edler (09/26/82)
I saw Mazursky's Tempest the other day, and while it had some inspired scenes, wonderful photography, and great music, I was a bit disappointed. If I had read Shakespeare would I understand? The film portrays a stormy period in the life of a man (John Cassavetes (sp?)) and those around him (Gena Rowlands, Susan Sarandon, and others). I did not make much sense of it; most of the time the guy seemed to be absolutely insane, and everyone revolves around him. I was particularly disturbed by the image of women in this film. All three of the women (wife, lover, and daughter) seemed to be emotionally dependent on him, and incapable of independent action. It was as if they existed only for his benefit. Furthermore, at the end, the return to happiness was accompanied with the restoration of the traditional family; the lover just disappeared. The dynamic force of change in this movie was apparently this one man's mind alone; the actions of others were always a response to some action of his. He even controlled the weather. There was no good reason for the beginning of their problems, other than his bad dreams and growing ambivilance about life. Likewise, there was no good reason for the ending; it was a sort of spontaneous return to happiness, with a hint that the storms could return some day. I don't think the shifting context and flashbacks helped either, although the story was easy enough to follow. Did anyone else see this film? Did you get something different from it? Jan Edler cmcl2!edler (nyu) pyuxll!jse (btl piscataway)
tihor (09/28/82)
#R:cmcl2:-1389200:cmcl2:7700001:000:1029 cmcl2!tihor Sep 27 15:57:00 1982 Certainly having recently read Shakespear's Tempest would have help your appreciation of Mazursky's work. I consider the movie to be one of the better modern films I have seen ebcause it manages to be true to the spirit of the Romances without simply being a modern interpretation of one of Shakespear's plays. Rather it attempts to present the same sort of brooding mood and introspection as the original yet remain modern in conventions, focus, and technique. I don't think it is a strong as the play for many reasons, particularly the degree of ambiguity as to the motivations in the ending. (Although it is fairly clear what the resolutions are they are presented in a very quick and spare style which seems inconsistent with the generally slow and detailed style of the first half of the film. Some of this is undoubtedly due to the change in pacing as the film moves into the purely Shakespearean structure in the second half and the pacing accelerates to cover the events of a two hour play in about 50 minutes.)