Coriolanus (2011)

"To be or not..." ...nope, wrong story. Since I'm not seeing a live play very often, I told myself to upgrade a bit my knowledge in the dramatic area and I tried watching "Coriolanus", a modern adaptation of Shakespeare's tragedy. I tried = I did it on the 2nd attempt, the first one failed by sleeping...

We're talking about a classic play, therefore we shouldn't be afraid of spoilers. In the context of the Roman-Volsci conflict (where Volsci was a tribe located close to Rome), the Roman general Caius Martius returns home after conquering the city of Corioli. Welcomed with honors and the title of Coriolanus following the victory, the general decides to run for the consul position. The political intrigue, however, present there as always in history, changes dramatically the public opinion about the man, or otherwise said we have here the definition of "from hero to zero". And like that from being favorite for ruling, Coriolanus ends up exiled. And the best option for a frustrated military with a long career behind is turning towards the closest enemy. And like that, serving the Volsci now, he starts the siege on Rome. And Rome, losing its main defender now turned attacker, asks for forgiveness and peace using Coriolanus' mother and wife. He can't say no to them, which is not very convenient for the Volsci leader. End of Coriolanus, end of story.

Leaving aside that Shakespeare in original is meant to be played on stage, not on a movie set (where it's impossible to avoid the effect of the typical dialogue that creates on screen some unbearable lengths that are not present on the stage), the major problem of this movie is the modern approach. So, what's the modern part... all above is set in the present day, somewhere in the Balkans probably, shot with a visibly low budget (maybe a reason for the chosen location), but it's keeping all of the original context: the geography, the names, the lines. I've seen adaptations of other plays, but I doubt I was ever so annoyed by the ridiculous association between the Shakespearean dialogues or monologues and the context they're set in. The cherry on top, the Volsci leader, Tullus Aufidius, is a Gerard Butler using his natural Scottish accent and is carrying an AK being dressed a Cuban revolutionary uniform (or a Bosnian considering the probable location). And that's just one example. As good as the actors might be, sorry, but it doesn't work...

Rating: 2 out of 5

No Man's Land (2001)

Long break again ... "No Man's Land" is a Bosnian movie from 2001. European co-production to be more accurate. I've seen by chance recently. Also by chance I guess it fits as a pretty good entry for the current times ...

Location: a trench during the Serbian-Bosnian war in 1994. Participants: a Bosnian and a Serb who got on their own feet standing between enemy lines .. + another soldier on the ground (still alive). I won't say on which side he is to avoid spoiling all the intro. What I can spoil is that the two conclude at some point that shooting each other is not a way out still standing.

It's a movie where if you give too many details you remove part of its charm. Because, as any other movie with a limited count of actors in a closed scenery, the action doesn't have much chance to lag and story keeps changing the path it has. The movie is a tragicomedy, unfortunately ending in a bitter note ... despite the situations that remove some of the tension from time to time. There are many fine nuances, which you can observe (and probably more that I didn't). Starting with the year, not mentioned explicitly, but appearing through a reference to the Rwandan genocide, underlining the uselessness of the UN policy of non-intervening in both conflicts, up to the fact that the press feeds too often with death (just notice when cameras stop shooting) ... Many nuances, which unfortunately are still valid. And the same for the conclusion: wars are stupid.

Rating: 4 out of 5

Burnt by the Sun (1994)

I finally watched "Burnt by the Sun" last week, considered by many the best movie of Nikita Mikhalkov. Who apparently lacking ideas, decided 20 years after shooting the original to make a sequel, trashed by critics. I don't intend watching that. But not because the original was bad...

There are movies which are telling you from start, even if not directly that the ending won't be good. And after doing that, everything tries to make the ending as hard to accept as possible. If the movie is well directed has the best chances to ruin your mood or even bring you to tears. The best example that pops in my mind is Benigni's "La Vita e Bella". Metaphorically speaking you can think on "Burnt by the Sun" as a Russian version of that (minus the Italian verve and exuberance). The movie is set in rural Russia during The Great Purge (years '36-'38) when at Stalin's orders NKVD (the father of KGB and grandfather of FSB) did a "cleaning" of the Soviet Union's political class and high army ranks. The precise context is on an officer, known as bolshevik hero of the Russian Civil war, who spends a sunny Sunday together with his wife, daughter and relatives in the summer residence. An old acquaintance of the wife's family unexpectedly pays a social visit, the reasons for that showing up more and more clearly with each passing hour...

I never had a very good opinion on the Russian cinema. And it's not changed. But I have to admit when I see an exceptionally directed piece. I don't know what's Mikhalkov doing now, and there isn't indeed any room left for a sequel on "Burnt by the Sun" (so the 2nd part = just for $). However, considering the original, I've rarely seen anything expressing so well that there's something bad going to happen, as well as a deceivingly fake optimistic feeling fed with a vain hope despite the clear outcome. This is not a movie to make your mood better, and subjectively I disliked it especially for the (typical and yet again met) slavic/balkanic fate acceptance attitude, even if at some point I almost got fooled there's something else there...

Rating: 4 out of 5