ReportWire

Tag: childhood trauma

  • Caught In The Lens – Kate Winslet’s Weak Take On Lee Miller

    Caught In The Lens – Kate Winslet’s Weak Take On Lee Miller

    [ad_1]

    When good intentions triumph over art, one winds up with a film like Lee. It features Kate Winslet as Lee Miller (1907-1977), a model, surrealist muse, and a pioneering fashion, fine art, and war photographer who captured some of the most devastating and damning images of World War II.


    Full trailer released for Sky Original film LEE starring Kate Winslet.

    – YouTubewww.youtube.com

    Full trailer released for Sky Original film LEE starring Kate Winsletwww.milkpublicity.com

    Miller’s was an uneasy – if accomplished – life. Blonde and strikingly beautiful, she was underrated and undervalued according to the sexist behavior and views of her era. And ours. One has the feeling that Winslet was compelled to dedicate nine years to a passion project that rescues Miller from history because the actor knows precisely what Miller went through. Her understanding of Miller’s struggles likely stems from Winslet’s own experiences with sexism in the film industry – women continue to be underrepresented behind the camera as directors, producers, and in other key creative roles – allowing her to bring insight and empathy to the role.

    – YouTubewww.youtube.com

    When she was seven, Lee Miller was raped by an adult friend of the family – who gave her gonorrhea. Lee then endured a painful and shaming treatment for the disease. She ditched an undistinguished academic career for a highly successful stint as a fashion model.

    Miller’s ambitions went beyond merely being photographed; she wanted to take the pictures herself. In the late 1920s she traveled to what was then the world’s capital of the arts: Paris. La Ville Lumière still offered easy, inexpensive freedom thanks to the strength of the American dollar and the lax social norms of a city that had seen it all.

    She fell in with the surrealists and adopted their iconography and strategies of fragmenting the human body, tilting the images, and zooming in on details. Miller created radical surrealist images of the nude form as well as the streets of Paris.

    Miller became involved romantically and artistically with the saturnine expat Man Ray, (Emmanuel Radnitzky American, 1890–1976) whose photos and paintings had brought him to the attention of the leaders of the Surrealist movement. Miller’s technical and artistic contribution to Ray’s achievements were only properly attributed long after the fact. Sexist ambition once again reared its ugly head.

    After this stint abroad, she enjoyed a successful career as an American photographer and was married to an Egyptian railroad man. When that alliance ended she returned in the late 30s to Paris and marriage to the British painter Roland Penrose brings Miller’s history to the point where Lee begins.

    However, none of the people or events that molded her life are coherently dealt with in the film. In the role of Duchess Solange d’Ayen – fashion editor of French Vogue, Marion Cotillard’s talents are completely wasted. And I doubt that those unfamiliar with pre-war French artistic circles can guess that Ray and the poet Paul Eluard are also characters in the film. Their names are dropped to no effect and make no impact whatsoever. In terms of character portrayal, Lee is simultaneously overheated and undercooked.

    Winslet chooses to play Miller in the-artist-as-walking-disaster mode. She goes to great lengths to show us how damaged Miller was by life and by her self-destructive behavior. If Winslet isn’t lighting another unfiltered cigarette, she’s downing another glass of booze before indulging in another tantrum about how badly she and her photographs are being treated. The way Miller’s rape as a child is dramatized is par for the course. The ugly fact of venereal disease is simply too much for the filmmakers to address.

    Miller comes off as a troublesome, clumsy boor. It’s a brave performance in its way, unflattering and unfettered, but it’s an obvious one. A monotonous one, as well. The viewer soon wearies of Lee Miller. Surely that’s the last thing Winslet wants to accomplish with Lee.

    It’s disappointing – a wasted opportunity. In a male-dominated world, Miller was a groundbreaker as a photographer and as a woman. Her work is of intense artistic and historical interest. The World War II photos – of the London Blitz, liberation of Paris, and Buchenwald and Dachau concentration camps – are as painful and moving as any taken during those horrible years, whether it’s the wounded soldier whose face and hands are swathed in bandages…or the naked corpses piled in boxcars at Dachau.

    Winslet and her artistic collaborators are to be applauded for choosing to make a film about Lee Miller. I wish, though, the film had been a less fractured and simplistic look at a fascinating and – yes – troubled woman.

    [ad_2]

    Honor Molloy

    Source link

  • “Daddy! Mommy! Save Me From the Hell of Living!”: Longlegs

    “Daddy! Mommy! Save Me From the Hell of Living!”: Longlegs

    [ad_1]

    As the 90s seem to be taking hold of the box office this summer (with Twister also reanimating as Twisters), it’s only right that someone should take a stab at what amounts to an updated version of The Silence of the Lambs and Seven. That person is none other than the son of Anthony “Norman Bates” Perkins himself, Osgood Perkins (formerly known as “Oz”). And yes, being a child of such a particular kind of actor has undoubtedly influenced Perkins’ overall “spooky” bent in terms of generally opting to make creepy films (some of his previous ones include The Blackcoat’s Daughter, The Girl in the Photographs, I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House and, more commercially, Gretel & Hansel). That in addition to playing “Young Norman Bates” in 1983’s Psycho II. But, obviously, more than anything, the lives and deaths of Perkins’ parents would be enough to inspire him to pursue this genre.

    It was already bad enough that Anthony, his long-closeted father (though, of course, it was an open secret in Hollywood), died of AIDS in 1992 (along with Robert Reed a.k.a. “Mr. Brady”), but then, nine years later, his mother, model/actress Berry Berenson, died in one of the planes that was hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Center. Really, shit doesn’t get more horrific than that in terms of parent-related trauma and loss. Which is exactly why one of the most standout lines from Longlegs is: “Daddy! Mommy! Save me from the hell of living!” This delivered hauntingly and, it goes without saying, memorably by Nicolas Cage in the titular satanic killer role.

    As for the nickname, well, it pertains to “Longlegs” approaching children with a life-size replica doll of themselves and, instead of bending down to meet them at their eye level, saying, “It seems I wore my long legs today.” The “jovial” saying usually directed at children (especially in a pre-twenty-first century era) is, thus, turned on its ear (or leg)—rendered bone-chilling in a way that one never thought possible, and all done so simply, too.

    Indeed, “simplicity” is the keyword for this film. As Perkins put it to The Wrap, in terms of conceptualization, “The basic step is to pick something that’s true. Write to a theme that’s a true theme for me. In the case of this, that true theme was, it’s possible for parents to lie to their children and tell them stories. It’s very basic and easily understandable. If you want to start building projects that way, it should be simple.” What builds out of that simplicity is a haunting, unforgettable story centered on a young FBI agent named Lee Harker (Maika Monroe, who, like Perkins, is also known for making mainly horror movies). Tasked with tracking an untrackable killer in the already ominous setting of the Pacific Northwest (rendering the supplemental Twin Peaks nod complete), Harker falls as far down the rabbit hole as Clarice Starling ever did. And, among one of her more unique skills (besides being what Karen [Amanda Seyfried] from Mean Girls would call “kind of psychic” and having a “fifth sense”), Harker is extremely well-versed in the Bible. A knowledgeability that leads her to decode Longlegs’ formerly undecodable letters to the police. Accordingly, Agent Carter (Blair Underwood), Lee’s superior, is starting to understand why he enlisted her to take on this case.

    Alas, the case quickly starts to take her on instead, permeating Lee’s entire life until it leads her down the path of having to question her mother, Ruth (Alicia Witt, who, incidentally was in Twin Peaks: The Return), about Longlegs’ appearance in Lee’s childhood decades prior, at a time when Marc Bolan and T. Rex would have been all the rage. As far as Longlegs is concerned though, T. Rex remains “king” in his world (well, apart from Satan) as he constantly belts out chilling ditties of his own in the style of Bolan. This, of course, was already foreshadowed by the opening title card featuring the “Get It On (Bang A Gong)” quote, “Well you’re slim and you’re weak/You’ve got the teeth of a hydra upon you/You’re dirty, sweet and you’re my girl.” “His girl,” unfortunately, extends to many children who grow up not fully aware that they’re under his spell (in this sense, there’s more than a touch of Charles Manson [no stranger to satanism and the occult] to the Longlegs character). Chief among them being Carrie Ann Camera (Kiernan Shipka, who also starred in Perkins’ The Blackcoat’s Daughter), the sole survivor of one of Longlegs’ killings, which always follow the pattern of infiltrating a family’s home and miraculously getting the father to slaughter his wife and children, with no signs of outside force anywhere.

    With Lee’s gift for what some might call “supernatural” intuition (though not quite to the extent of Phoebe Halliwell’s [Alyssa Milano] premonitory abilities in Charmed), Perkins adds another element into his elixir of ideas that are often incorporated into different sub-genres of thriller/horror films. As he described, “This movie is very pop. And it starts with reproducing Silence of the Lambs. If it’s pop art, then you want to adhere to certain indicators. And so the nineties became an easy indicator that we were in the realm of Silence of the Lambs and Seven. We were wanting to sit alongside the good ones and invite the audience into a safe space.” Of course, what’s also important about the nineties as the film’s backdrop is that it makes it much more difficult for law enforcement to track a killer without the modern technology of today. And yes, even the Longlegs of 2024 would be forced to have a phone, freakshow or not.

    But no matter what decade Longlegs existed/came of age in, he seems the type that was doomed to be a failure. And it is precisely that failure that turns him toward darkness, toward channeling his “talents” toward killing. Like the aforementioned Manson, Longlegs might not have become a satanic serial killer if his music career had taken off. As Perkins speculated, “Longlegs probably wanted to be a guitar player in a glam rock band called Longlegs. One day, the Devil started sounding through his headphones and through his records in the Judas Priest sense.”

    More than being a movie about a devil/glam rock-worshiping serial killer that targets children as the weak link for entry (a.k.a. possession), it is a movie that speaks to the ways in which parents lie to their children from an early age. All under the pretense of “protecting” them, of course (even from music like the kind T. Rex made)—but, in the end, that protection usually turns out to be a disservice. Especially as the child, in their “grown-up” years has to learn how to actually grow up after being insulated from harsh reality for too long. Again, Perkins knows all about this, better than most people, in fact. To that point, he would also state of this particular theme in the film, “It’s a bad world, and when Ruth finally comes out with her truth and tells the story, it makes me think about my own parents. That resonates as the most dynamic section of the movie; the revelation.” No biblical pun intended…probably.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link

  • John Lennon’s “Mother”: A Song “About 99% of the Parents”

    John Lennon’s “Mother”: A Song “About 99% of the Parents”

    [ad_1]

    Despite “Mother” being one of John Lennon’s most deeply personal songs, there was a point when he told a concert audience in 1972, “A lot of people thought [‘Mother’] was just about my parents, but it was about 99% of the parents, alive or half-dead.” That “half-dead” jibe referring to the kind of parents Lennon had, who were never quite fully there—mostly because of their own emotional stuntedness that wouldn’t allow them to be. Although “Mother,” from the 1970 album John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band, explored the shortcomings of both of Lennon’s progenitors, Alfred a.k.a. “Freddie” and Julia, it was his matriarch who served as the primary focus for the rage-sadness that punctuated lyrics like, “Mother, you had me/But I never had you.”

    That the song commences with a bevy of elegiac carillons additionally speaks to Lennon “laying to rest” his proverbial “Mommy issues.” Not least of which included his Oedipal admission of wanting to touch his mother in ways inappropriate for a son. Recalling how his hand grazed her tit one afternoon as they were napping, John would later muse, “I was wondering if I should do anything else… I always think I should have done it. Presumably she would have allowed it.” What with Julia’s reputation for being so “bohemian.”

    Oedipal inclinations aside, from the get-go of “Mother,” Lennon gut-punches his listeners by holding up his abandonment like an open wound he’s begging someone—anyone—to heal. As if, by showing it, maybe somebody can mend the damage. But, by that point, it was far too deep-seated to ever be repaired. Although the lyrics are sparse and often repetitive, the rich tapestry of Lennon’s varying vocal intonations is what makes the visceral song so arresting. This being in addition to the fact that so many can relate to the sentiments and themes presented. Both of which cut to the core of the type of abandonment that seemed so much more normalized when baby boomers were growing up (ergo the classic trope about Dad going out to buy a pack of cigarettes and never returning).

    Not to say, of course, that parents don’t still abandon their children (in more abstract ways now) every day, but it’s certainly less “tolerated.” And the only thing people hate more than having to be responsible is being made to feel guilty or shamed about, that’s right, not being responsible. “Back then,” as the phrase goes, it appeared so much more “accepted” to abandon children. After all, there were numerous cataclysmic factors that allowed one a “get out of jail [because, yeah, parenting is a prison] free” card. World War II, the Great Depression, a lack of surveillance technology in the form of smartphones—just to name a few of those “extenuating circumstances.”

    To enhance the notion that to be a baby boomer child (and particularly a male one) was to run a higher risk of emotional damage incurred from one’s parents, Phil Spector co-produced the song. And he, too, got something of what can be called a “raw deal” in his upbringing. For his father, Benjamin, offered perhaps the worst kind of abandonment: committing suicide. Spurred by his increasing debt in 1949, Benjamin chose carbon monoxide poisoning as the most effective out. At the time, Spector was ten years old. Lennon would be far younger when he dealt with his own sting of abandonment, as his father was constantly absent due to his job as a sea merchant. But “at least” when he was doing that, he could send the checks home to help Julia support their son. Those checks mysteriously ceased circa 1944 (in the months when John would have been three) after Freddie went AWOL. A desertion that would soon extend to his nuclear family.

    Six months after his disappearance, perhaps something like a guilty conscience struck as Freddie decided to return and try to get Julia to take him back. But she had already “canoodled” with a Welsh soldier, and ended up pregnant with his child (her family implored her to put up that baby for adoption, which she did—as even she couldn’t seem to talk herself into the idea that she was a “fit mother”). After that, she got together with John “Bobby” Dykins and had two children with him, although she never officially divorced from Freddie.

    Though Julia eventually “got it together” for her second family, her “care” of John proved worrisome to her older sister, Mimi, who reported her to social services and gained custody of Julia’s firstborn that way. Regardless, Julia remained in daily contact with John and, in 1946, followed her son and Freddie to Blackpool where the latter was intending to run away to New Zealand with John. Forced into one of the most uncomfortable positions any child can be, John was asked to choose between his parents as they proceeded to get in an argument about custody. Stating that he chose his father, John then ran after an affronted Julia. But he was damned by whatever decision he made, for neither parent was equipped to raise him. Just as so many parents aren’t, yet still decide to go ahead and spawn anyway.

    Later, in a 1980 interview, John would come to understand of his mother, “[She] just couldn’t deal with life. She was the youngest and she had a husband who ran away to sea and the war was on and she couldn’t cope with me, and I ended up living with her elder sister. Now those women were fantastic… And that was my first feminist education… I would infiltrate the other boys’ minds. I could say, ‘Parents are not gods because I don’t live with mine and, therefore, I know.’” This revelation—the one that children aren’t supposed to find out about until much later—came to John earlier than it should have. Ironically, while parents are supposed to be seen as some kind of all-knowing, all-powerful gods by their children, they themselves often know so little. It was no wonder David Bowie therefore clapped back in 1972’s “Changes,” “And these children that you spit on/As they try to change their worlds/Are immune to your consultations/They’re quite aware of what they’re going through.”

    John certainly was. And it was something he could never not be aware of—no matter how many drugs or how many women (or men) he turned to as a means to numb that awareness. That’s why he was still writing about the parental slight in 1970, at the age of thirty. Perhaps finally having the clarity that’s so often associated with “age” and being able to look back on things with a greater sense of perspective and wisdom. In the end, for his own self-preservation, he has to admit to both parents in “Mother,” “I, I wanted you/You didn’t want me/So, I/I just got to tell you/Goodbye.” Unfortunately, his wisdom arrived after he had already made the same mistake of rushing into having a family of his own too early—as though to “generate” the one he never had. Thus, in “Mother” he also sings, “Children, don’t do what I have done/I couldn’t walk and I tried to run.” In effect, John urges childless people not to hurry into having kids just because they want to fill some void left by their parents’ method of “raising.”

    Shouting, “Mama don’t go! Daddy come home!” as the song draws to a close, the residual pain left by his parents is forever immortalized. And for so many children (no matter what age) who listen to it, that pain is all too resonant.

    [ad_2]

    Genna Rivieccio

    Source link