ON THE
WSWS
Donate
to
the WSWS!
News Feed
Contact
the
WSWS
Editorial
Board
New
Today
News
& Analysis
Workers
Struggles
Arts
Review
History
Science
Polemics
Philosophy
Correspondence
Archive
About
WSWS
About
the ICFI
Help
Books
Online
OTHER
LANGUAGES
German
French
Italian
Russian
Polish
Czech
Serbo-Croatian
Spanish
Portuguese
Turkish
Sinhala-
Tamil
Indonesian
LEAFLETS
Download
in
PDF format
|
|
WSWS : Arts
Review : Film
Reviews
Weak and weaker
David Walsh reviews Hilary and Jackie and Gloria
By David Walsh
29 January 1999
Hilary and Jackie, directed by Anand Tucker, screenplay
by Frank Cottrell Boyce; Gloria, directed by Sidney Lumet,
screenplay by Steve Antin
Hilary and Jackie is a film about the relations between
the remarkable British cellist Jacqueline du Pré (1945-87)
and her sister, based on the 1997 book A Genius in the Family
by Hilary and Piers du Pré.
Jacqueline's story is a tragic one. Endowed with an extraordinary
musical gift, her active career lasted little more than a decade.
Her signature piece was Elgar's Cello Concerto in E minor. In
October 1973, at the age of 28, she was diagnosed with multiple
sclerosis and died from the disease on Wall Street's "Black
Monday," October 19, 1987.
The film shows Jackie (Emily Watson), born to an ordinary middle
class British family, as a small girl driven by the need to compete
with and eventually surpass in talent her sister Hilary (Rachel
Griffiths). She is aware and makes her sister aware of her own
"specialness" and Hilary's "ordinariness."
Jackie is threatened when Hilary marries Kiffer Finzi (David Morrissey).
In turn she marries the pianist Daniel Barenboim (James Frain)
and theirs becomes a union much celebrated and commented upon
in the media. After the first signs of illness and an instance
of Barenboim's apparent insensitivity, she shows up on Hilary's
doorstep in the country and demands to share her husband, to which
her sister eventually accedes. The last part of the film traces
her worsening condition as, unable to perform, she is confined
to a wheelchair. She dies in Hilary's arms.
It's more interesting to talk about the real musician than
this poorly conceived and poorly made film, which attempts to
explain Jacqueline's genius as the result of a desire at a young
age to supplant Hilary as her parents' favorite. Emily Watson
and Rachel Griffiths are fine, but the film is flat and weak.
There's almost nothing to it.
I'm ill-equipped to judge, but commentators credit du Pré
not only with a rare talent and love of music, but, if anything,
an even rarer joyousness in performing it. Barenboim remarked,
"Of all the great musicians I have ever met in my life, I
have never encountered anyone for whom music was such a natural
form of expression as it was for Jacqueline."
Du Pré had the opportunity to work and study with a
number of the great cellists of the twentieth century, including
Paul Tortelier, Pablo Casals and Mstislaw Rostropovich, with whom
she studied in Moscow from January to May in 1966. Her final examination
at the Conservatory was conducted by Rostropovich, who remarked
later that he had the feeling of having found someone who would
continue his work. One critic notes: "Her time in Moscow
was probably the summation of her self-doubt, faced by the incredibly
rigorous Russian School, with talented virtuosi in abundance,
not least Mischa Maisky, Natalia Gutman and David Geringas. At
this time she writes home, 'Whether I can stand up to such an
arduous life is another thing, and my technical limitations worry
me a lot.' But all of Rostropovich's students were stunned by
du Pré's emotional eloquence. Maisky describes 'the music
flowing from her directly and spontaneously. One might say that
some had a better technique ... but none of them possessed her
quality of natural expression.'" This is high praise indeed.
Praise of another kind comes from her recording producer: "She
was the ideal recording artist, undemanding, understanding of
other people's problems and with no outbursts of what is called
'temperament.'... For the engineers she was the perfect artist
who never complained, however long it took to get the right sound
through the microphones. For me, the all-too-brief six years in
which we worked together are a golden memory of spontaneous, unaffected,
joyous music-making."
After she could no longer play the cello, Jacqueline commented:
"I find I adore words. Never having had to use them to any
great extent, I am finding beautiful new things about speech I
never knew existed. Recently I had to make a reading from the
Old Testament for the Branch of the MS Society, of which I am
a patron. I found that everything is the same as in a musical
performance. The psychological emphasis, the structure and timing
is all the same. I am also reading poetry for the first time in
my life and I love it so much."
None of this is intended to counter the film's vision of Jacqueline
as selfish and emotionally needy. (Although it has been noted
that her behavior in regard to Hilary and her husband came after
she had had premonitions of an eventually crippling and fatal
illness and was experiencing some sort of a nervous collapse.)
Such qualities can certainly exist with musical genius, and even
overall generosity and kindness. My response to the supposedly
shocking and "controversial" revelations about du Pré's
personal life and failings is--so what? Nor do I care that A
Genius in the Family may have been motivated by jealousy,
self-pity or the desire, perhaps unconscious, to exact revenge
on a powerful, perhaps overpowering sibling. The problem is that
almost entirely missing from Hilary and Jackie is any sense
of the personal and intellectual depth that must somehow
be associated with genius, musical or otherwise. The brief reference
above to her studies in the USSR, among members of "the incredibly
rigorous Russian School," should alert anyone with the vaguest
sense of musical history to what must have been her remarkable
gifts and strength of character.
The different elements that must come together in precisely
the right combination and form to produce genius or the potential
basis for genius are, for all intents and purposes, impossible
to trace with any exactitude. They involve too many subterranean
processes at work. The film, however, abandons any attempt at
an explanation whatsoever and simply waves its hand ineffectually
at the problem. One has to find out on one's own, for example,
that Jacqueline's mother was a fine pianist who taught at the
Royal Academy in London and composed some pieces. One suspects
that the filmmaker, as in all things, takes the least line of
resistance in presenting the family and background of Hilary and
Jacqueline du Pré.
Sidney Lumet's Gloria is not really a weaker film, it
simply has no elements, such as the life of a renowned musician,
hovering around its margins to make it a subject interesting enough
on which to spend any time. It is the story of a gangster's mistress
(Sharon Stone), just out of prison. She rescues a seven-year-old
boy from the clutches of her former boyfriend and cohorts, members
of the Irish-American mafia, who have murdered the child's family.
She discovers she has tender feelings, and so on.
The new film is loosely based on a work of the same name directed
by John Cassavetes in 1980, starring Gena Rowlands. I always felt
Gloria was one of Cassavetes' lesser efforts and this film
is three times weaker than that one. Again, it is flat and insubstantial.
And the acting is not the problem. Sharon Stone is obviously looking
for serious things to do.
Lumet has been directing films for more than 40 years, including
Twelve Angry Men, Long Day's Journey into Night, The Pawnbroker,
The Group, Bye Bye Braverman, Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon, Network,
Prince of the City, The Verdict, Daniel and Q & A.
Andrew Sarris may have been a little unkind when he wrote,
years ago, "At its best, Lumet's direction is efficiently
vehicular but pleasantly impersonal... Only his innate good taste
saves him from utter mediocrity." Lumet's liberal and humanitarian
outlook and artistic competency have produced certain memorable
and even inspired moments in the past. What Gloria exudes
more than anything else is exhaustion. Something has been worn
away, by events perhaps, by disappointments. One senses that the
filmmaker is simply going through the motions. Everyone is acting
up a storm and almost nothing is going on.
It's risky to write off anyone who has ever done honest work.
Let's hope something will occur to resuscitate Lumet's interest
and talent.
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |