IN: Review: She's not Michael Jordan

Think of all the marvelous NBA players whose career light has been dimmed for no other good reason than the timing of their birth. Their names might trip as easily off the public's lips as Russell, Cousy, Byrd, Magic, McHale, Oscar, Wilt, the list goes on; but the volume gets turned down a little, for Stockton and Malone, Charles, Patrick and all the other great players who always lost the headlines to Michael.

I've seen it written that Gretchen Mol's career flamed out in the wake of the cover article in the 1998 Vanity Fair issue which predicted inevitable superstardom for Ms. Mol. It was later said that she had been over hyped. I disagree.

I still remember that for some time after I saw "The Devil's Advocate" in '97 or '98, I would get confused as to which actress played Mary Ann Lomax. Was it Mol or Theron? Oh yeah! Charlize Theron was the one in "2 Days in the Valley" and "Mighty Joe Young" and Gretchen Mol was in "Donnie Brasco", "Celebrity", and "Rounders".

By the time I had seen "The Thirteenth Floor" (Mol) and "Sweet November" (Theron), I pretty much had them straightened out but I still put them in the same mental file drawer. Both were highly talented, had sweet faces, similar body types, short blonde hair and so on.

Theron, though, was offered more work. I loved her as Sara Deever and as Adele Invergordon her beauty was downright intimidating.

In 2003 "Monster" was released and from that point until the handing of the Oscar itself, all of filmdom knew who the "Best Actress" award was going to. And deservedly so! Theron was Aileen Wuornos. The only way to get a more accurate understanding of what made the real Aileen Wuornos tick would be to somehow replay the digital video trapped in Selby's head. And for a major talent to make herself that physically unattractive! Unheard of!

Then in 2005 "The Notorious Bettie Page" was released. Mol's performance was extraordinary. Maybe she was standing in the shadow of Ms. Theron. It was like the ballroom for the victory celebration for the losing Presidential candidate, nobody came and nobody cared. It was viewed as a continuation of an old tale, once promising actress with a declining career does a nudie part in a "B" movie. Ho hum! No, no, no! Wrong! No matter what you may think of the film (and I enjoy films about the fifties) if you pass on this one you'll be missing one of the better performances of that year. Ms. Moll was every bit as much Bettie as Ms. Theron was Aileen. Unfortunately Aileen, to the film-going public, is the more sympathetic character. For whatever reason, an amoral, sociopathic killer is less embarrassing to us than a naive, unsophisticated, uninhibited, religious girl whose most capital crime was to live her life totally trusting and completely exposed. Bettie Page was one of the icons of the fifties. Her photos and films never sexual, never pornographic, but she presented as a near caricature of all things kinky. There was no sense of realism, only parody. Ms. Moll captured the very essence of the character. She gained 20 pounds to add some zaftig to her normally slim figure and when she posed for various photographers in the film, her body was Bettie's. Her full frontal lack of any inhibitions accurately fits everything which has been published about Bettie. Cinematic nudity normally depicts eroticism or sexuality. In this film it's all about innocence. Seeing Gretchen/Bettie nude didn't make me want to jump her but instilled a desire to protect her from all the horrors that people can inflict on each other. If you pass on this film you'll be missing out on one of the best performances of recent years. By the way, shame on the MPAA for giving this an R rating.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: Excellent, pre-code amoral tale with Barbara Stanwyck as the newly inspired (by writings of Nietzsche!) to drive out her sensitivities and exploit herself, use men to her advantage. Not really fair on the German philosopher but interesting that this was the year Hitler came to power. Stanwyck, even in this young version doesn't do a lot for me but she certainly performs well here, ever driving herself and the film forward. Not as much flesh on display here as one might have expected but plenty of risque situations and astonishing quips and innuendo. Great fun, if not a particularly attractive presentation of men and I suppose in all honesty not a very attractive view of the gold digging female. Still, that's life!
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: (No need to recap the plot, since others have done so already.)

It's understandable that many viewers find fault with the film, raised as we are with the slam-bang sensurround of today's cineplex experience. Against that background, a movie like Ecstasy appears to have wandered in from another planet. I think there are several worthwhile reasons why.

Most importantly, the film unfolds poetically, as the camera pans slowly over surrounding hills, trees, clouds, etc., providing a serene and lyrical sense of a natural world that integrates the man and woman into its fold. Together these reveal a style and dimension almost totally missing from today's technology-driven cinema, where rapid-fire editing works to divert audience attention and not to concentrate it. Additionally, the story is conveyed by eye and not by ear, with almost no dialogue to explain what's happening. This amounts to another extreme departure from today's very literal fare, where visuals only seem to count when they excite the audience. But perhaps most unsettling-- the movie is sometimes eerily quiet, not in the sense that silent films are quiet since we expect them to be. But in the sense that the characters seldom speak when we expect them to. Thus, the burden of the story is shared between the film-maker and the viewer. The former must choose his visuals artfully so as to convey the narrative, while the latter must think about those visuals, since they're not going to be explained.

None of this is intended to belittle today's film-making. It's simply to point out that a movie like Machaty's comes out of a very different aesthetic from the one we have today. I don't claim either to be any better or worse. However, I do claim that Ecstasy represents a perspective sorely missing from today's movie-going experience, where such 'contemplative values are routinely dismissed as slow and boring.

The film itself is no masterpiece, though at times it reaches artistic heights, as in the beautifully composed beer-garden scene with its final crane shot rising to reveal the exquisite tableau below. The slow pans of the countryside with its pantheistic celebration of life, nature, and regeneration are also wonderfully expressed. These are the kind of scenes that don't overwhelm you, but instead-- given half-a chance-- accumulate quietly into an experience as memorable in its own way as the spine-tingling variety of a "Jaws".

On the other hand, the film is sometimes heavy-handed, as when Machaty piles on the imagery, particularly in the final, ode-to-labor sequence. It's hard to know what to make of this rather disruptive presence. Perhaps the symbolism has to do with the heroic dimension that hard work holds for the love-lorn hero and people in general-- a theme then being promoted by the influential Soviet cinema. Still, its presence here is rather tediously over-done.

Anyhow, I've got to admit that I tuned in initially to see the gorgeous Hedy LaMarr in the buff. But now I have to admit that in the process I also got a lot more than just a peek-a-boo romp in the woods.
What is this review like?
OUT:
positive