If you want to watch a movie about a man past his prime, I recommend The Last Command (1928). I was lucky enough to enjoy live accompaniment by the Alloy Orchestra, but I'm sure it will be as good with a recording. That film is still screened for audiences 84 years later. This film won't be.
It seems that this is what we do to our elderly stage actors. They all seem to get around to it at one point or another, appearing in some role where they have to pretend to be shaky and senile (not very convincing at either) and reminiscing about what once was, and can no longer be. Once you've seen one, you really don't need to see the rest. But audiences applaud because they just can't separate the actor and character: Barrymore disappears, and it's Plummer.
I don't like this use of John Barrymore. He was a real person. He did not attempt a return to Richard III at the end of his career. I'm left doubting very much not merely whether this actually happened, but even if it could have ever happened. I blame the playwright (and all playwrights). They have no shame.
I also took a dislike to the direction. In the beginning, and I think also later in the film, it is supposed to look like we're in an old movie palace, watching a black and white film (in widescreen, a format used only for a handful of films prior to Barrymore's death, and I don't think Barrymore was in any of them). This effect is so obviously fake it's really distracting. You can't just take video, and apply consumer-level lines and spots and shear to it, and pretend it looks like a movie screen. You have to consider frame rate, the imperfect flatness of screen, the sparkle of a real screen, how things further away don't look exactly the same as they do close up, etc. I guess I wasn't expecting Scorsese here, but I was expecting something better than Windows Paint.
Watching the accompanying documentary "Backstage with Barrymore", about the making of this film, disappointingly didn't shed any light on John Barrymore at all. It was primarily various people gushing about Christopher Plummer. You know, I can make up my own mind about Christopher Plummer. I don't need several people who appear to be in dire need of psychological counselling to tell he how awesome he is. And having watched the film itself, I don't need another long trailer for it. I'd like to know about John Barrymore, how the play came to be, the performances at Stratford (more than just a passing mention), etc. So this was a missed opportunity. The most telling thing I learned was that the director seemed picked solely based on the stage production's people being able to control him. Canuel has directed far more television than film. The only film I recognize is Bon Cop, Bad Cop.
I've got nothing against filmed plays. Whether you literally film an actual performance of the play, or adapt it in some way, the results can be amazingly good. This is not the play, nor the film, for that. I expect Les Misérables later this year will be much better.
It seems that this is what we do to our elderly stage actors. They all seem to get around to it at one point or another, appearing in some role where they have to pretend to be shaky and senile (not very convincing at either) and reminiscing about what once was, and can no longer be. Once you've seen one, you really don't need to see the rest. But audiences applaud because they just can't separate the actor and character: Barrymore disappears, and it's Plummer.
I don't like this use of John Barrymore. He was a real person. He did not attempt a return to Richard III at the end of his career. I'm left doubting very much not merely whether this actually happened, but even if it could have ever happened. I blame the playwright (and all playwrights). They have no shame.
I also took a dislike to the direction. In the beginning, and I think also later in the film, it is supposed to look like we're in an old movie palace, watching a black and white film (in widescreen, a format used only for a handful of films prior to Barrymore's death, and I don't think Barrymore was in any of them). This effect is so obviously fake it's really distracting. You can't just take video, and apply consumer-level lines and spots and shear to it, and pretend it looks like a movie screen. You have to consider frame rate, the imperfect flatness of screen, the sparkle of a real screen, how things further away don't look exactly the same as they do close up, etc. I guess I wasn't expecting Scorsese here, but I was expecting something better than Windows Paint.
Watching the accompanying documentary "Backstage with Barrymore", about the making of this film, disappointingly didn't shed any light on John Barrymore at all. It was primarily various people gushing about Christopher Plummer. You know, I can make up my own mind about Christopher Plummer. I don't need several people who appear to be in dire need of psychological counselling to tell he how awesome he is. And having watched the film itself, I don't need another long trailer for it. I'd like to know about John Barrymore, how the play came to be, the performances at Stratford (more than just a passing mention), etc. So this was a missed opportunity. The most telling thing I learned was that the director seemed picked solely based on the stage production's people being able to control him. Canuel has directed far more television than film. The only film I recognize is Bon Cop, Bad Cop.
I've got nothing against filmed plays. Whether you literally film an actual performance of the play, or adapt it in some way, the results can be amazingly good. This is not the play, nor the film, for that. I expect Les Misérables later this year will be much better.