Illuminata

This is one of the few movies I have had to escape by walking out. Others in the movie house did the same before me. This movie was boring, lacked coherence, relied on cheap jokes and gratuitous topless scenes and tasteless sexual innuendo. The whole thing just fell apart. I don't know how Susan Sarandon was talked into appearing in this.

I'm also tired of endless self-centered movies being made about actors doing acting or making plays or movies. The direction might as well have been phoned in. Most of this can be blamed on actor John Turturro who adapted this movie from a play and who co-authored the screenplay and co-produced and directed this disappointment. The only redeeming qualities, as I see it, were the set design and photography.

The reason I joined the IMDB database was to warn others about this waste of time and money. I have enjoyed Turturro's acting in past movies and that is where, in my opinion, his energies are best utilized.

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.

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.

Great bawdy fun! This has a lot to enjoy and we did. If you like delightful actors letting out all the stops as they clearly enjoy going over the top, or good, often excellent wit and writing, see this movie. They had lots of fun with humorous sexuality, very interesting sets, costumes and visual moments that stay in the mind.

If you've ever taken an acting class, wanted to be on stage or known an actor with a larger than life ego and personality whom you couldn't help but love (even when you wanted to throttle him/her), this movie is for you. "Illuminata" is a real treat that we had never heard of before borrowing it from our local library. I hope you enjoy it nearly as much as we did.

Susan Sarandon! Her work as Celimene is a comic sight to behold. Whenever she's onscreen (which isn't enough) the material's full comedic potential kicks into overdrive. "Illuminata" the movie, leaves a lot to be desired--namely more Susan Sarandon at her most breathtakingly beautiful. At an age when most women give up any hope of ever being thought of as sexually appealing or sexually viable, to be exact, Susan owns her many charms and certainly knows how to make the most of them. Her seduction of Tuccio (played by John Turturro) is one of the most erotic in recent cinematic history. And, that it contains one of the funniest "gradification sequences" ever captured on celluloid just goes to show that no matter what age she may happen to be, the one and only Susan Sarandon is and always will be one of the sexiest women alive and the definitive "thinking man's sex symbol" as well as a truly gifted actress quite adept at comedy. By the way, what you just read was written by a 22 year old man--when it comes to beauty, both inside and out, age is nothing but a number. A virtue that Ms. Sarandon continues to redefine with each passing year. I know a magnificient talent when I see it. Score: The film gets 6 out of 10/B-, Susan Sarandon gets a 10/A+ as always.