Sign in to follow this  
CaveGirl

Don't Say I Didn't Warn You!

6 posts in this topic

Yes, that's right...when you realize sometime in the future that you had the chance to see one of the gems of world cinema, don't go crying around and say no one had told you about it.

 

I'm telling you now. TCM is showing one of the best films of all time, "Miss Julie", which was one of the three Grand Prize Winners at the Cannes Film Festival back in 1951. That was when a winner at the Cannes Film Festival really meant something. This Swedish film is eloquently perverse, insightful, and about dangerous liaisons and leads down paths one would never expect. It is magnificently photographed and is based on the play by August Strindberg, and we all know what he is capable of rendering on the page.

 

If you enjoy seeing women whip men, it is also right down your alley, but don't let that alone be the reason you watch.

 

There's also the fire scene, but I shouldn't spoil it for you.

 

All I know is that I searched for this film for years, and finally Criterion came out with an incredible DVD of it back a ways, but now all can see it for free [well, almost!] on TCM on this Wednesday at 10:15pm.

 

So I say, don't miss it because someday, if you really like great films, you will regret it. Maybe not today, maybe not next year, but someday.

 

Any other fans, your comments are appreciated!

 

10:15 PM MISS JULIE (1951)

A passionate but arrogant daughter of a count is brought low by her affair with an opportunistic groom in her father's employ.

DirAlf Sjoberg Cast:  Anita Bjork , Ulf Palme , Marta Dorff .

BW-90 mins,

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had marked this on my calendar, and I was looking forward to Annette and Michael's intro and outro to the film. I suspect both will dazzle us with their pithy insights, but I hope you don't mind if I gush all the same.

 

This is my favorite version of Strindberg's play, as I struggle with the 1999 film version starring Saffron Burrows and the 1987 play starring Janet McTeer. I realize the play depends on the claustrophobic nature of the stage-bound action to heighten the sense of panic in the lead character. However, the director's willingness to open the narrative to exterior filming makes, for me, a sharper contrast between nature's seductive beauty and the "cruel madness of love" (thanks Alfred Lord).

 

The cinematography is stunning, often producing a landscape capable of making one believe in magic, and watching a young Max von Sydow is simply one more flower in this midsummer's night garland.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had marked this on my calendar, and I was looking forward to Annette and Michael's intro and outro to the film. I suspect both will dazzle us with their pithy insights, but I hope you don't mind if I gush all the same.

 

This is my favorite version of Strindberg's play, as I struggle with the 1999 film version starring Saffron Burrows and the 1987 play starring Janet McTeer. I realize the play depends on the claustrophobic nature of the stage-bound action to heighten the sense of panic in the lead character. However, the director's willingness to open the narrative to exterior filming makes, for me, a sharper contrast between nature's seductive beauty and the "cruel madness of love" (thanks Alfred Lord).

 

The cinematography is stunning, often producing a landscape capable of making one believe in magic, and watching a young Max von Sydow is simply one more flower in this midsummer's night garland.

Thank you, WG for your beautifully envisaged take on this film.

 

It is a maelstrom of many conflicting issues, which come to a head right before our eyes. One almost feels like they are there and the opening shot with the bird cage is so evocative.

 

One can involve themself in this film on a higher plane of understanding or just roll with the punches and enjoy the machinations of plot.

 

Much appreciation, WG for your input.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's difficult (for me) to adequately compare the movies with some of the others, it's seems a bit like apples and oranges. The Swedish is wholly cinematic while the others (that I know of) are virtually stage plays filmed as a movie. Obvious alert-in the latter the actors must ACT the and speak the flashbacks, with all the nuances that entails. We are drawn in to the characters on a vastly more intimate basis, the tension is more apparent, the erotic aspects of the story are more poignant, and in Julie's case the dreadful crises is such that we are made to really feel it (hopefully). And of course, the entire play takes place in this kitchen, the one setting which heightens impact.

 

The movie is wonderful though. The fully realized flashback sequences are brilliant and entertaining. There is a often a lightness in tone that would (probably) not be present in a serious stage production. Some of the scenes when and after they decide they want to flee nearly descend into comedy. Anita's acting is reminiscent of screwball comedy at times. I did not feel her angst at the end. I accept the movie on its own terms but, for me, it fails to completely satisfy on a dramatic level that I would prefer. It's Miss Jule lite (if you will) but extremely well-done.

/

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So nice of you to report in and give us your erudite opinion.

 

I think the flashback scenes are wonderfully conceived and really the most deadly female in the flick is dear Mama, not ppor Julie who is a pale imitation of a man-hater!

 

The scene when Mama walks out of the burning room is rivetting!

 

Thanks, Laffite!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and t/y

 

That Mama was something. That took creativity, showing characters that don't actually appear in the play (in person) and conceiving her in such wonderful and eccentric  detail. I don't think Mama says a word, does she? It's all gesture, facial expressions, and actions. The portrait (on the wall) was bizarre (and funny). There is something inhuman about her. Or like she was in a dream one might have.

 

Julie was nominally a man-hater after all she was brought up that way (as you point out). She wanted to dominate and the wonderfully brief scene when she makes her betroth jump over the whip was so succinct and amusing. She seems genuinely upset that he left her after that but she was not in love with him. She was of course not in love (more in lust) with the servant. Strindberg's  misogyny is well known and he no doubt felt perverse pleasure in dramatizing her demise.

 

The servant has many good bits but the defining one comes later when he hears the bell, the voice of the Count, and eyes the boots of the Master. He is immediately reminded of who he is and acts accordingly, something that Julie could not easily do after the  horrible mess she made of everything.

 

The Mama should go down as one of the most singular characters in movies.

 

/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us