as actors believe in the supremacy of the actor, so in playing the "bad guys" they overly ham it up so that we know where they really stand. In so doing, they undercut their purported honor somewhat. Rather unsettling, especially so since they are amusing at it.

And we also have the troupe itself. They do double duty here: first showing honest commitment. Second providing the material that appears in the play, each representing a distinct stereotype. Wheels turn, people love and not, die and not. This strange crew (and any like it) we are told is worth it despite the strangeness. Along the way many writers are quoted from the Greeks through Chekhov. This is not new stuff, as noted above, but once you know what it is about it is well enough done. However, there is only so much reward one can get, the work can only go but so deep when it is turned over to actors. See where I stand?

If you come looking for a sex farce where the theater is incidental, your mistake will lead you to disappointment as it clearly did many who commented before me.

Wonderful characters, glib and meaningful dialogue, a portrait of theater and its denizens so complete you believe the film is a biography.

There are no small actors here because there are no small parts. What might have been a cameo becomes a pivotal role.

It has been said that the film was missing direction. Not at all. What was happening there was style. This guys loves women and shape and color, and what he likes best is wit.

The entire cast....and that is everybody, was wonderful, so good you could smell the sweat. Camera and sets were so good you could hear floor boards creak. Music, well and tastefully done.

Recommendation: see it once for the discovery, twice for the appreciation, three times for the education. You will not be bored.

Just saw this on TV. As a lifelong professional actor, and therefore of "the other world" (the other other world is everybody else, the "private people"), I want to say how it seemed to me to be made for actors only. Full of wondrous insights, dealing with the shallowness of actors, and their ever present self-concern that maybe where real life is concerned, they just don't "get it", but want to. (Hence our "method" approach to the craft.)

For me it has everything that I've never seen before in films that purport to be about the theatre, but in actuality pander to the ignorance of Private People about things of the theatre, and lie. These guys really don't care about that, but would rather stick to the truth. Yes, it's a huge "in" joke. Like the no-no of breaking up on stage, and destroying the fourth wall, not supposed to do that, it upsets the audience.

This exploration of that unreal world will always stand for me to be definitive. If you're one of the outsiders, don't bother, you won't understand. If this sounds elitist, it's not meant to be. Put it down to an actor's insecurity. But enjoy it for its beauty if you wish, don't look for more.