The Films of Dario Argento: Opera

Posted on October 24, 2023 by Lisa Marie Bowman

It can be argued that 1987’s Opera is one of Dario Argento’s most personal films.

In the mid-80s, Argento was hired to direct an opera, in this case a production Giuseppe Verdi’s Macbeth. Argento described the opportunity to direct an opera as being a case of one of his childhood dreams coming true. Unfortunately, certain people were scandalized with the idea of hiring a director of violent horror films to direct the opera, even though Macbeth is one of the most horrific of Shakespeare’s plays. I mean, if any story seems to be custom-made for a director who is known for his complex set pieces and his willingness to indulge in graphic imagery, it would seem to be Macbeth. Despite this, the production was canceled and Argento was left feeling like an outsider in his own industry.

Along with his disappointment over the canceled production of Macbeth, Argento was also suffering on a personal level when he directed Opera because he had just separated from his long time partner and collaborator, Daria Nicolodi. The two of them had a notoriously volitale relationship, one that led to some of Argento’s best films and reportedly some of his biggest on-set fights. Despite the fact that they had split up, Argento still wrote a role for her in his latest film. At first, Nicolodi refused the role but she changed her mind when Argento promised her the most spectacular death scene in the movie. However, when it came time to shoot the scene, Nicolodi apparently grew paranoid that Argento was planning to kill her for real. Fortunately, Nicolodi was incorrect about that and Argento was totally correct about her scene being one of the best in the film.

Opera takes place during a production of Macbeth, one that is directed by a controversial horror director named Marco (played by Ian Charleson, the star of the Oscar-winning Chariots of Fire). When his star is injured in an auto accident, Marco is forced to cast the young understudy, Beth (Cristina Marsillach), as Lady Macbeth. Despite the doubts of many, Betty gives a strong performance in the role. She stuns the audience. Perhaps the power of her performance is due to her own traumatic memories of her mother being murdered by a never captured assailant.

Speaking of murder, people around Betty start dying as well, often while Betty is forced to watch. The black-gloved killer often come out of nowhere, gags Betty, and ties her to whatever is nearby. The killer always tapes a row of needles under Betty’s eyes, keeping her from being able to close them or to look away as the killer then proceeds to murder her friends. The first victim is Betty’s handsome boyfriend, Stefano (William McNamara). The second murder is a costumer (Barbara Cupisti). Three of the opera’s ravens are killed, leaving the remaining ravens determined to get revenge.

Betty, it should be noted, refuses to go the police about what she has witnesses because she thinks that the killer is the same person who murdered her mother. You have to wonder at her logic or the fact that director Marco agrees with her decision. Personally, if I witnessed a murder as brutal as the murder of Stefano, I would go to the police. It’s hard to really sympathize with Betty’s decision, as much as the film seems to think that I should.

Opera has a lot of fans and it does feature some of Argento’s strongest visuals. Towards the end of the film, there’s an extended raven attack in the opera house that is one of Argento’s greatest set pieces. And, for all of her fears that she was about to be killed for real, Daria Nicolodi’s shocking death scene is Argento at his best. Both Ian Charleson and Urbano Barberini give excellent performance and, even if the genesis of the film was found in Argento’s anger over his canceled version of Macbeth, there’s a lot of affection to be found in the film’s portrayal of what goes into putting on a massive production. One gets the feeling that, for once, Argento actually likes the majority of the characters in the film.

That said, I have to admit that there are a few things that I don’t particularly care for in Opera. If I liked Phenomena more than most viewers, I like Opera a bit less. After each murder, Argento attacks our ears with heavy metal and I assume the point is to contrast the stateliness of the opera with the chaos of the killer’s actions. But, while I can respect Argento’s logic (assuming that was his logic), the music itself tends to be repetitive and, after the second time that we hear it, it gets kind of boring. And Betty is not a particularly sympathetic protagonist, both due to the way she’s written and also Cristina Marsillach’s less than convincing performance in the role. Reportedly, Argento and Marsillach did not get along during filming and perhaps that explains why her performance never really seems to come alive. Everyone in the film insists the Betty is a revelation of Lady Macbeth but there’s nothing about Marsillach’s performance that makes us believe that. It’s hard not to feel that the film would have been improved if Cristina Marsillach and Barbara Cupisti had switched roles.

(Director Michele Soavi, who has a small role in this film, did later cast Cupisti as the lead in his film Stage Fright and watching Cupisti in that film, it’s even easier to imagine her as the lead in Argento’s film.)

The film ends on a strange note, one that seems to serve as a call-back to Phenomena. What I find interesting is that critics who like the film overall tend to be critical of the ending and the idea of Marsillach talking to a lizard. Whereas I, someone who does not like the film quite as much as some others, absolutely loves the ending because it’s just so weird and it comes to use from out-of-nowhere. It’s as if Argento is saying, “You might have kept me from directing an opera but it’s my movie and I’m in control here.”

Opera did well in Italy and the rest of Europe but, as was so often the case, Argento was screwed by his American distributors. Opera was originally supposed to get an American theatrical release but, when the distributor went bankrupt, the film was only given a video release, with much of the gore edited out to ensure that the film received an R-rating and could be carried by Blockbuster. (That’s right. Blockbuster wouldn’t carry anything above an R. Where’s your God now, video nerds?) Fortunately, all that was edited out was put back in when Opera was released on DVD in 2002.

The (Reviewed) Films of Dario Argento:

Lisa Reviews An Oscar Winner: Gandhi (dir by Richard Attenborough)

Posted on February 27, 2016 by Lisa Marie Bowman

I just finished watching the 1982 best picture winner Gandhi on TCM. This is going to be a tough movie to review.

Why?

Well, first off, there’s the subject matter. Gandhi is an epic biopic of Mohandas Gandhi (played, very well, by Ben Kingsley). It starts with Gandhi as a 23 year-old attorney in South Africa who, after getting tossed out of a first class train compartment because of the color of his skin, leads a non-violent protest for the rights of all Indians in South Africa. He gets arrested several times and, at one point, is threatened by Daniel Day-Lewis, making his screen debut as a young racist. However, eventually, Gandhi’s protest draws international attention and pressure. South Africa finally changes the law to give Indians a few rights.

Gandhi then returns to his native India, where he leads a similar campaign of non-violence in support of the fight for India’s independence from the British Empire. For every violent act on the part of the British, Gandhi responds with humility and nonviolence. After World War II, India gains its independence and Gandhi becomes the leader of the nation. When India threatens to collapse as a result of violence between Hindus and Muslims, Gandhi fasts and announces that he will allow himself to starve to death unless the violence ends. Gandhi brings peace to his country and is admired the world over. And then, like almost all great leaders, he’s assassinated.

Gandhi tells the story of a great leader but that doesn’t necessarily make it a great movie. In order to really examine Gandhi as a film, you have to be willing to accept that criticizing the movie is not the same as criticizing what (or who) the movie is about.

As I watched Gandhi, my main impression was that it was an extremely long movie. Reportedly, Gandhi was a passion project for director Richard Attenborough. An admirer of Gandhi’s and a lifelong equality activist, Attenborough spent over 20 years trying to raise the money to bring Gandhi’s life to the big screen. Once he finally did, it appears that Attenbrough didn’t want to leave out a single detail. Gandhi runs three and a half hours and, because certain scenes drag, it feels ever longer.

My other thought, as I watched Gandhi, was that it had to be one of the least cinematic films that I’ve ever seen. Bless Attenborough for the nobility of his intentions but there’s not a single interesting visual to be found in the entire film. I imagine that, even in 1982, Gandhi felt like a very old-fashioned movie. In the end, it feels more like something you would see on PBS than in a theater.

The film is full of familiar faces, which works in some cases and doesn’t in others. For instance, Gandhi’s British opponents are played by a virtual army of familiar character actors. Every few minutes, someone like John Gielgud, Edward Fox, Trevor Howard, John Mills, or Nigel Hawthorne will pop up and wonder why Gandhi always has to be so troublesome. The British character actors all do a pretty good job and contribute to the film without allowing their familiar faces to become a distraction.

But then, a few American actors show up. Martin Sheen plays a reporter who interview Gandhi. Candice Bergen shows up as a famous photographer. And, unlike their British equivalents, neither Sheen nor Bergen really seem to fit into the film. Both of them end up overacting. (Sheen, in particular, delivers every line as if he’s scared that we’re going to forget that we’re watching a movie about an important figure in history.) They both become distractions.

I guess the best thing that you can say about Gandhi, as a film, is that it features Ben Kingsley in the leading role. He gives a wonderfully subtle performance as Gandhi, making him human even when the film insists on portraying him as a saint. He won an Oscar for his performance in Gandhi and he deserved one.

As for Gandhi‘s award for best picture … well, let’s consider the films that it beat: E.T., Tootsie, The Verdict, and Missing. And then, consider some of the films from 1982 that weren’t even nominated: Blade Runner, Burden of Dreams, Class of 1984, Fast Times At Ridgemont High, My Favorite Year, Poltergeist, Tenebrae, Vice Squad, Fanny and Alexander…

When you look at the competition, it’s clear that the Academy’s main motive in honoring Gandhi the film was to honor Gandhi the man. In the end, Gandhi is a good example of a film that, good intentions aside, did not deserve its Oscar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oWqlb_TlLQ

Lisa Watches An Oscar Winner: Chariots of Fire (dir by Hugh Hudson)

Posted on February 28, 2015 by Lisa Marie Bowman

It took me two viewings to really appreciate the film Chariot of Fire.

First released in 1981, Chariots of Fire won the Oscar for best picture. It’s also one of the few British productions to take the top award. (British films are regularly nominated but the winner is usually an American production.) A few nights ago, it was broadcast on TCM and I watched it for the first time. And I have to admit that I struggled to follow the film.

It’s not that the film’s story was exceptionally complicated. At heart, it’s an inspirational sports film and it features all of the clichés that one usually associates with inspirational sports films — i.e., come-from-behind victories, eccentric trainers, athletes who are determined to compete under their own terms, training montages, and a memorable score. (The score for Chariots of Fire was so effective that it’s still used as the background music for countless Olympic specials.)

No, I struggled to follow the film because it really was just so extremely British, featuring everything from Cambridge to Gilbert and Sullivan to a rigidly enforced class system to casual anti-Semitism, This may have been a sports film but it was a very reserved sports film. If Chariots of Fire had been an American film, we would have gotten countless shots of people screaming, “YESSSSS! GO! GO! GO! GO!” Instead, the characters in Chariots of Fire are far more likely to say, “Good show, old boy.” Whereas an American sports film would have scored a montage of competition to the sound of “Eye of the Tiger,” Chariots of Fire features a men’s chorus singing, “For he is an Englishman….”

It takes a bit of getting used to and perhaps I knew that because, even as I was watching Chariots of Fire, I still set the DVR to record it. The first time I watched the film, I was overwhelmed by the culture shock and the resolute Britishness of it all. My reaction was to think that, much like The Big Chill, Chariots of Fire was a “you just had to be there” type of film, the type of film that was once impressive but now just inspires you to go “meh.”

And I was prepared to write a review stating just that. But, somehow, in the back of my mind, I knew that I should give Chariots of Fire another chance before I dismissed it. Maybe it was the fact that I couldn’t get the damn music out of my head. Who knows? But I couldn’t think about the film’s opening — with all those men running on the beach and getting mud all over their white uniforms — without smiling.

So, seeing as how I am currently snowed in for the weekend, I spent this morning watching Chariots of Fire for a second time and I’m glad that I did. Because you know what? Chariots of Fire is actually a pretty good film. It tells the story of Eric Lidell (Ian Charleson) and Harold Abrahams (Ben Cross), two British runners who competed at the 1924 Olympics. Harold is a student at Cambridge. He’s an angry young man who is running to prove all of the anti-Semites wrong. (Of course, Harold is angry in a very sort of upper class British way). Eric is the son of missionaries who views running as a mission from God and who refuses to run on a Sunday. The film looks gorgeous, Charleson and Cross both give good performances, and that music demands an emotional response. While Chariots of Fire may not be a great film, it’s definitely a likable film and there’s something to be said for that.

Plus, did I mention that the music’s great?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-7Vu7cqB20