Isadora

Over the past weekend, I viewed a VHS of Isadora. Throughout the movie (and I assume this was in the script), the motif of the scarf is repeated in various ways showing that she loved scarves and billowy fabric; even if she didn't in real life, the reinforcement of the scarf (as well as her pursuit of the man driving the Bugatti), gives her death a logic and finality that "real" life cannot. Surely, Isadora's death must have been so fictional as not to be believed, as well as the fate of her children. Film-makers must craft a film in such a way that the viewer believes that every moment is true. Compare this screenplay with what Robert McKee says about writing screenplays in his incomparable book, Story, and you'll agree that the Isadora screenplay is undervalued. Also, Redgrave's performance is surely one of the finest of any era--and should have gotten the Oscar, but thankfully won at Cannes (outside the Hollywood political machine). The length of the film, to me, was no problem; the life of Isadora Duncan, could not have been shown in less. The stage scenes of her dancing were perfectly directed and illustrated how she could fill a theatre while also being rejected.

One of the better biopics thanks in large part to a stunning performance from Vanessa Redgrave in the title role of "Isadora" and meticulous direction from Karel Reisz who obviously knew what he was doing and displayed an obvious affection for his subject. It's intelligent and it looks great and there's a fine supporting cast so with all this going for it why does it feel like a very high-class soap opera? Perhaps because all biopics can finally do nothing but reduce their subject's lives to a series of melodramatic incidents or 'highlights'. Perhaps because most famous people's lives are dull most of the time and it's only the melodramatic incidents that people are interested in. This one spins out a series of dances, (very well recreated by Redgrave), and romantic encounters with sufficient aplomb to give it an edge over most biopics. It isn't quite in the same class as Ken Russell's shorter, rawer television version but it comes close.

Vanessa Redgrave gives a great one in this film. Though I know very little about the real Isadora Duncan it really does not matter for Redgrave is so thoroughly into her character that we think she is Duncan. Redgrave has to rank as one of the great actresses of our time.

Biopic of the iconoclastic dancer Isadora Duncan. Set in the last year of her life in the South of France, with flashbacks to her earlier years, each focusing on a different lover (but by no means all of them, and a little disappointing that the mores of the time probably prevented portrayal of her homosexual relationships).

I have known about this film since I saw as a kid the famous still of the accident that caused her death, and have wanted to see it ever since. Even more so when I found out that she was married to Russian poet Sergei Esenin.

I adore Vanessa Redgrave, and with two reservations - that she doesn't really look much like Duncan (while being characteristically gorgeous and watchable) and her unconvincing American accent - she gives a wrenching and believable performance as the histrionic dancer whose grip on reality becomes increasingly tenuous as tragedies and disappointments accumulate. It would have been so easy to overplay this role, but Redgrave gives it just the right touch of passion and neurosis without ever descending into melodrama.

I know nothing about dance, but Redgrave's dancing performances totally convinced me, and for that alone she deserved her Oscar nomination. It must have taken an incredible amount of work and preparation from her, in addition to learning dialogue in convincingly accented French, German and Russian.

In many of her movies, Redgrave's hair is a character on its own, and this one is no exception. I think that that was one of the things that didn't gel for me in the movie: as beautiful as it is, it became intrusive. I think she was cast partly on the basis of her glorious mane aside from her acting talent, but it is superfluous to the action and it doesn't fit with my idea of Isadora Duncan.

Despite its weaknesses as a big-budget, big-name movie of its time, it still deserves to be more widely known and viewed.

ISADORA is one of those exquisitely produced big studio films of the late 60s that had a major release for 3 months and then vanished off the face of the earth forever. Some other titles this seemed to have happen to are; YOUNG WINSTON, NICHOLAS AND ALEXANDRA, MONTECARLO OR BUST (the other "Great Race" movie), STAR!, MAROONED, FINIANS RAINBOW, ON A CLEAR DAY, DARLING LILI....all presented in 70mm as souvenir ticket presentations in luxury cinemas of the time and then.....rarely revived or screened but also never forgotten, because so many people apparently saw them and remember them from this one major release. ISADORA may have been more financially successful than some mentioned above and it did have a huge impact on the beautiful Art Nouveau decor revival of the 60s (Art Deco ate the 70s..or vice versa). The look for the film was a sensation and the impact on teenage girls and their mothers was undeniable, all having a huge impact on free form ballet classes (nymphs and Grecian urns and veils) so hilariously satirized in THE BOYFRIEND in 1972. Vanessa Redgrave is synonymous with this role and one yearns for a cinema presentation of this extraordinary 20s icon now in 2005. I don't remember the film being overly criticized in 1968, it was a hit and respected for its tragic story and superb art direction. Several docos appeared on TV (one even being directed by Ken Russell) and there was quite a celebration of all things ISADORA and Vanessa in that year. But none since.