These will be a very short set of reviews; apologies (it's pretty much just my own way of taking a break)
I suppose I should mention that it'd be almost impossible for me to ever, EVER be entirely satisfied with any portrayal of Maurice Bendrix. He's just one of my favourite literary characters of all-time, and so much of his complexities lies in the way Greene presents his narrative voice: a subversion of Greene's usual mode of third-person narration, turning this on its head by driving the story through the characters, rather than characters through the stories as he did in many of his 'entertainments'. The narrative digressions of Bendrix to various details, many intricate and seemingly minor (and fitting to his authorial outlook on life), as a metanarrator whose authorial presence repeatedly intrudes both his ongoing narration of the past as well his participation in the events of the present, and trying to overcome both God and Greene’s overbearing authorial voice through a parallel God complex, this antithetical conflict is really what provides the very core of Bendrix's brilliant conception by Greene. The medium of film cannot possibly incorporate the sheer complexity of the character and therefore, both Johnson and Fiennes have an incredibly large obstacle to overcome with their performances from the very outset.
There's really not that much I can discuss about the two performances except that they're servicable. Van Johnson, I was surprised to find out, was not the train-wreck I expected him to be, he is bad make no mistake about that, but he's not godawful. He was very much miscast (Peter Finch, methinks, would've been a perfect choice, or Trevor Howard), but he fares better than I think original choice Gregory Peck would've (Peck can be amazing but his star presence alone would've probably been incredibly distracting); Johnson actually does well enough as the straightforward 'romantic hero', which Bendrix isn't really, but it works for the film. I've always found Van Johnson to be a fairly charming, if not particularly exceptional actor. He was certainly very good in 'The Caine Mutiny' and I think here he is alright at differentiating from that performance as a kind-hearted, honest man by the sorta mean streak he imbudes into Bendrix, even if it is a bit lacking for the whole complexity of Bendrix's character. He is very much overshadowed by Kerr, and she's left to do pretty much all the heavy lifting in her scenes, but then again so is Fiennes by Moore; don't get me wrong, in many respects Van Johnson's performance is sorely lacking, but he's also never really bad.
Fiennes is fine as Bendrix, but he's also fairly...predictable, shall I say. Like Moore, he's very well cast in the role of the mysterious romantic, but I'm not quite sure that's what Bendrix is either. Fiennes is an actor I've always preferred when he really relaxes into a lead role like he does in 'The Grand Budapest Hotel', 'In Bruges', and 'Spider'; all performances where he really lets loose, I guess there is 'Schindler's List' where he is a pretty unforgettable face of inhumanity, the problem is with many of his 'repressed', mysterious leading man roles I get the exact same vibe from them. I might not be making much sense here, but hear me out, Fiennes works well as Bendrix, but only just well enough, as a brooding lover to Moore. The problem I have with his performance is that he never really goes beyond that. He's spiteful, passionate, but he never really shows much of Bendrix beyond that, thus making Maurice Bendrix fairly one-note. As I said, Moore takes at first a similar approach to Fiennes by showing one note to her character, but she does I think slowly show hints and different sides, while Fiennes till the very end always has that same expression of hateful longing on his face, I mean even in his romantic scenes with Moore there is a bit of that stiffness to him which is rather uncharacteristic of Fiennes. It's not a bad performance by any means, but it could have certainly been so much more had Fiennes chosen to 'relax' into the role a bit more, and not be afraid to show off more sides to the character than his God-hating persona; perhaps then he could've brought more to the finale of the film. Both Fiennes and Van Johnson really don't do that much to bring the film to an emotionally satisfying juncture, instead that lies in the hands of others; for Van Johnson, it's Kerr (although that too is somewhat diminished by the film), for Fiennes it's someone I'll get onto now.
1. Fiennes (3/5)
2. Van Johnson (2.5/5)
Stephen Rea and Neil Jordan working together on a film is never a bad thing, quite often a very good thing. I love Rea's performance in 'The Crying Game', an incredibly display of subtlety that really requires repeat viewings in order to truly comprehend the power he instills into the role. I'll be the first to admit though that he really doesn't have much range as an actor, really, as most roles I've seen him in, he does always play the rather mopey, tragic sort, from 'V for Vendetta' to 'Citizen X'. That does not really matter though as he's incredibly good at what he does, and this is put to use wonderfully here by Mr Jordan. Neil Jordan clearly understood the tragic gravity of the cuckold Henry Miles, and Rea delivers accordingly. He has the difficult task of being both a figure to root against and sympathise with, and while he doesn't quite match up perfectly with the original conception of Henry Miles by Greene, his performance is a wonderfully sympathetic one, attuned perfectly to the very precise characterisation Jordan is going for. More importantly, in his scenes with Moore the chemistry between the two is deeply moving, and I would even go so far as to say he helps to bring out even more out of Moore's performance than Fiennes. It is he who gives the ending the necessary levity and emotional impact, and while it's hardly a perfect performance (like Fiennes he's rather one-note, though a much more effective note) I cannot fault him at all for the emotional impact he brings to the cuckold.
Cushing, known nowadays as the (in) famous Van Helsing to Christopher Lee's Dracula, is an actor I am unfortunately not much familiar with besides his Hammer films, where he is incredibly good at making something out of 'nothingness' of characterisation. In the 1955 version, the role of Henry is incredibly thankless and has some rather poorly acted scenes by Van Johnson to contend with (in fact, I think I will deduct another .5 from Johnson's performance for his failure to bring any gravity to those confrontational scenes about the affair), but Cushing is good enough in giving a straightforward and intelligent performance as the cuckold. He is quite moving when he expresses his repressed love for Kerr; I don't think he ever quite reaches the heights of Rea though, simply because the film really undercuts him with it's lack of focus on him. It's a good performance all in all, but simply good.
1. Rea (4)
2. Cushing (3.5)
I shall be taking a break off the blog for about a week or two now...exams coming up :S
[1] Ronald G.. Walker, “World without End: An Approach to Narrative Structure in Greene’s The End of the Affair”, Texas: University of Texas Press, summer 1984, p. 218
thecliffedge.com
explore.bfi.org.uk
movie-dude.co.uk
stephenrea.net
No comments:
Post a Comment