Swifttraveler

Everyone has raved about Mirren and the other actors, the superb and balanced use of documentary footage and clips of the Princess of Wales--and I agree. But what about the script? The nuances particularly with the Queen beginning to shed some tears while her vehicle is stranded in the river, and then the fateful appearance of the 14-point buck, the Queen declaring it beautiful, then the gunshot--and I won't tell you the rest. The subtlety of the screenplay here depends partly on what level of consciousness the viewer brings to the film. There is so much there--and more--which would be clearer with a second viewing. Clearly, the Queen is experiencing an epiphany of some sort at the river, but does she suppress her emotions later? Also the fact that we never see the faces of the two Princes, William and Harry, is crucial to the tone and tenor of the film.

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.

Everyone, regardless of age, has heard something about World War II; as a result, the filmmaker's dilemma is that he or she must show an aspect of the war that is unusual and therefore worth the time and money spent filming. No one benefits from cliché. The last ten days in the lives of the major players--Hitler, Eva Braun, and the Goebbels--as depicted in Downfall, appeals to the viewer who wants to get past what has already been attempted in the war films of the past 60 years. Having said that, any film on World War II will be expected to get the facts right, e.g. the time and manner of Adolf Hitler's death. What is harder to depict is the feelings individuals had about life as they were living it. An art film such as Downfall walks a line between exact correspondence to historical fact and the filmmaker's (and viewers') desire to slant the action toward the interpretation that is most acceptable to a humane, reflective, and well-considered view of "reality." What I require of art film as well as biography is a focused perception of this reality, something that raises the human spirit, and our need to triumph over base human motives. The "reality" is that in April 1945, the people who worked for Hitler felt differently about the end. Only a few people planned to kill themselves in the bunker with Hitler; most people wanted to survive the end of the war, and get on with their lives--whateer that might be. This point is reinforced throughout the film in the female roles: there are several weepy women who felt they couldn't live without their "Fuehrer," and, in contrast, there were those women (and men) who could walk away after the Russian entry into Berlin, those with the will and knowledge to live on. The culmination of this theme of ambivalent service to Hitler comes near the end when the Nazi doctor argues with an officer: the officer intends to commit suicide, and the doctor can't believe how anyone would choose that. Thus, it seems to me that some people thought it was an honor to kill themselves for Hitler, others were killed by Nazis because they saw what was happening as wrong. Another point is that several people/characters asked Hitler to surrender "for the sake of the German" people; it became clear that Hitler never gave a damn about the people who "served" him nor about the German Nation. The filmmakers were wise to have the telling of the story cohere around the secretary, Trudl Jung--a sort of "innocent" bystander who decided that what she did not know was not going to hurt her. In other words, the secretary was the Everyman who thinks ignorance is bliss. This film has reminded me that real power requires checks and balances on excess; and that people who believe in humanity must speak out against genocide (e.g. the Sudan, Rwanda). See related films, Hotel Rwanda and an older film, The Garden of the Finzi-Continis.