|
|
Post by Virgil Reality on Jun 13, 2004 22:03:49 GMT 8
The DVD etc is to be re-released in Britain as a mid-priced item on July 12th, presumably to cash in on the publicity Keira Knightley will generate for "King Arthur". Pre order hereHopefully it will introduce more viewers to Hans, especially younger viewers who may not have watched it on TV back in 2002. |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Jun 21, 2004 10:49:11 GMT 8
I actually had never heard of the movie. Then I came across it the other day and noticed Keira was in it and I thought she was great in Pirates of the Caribbean so I checked it out and fell in love with Hans. He's truly a fantastic actor.
|
|
|
|
Post by zodiac on Jul 14, 2004 13:39:12 GMT 8
I introduced a friend to this version over the weekend, so had the luxury of sitting back for four hours watching this beautiful film with beautiful Hans. I'm now reading the book, which I haven't done before. I can't decide if I want to find the original film version and watch it, just to compare the differences. Hans as Yurii is just too perfect -
What do you guys think about the original vs. Hans' version of the story?
|
|
|
|
Post by Gg on Jul 14, 2004 22:26:47 GMT 8
You know when we heard that this remake was happening I was really aprehensive, because the original was really an epic event on a very original scale for those in that time. So I'm thinking that there are those who will watch this remake and think that because it was produced, perhaps, less ambitiously, for a smaller screen, relying less on grand cinematography and relying on the acting talents and script, that it, as a film product, can not compare with the original. But for me, who wasn't part of that, who was raised on epic film, blockbuster cinema, the intimacy that this production allows -- the increased insight into the psyche of the character, the inclusion of elements from the original text that were allowed to come through, the alternative approach of seeing this purely through the characters eye's rather than a retrospective by almost wholey fabricated long-lost brother -- that very contrast to the original is what makes this version in some ways more poignant. It's not really a remake in the end -- it's a more psychologically intimate alternative. The characters are far less untouchable, particularly Yuri, but really all of them. I felt a closeness to their humanity. I did feel it was less "sweeping" perhaps, but at the same time I appreciated the connection I could make, scene by scene. Apples and Oranges really. But if you come right down to it -- if someone wants Dr.Zhivago's story to be epic they would prefer the original perhaps, but if it's really about the story itself, I think the new version hits closer to the mark. As I read the book, it is the emotional story that pulls page by page, his reflections on philosophy, love, poetry, his journey though the political environment. I think capturing that inter-dialogue is a challenge, and each film conquered that in nearly juxtaposed ways. Omar Sharrif going out into nature and then looking up and then the sweeping pans of the beautiful sky -- one way to show love of life, connection to nature, the great expanse of emotion and intellect. And then we have years later the character embodied in a different actor, in an original scene talking the philosophy of love with his future wife and the man that loves her, and outside he sees, with only a glimmer of recognition, the love of his life. I guess it's just what works for you. Actually, when comparing the two, it is Yuri's death scene that seems to me the strongest mirror over the decades -- both actors capture this poignant moment of the rapture and despair -- I think that scene alone, if no other, proves that Hans, in his own right, need never be scorned as unworthy to fill that characters shoes -- it is in fact one of many of his scenes that took me to the place that character was -- it may have been the TEXTonlyTEXT scene Omar was able to fully transport me into.
PS home, prematurely d**n it, from England... hiya guys
|
|
|
|
Post by Robin on Jul 16, 2004 9:37:52 GMT 8
relying on the acting talents and script
Agreed completely. I watched the original Zhivago over 20 years ago, as a child, and always considered it a favourite film. I had only seen it a handful of times, but it still haunted me. I also consider Zhivago one of my favourite novels.
However, there were many elements of David's film that failed with me personally. As you mentioned, the script is the key here. I can quote lines from the original film that I feel are in poor taste, are not complimentary to the characters saying the lines, are not complimentary to the overall essence of themes of the film, and actually go against Pasternak's essence. Dialogue is vital to helping actors convey meaning, and David's choice of dialogue was trite. David somehow "missed" Pasternak's meaning.
There are parallel scenes in both versions that have different meanings to me, due to the variations of the diologue. Giacomo literally reversed David's dialogue in several scenes, and in Giacomo's version, the impact is powerful, and truer to Pasternak's essence. Granted, Giacomo does not adhere strictly to the novel either, but he is faithful to Pasternak's Romanticism, because he is a believer in the Romanticism, more so than Lean, who relied heavily upon symbolism.
As I read the book, it is the emotional story that pulls page by page, his reflections on philosophy, love, poetry, his journey though the political environment. I think capturing that inter-dialogue is a challenge, and each film conquered that in nearly juxtaposed ways.
Agreed completely, what you said could not be stated any better. Capturing the inner dialogue...David failed to do that...Giacomo did so brilliantly...I can provide quotes to parallel scenes from both films, as proof...
Omar's facial expressions when he ponders life and love are the best moments of "dialogue" offered by Lean. Omar's spoken lines are horrid, thanks to Lean, and in several scenes, Omar's Yuri fails to prove that he is man enough for Lara, thanks to David's re-structuring of Pasternak's key scenes.
Thanks to Giacomo, you deserve so much more adulation that what you have received, and thanks also to Ludivico's musical score, wow, what a piece of extraordinary music!
|
|
|
|
Post by Virgil Reality on Jul 17, 2004 1:15:27 GMT 8
I think you've both put it very well.
Of course the sheer scale of the scenery, the number of horses in the stampedes etc is more dramatic in Lean's version. However I thought the acting, when you see it now, is quite dated and stilted and somehow it all seemed too glamorous I'm thinking especially of Tonya's pink hat when she arrives home from France.
In fact for me Tonya is the biggest difference and in Campiotti's version Tonya is just delightful. You could see that Omar and Geraldine just got married cos it was expected and therefore when the lovely Julie Christie turned up, naturally he'd go for her.
This may actually have been a weak point in the 2002 version. Alexandra Maria Lara was in fact so lovely and they did such a good job of developing the relationship between Yury and Tonya that you really felt they were in love. She had warmth and charm. And Hans and Alexandra had such great chemistry together.
Somehow, KK as Lara didn't quite do it for me and I couldn't see Yury he would even think of leaving Tonya for that Lara, except that it was in the script. I can see what Hans is saying about Yury wanting to care for her etc but somehow I couldn't see it. Come on, this is the kick-ass feisty warrior chick! She didn't seem vulnerable and she didn't seem loving And sorry, to me she wasn't particularly sexy.
I have mixed feelings about the ending cos it seemed so contrived but still I sobbed from about the time Lara leaves but mostly when he goes back to the house and reads Tonya's letter *sniff* and the in the hospital and .... I don't remember being moved so much in the Lean version
|
|
|
|
Post by Robin on Jul 17, 2004 8:41:18 GMT 8
Tonya's characterization is one of the prime reasons that elevates the 2002 version. Giacomo empathized with Tonya, and explored the affair from her vantage point, instead of condemning her for being snotty or cold-hearted.
We are all well aware that affairs happen, and no one is to blame. In other words, we know that we don't always "drive away" our loved ones. People simply...digress...and no one is to blame. People fall in love, out of the blue, amidst marriages and children. It happens, it just simply happens.
I think this was a STRONG point in the 2002 version, because it enables the viewer to ponder philosophical questions, and not just enjoy the romance. It puts the three main characters on an even field - all three are good-hearted people, so how can he love two women?
In the 1965 version, Tonya is traveling all over the world, enjoying Paris, dressed in high fashioned clothing. She comes home to cold, menacing, oppressive, bloody Russia, and expects to marry DOCTOR (Wealthy) Zhivago. She continues to live in the upper circle, protected from war and poverty. She's cold-hearted towards Lara in the party scene. She's not even an educated woman. This depiction is negative, and we don't like the little rich snot, and we FORGIVE Yuri for his affair with Lara.
Giacomo says, NO WAY, this not a story about forgiveness. This is a story about a man who falls in love with 2 woman, and the love he has for these women is separate but equal.
In the 2002 version, Tonya is has spent her whole life in Moscow, and is a student along with Yuri. She has grown up side by side with him, no traveling. She believes in love. The way she looked at Yuri in the cafe scene, when he said that "someone out there holds the key to your very existence", is unforgettable. She realizes at that point that she's in love with him. She could care less what his profession was (and remember, in the 2002 version, he starts out as a student). Also, in the party scene, she might not realise that Yuri is in love with this woman, but she sees a different side of Yuri...she sees a love in him that he doesn't show towards her...
When Yuri drifts into the affair with Lara, we are not forgiving Yuri. Instead, we are pondering the possibility that a man can love two women wholly and equally, eternally.
Giacomo also opted for the affair to be revealed to Tonya in a different manner, and he allowed Tonya the chance to defend herself. He also opted for Yuri to learn of his wife's death AFTER Lara left, which forces him to truly think about what he was done. In the 1965 version, he learns of his wife's demise during his affair, and continues the affair, unfettered, and to me, unrepentenant.
I can't get over that scene when he's reading Tonya's final letter, in his old house, which was converted into a school house. The musical score is haunting, and the camera pans to all the school rooms, showing instead him and Tonya running through the house as children...
The music being played in that scene is entitled Still So Early In The World. He, Lara, and Tonya lived full lives, torrential, emotional lives, yet he was only in his 40's at that point in the film, and Lara only in her 30's. Yet, the three of them had loved strongly, and lost miserably, and were left completely and utterly alone, at such young ages. Hence, they were still so early (young) in this world, dispite living a whole lifetime.
Zhivago!
|
|
|
|
Post by Robin on Jul 17, 2004 8:41:48 GMT 8
Keira didn't do it for me, either...
|
|
|
|
Post by Virgil Reality on Jul 17, 2004 13:32:31 GMT 8
Guess I didn't express myself very well .. I started off meaning to say that the whole treatment of Tonya was one of the best aspects of the 2002 production.
As usual you've given me more to ponder - I didn't kmow the name of that theme but it adds to the poignancy of that scene doesn't it?
It's just that I read more than one review mentioning that Tonya was too good to "cheat on" and maybe people who only view superficially just saw it as adultery without picking up on the 'predestined ' nature of the Yury Lara relationship.
That said, I'd really like to see Hans and Giaccomo work together in the future cos I think they are 'sympatico' .
|
|
|
|
Post by JenoWhatIMean on Jul 18, 2004 1:23:09 GMT 8
Hey look at me, I'm posting!
Well, I've never seen the original, but will put my two cents in on the Keira/Alexandra issue. First of all, I do think it was incredibly courageous of Giacomo to choose such a young actress for Lara. It would have been very easy for him to find a 25 year old to "play 16", and what Keira accomplished at the age she did was nothing short of phenomenal. I couldn't even begin to imagine playing such a part at that age. And I can think of very few actresses who could have done that kind of role at that age and be convincing.
But I'm going to argue that perhaps Giacomo was going for the "my married life is drab and colorless compared to my affair" When they do those scenes with Alexandra pregnant and wearing the scarf on her head and shucking corn and doing laundry and looking tired...well, those scenes seem a bit forced to me. It's like the director realized that Alexandra is so beautiful and vibrant and loveable that he was going out of his way to try and make her look tired, drawn and lifeless. And it didn't quite convince me.
|
|
|
|
Post by IMeril on Dec 9, 2004 5:01:17 GMT 8
Just a little rant....
I posted about PBS airing this again in December on a movie forum. It's very frustrating and aggravating how many people are willing to condemn this as a worthless 'paint by numbers' version of the Lean film without even watching it. People can't seem to accept that this is an adaptation of a novel, not a re-make the 1965 version. Why not just give it a chance?
Rant over.
That said, this is a beautiful movie. I watched it again last week...I had forgotten how much I like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by JenoWhatIMean on Dec 9, 2004 8:18:08 GMT 8
When is that again? The 17th?
|
|
|
|
Post by IMeril on Dec 10, 2004 7:10:40 GMT 8
It's going to be the 19th and 26th. Not sure about times...
|
|
|
|
Post by Robin on Dec 10, 2004 9:02:14 GMT 8
"It's very frustrating and aggravating how many people are willing to condemn this as a worthless 'paint by numbers' version of the Lean film without even watching it"
I bet my life that those people haven't watched the original version, and they haven't read the book. They quote something from Google, and they think they're geniuses.
Was that mean? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by Lady Jane on Feb 16, 2005 4:59:38 GMT 8
I think you've both put it very well. Of course the sheer scale of the scenery, the number of horses in the stampedes etc is more dramatic in Lean's version. However I thought the acting, when you see it now, is quite dated and stilted and somehow it all seemed too glamorous I'm thinking especially of Tonya's pink hat when she arrives home from France. In fact for me Tonya is the biggest difference and in Campiotti's version Tonya is just delightful. You could see that Omar and Geraldine just got married cos it was expected and therefore when the lovely Julie Christie turned up, naturally he'd go for her. This may actually have been a weak point in the 2002 version. Alexandra Maria Lara was in fact so lovely and they did such a good job of developing the relationship between Yury and Tonya that you really felt they were in love. She had warmth and charm. And Hans and Alexandra had such great chemistry together. Somehow, KK as Lara didn't quite do it for me and I couldn't see Yury he would even think of leaving Tonya for that Lara, except that it was in the script. I can see what Hans is saying about Yury wanting to care for her etc but somehow I couldn't see it. Come on, this is the kick-ass feisty warrior chick! She didn't seem vulnerable and she didn't seem loving And sorry, to me she wasn't particularly sexy. I have mixed feelings about the ending cos it seemed so contrived but still I sobbed from about the time Lara leaves but mostly when he goes back to the house and reads Tonya's letter *sniff* and the in the hospital and .... I don't remember being moved so much in the Lean version I totally agree with you! That's just how I feel about it. Though I didn't think the costume designer had made a good job. The clothes were more like the ones worn in the 20:ies |
|
