data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8db39/8db391e2589751c8b62324f666ec2f1170b60294" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3c359/3c3596d608639e8e78ca93937641b455704c71a5" alt=""
Falconetti, on the other hand, only made one movie of significance, The Passion of Joan of Arc, but, boy, what a movie. Pauline Kael, the influential albeit erratic critic for New Yorker magazine, said after Carl Dreyer's masterpiece was rediscovered in 1981 that Falconetti's performance "may be the finest performance ever recorded on film." Premiere magazine ranked it as the twenty-sixth best performance of all time in a list of the 100 greatest performances in film history, making it the highest ranked silent performance.
Choosing between them involves not so much a matter of knowing good from bad as knowing what it is in a performance that you value. And this is where I run into a problem: as a woman I once knew said to me twenty-five years ago, "You don't have any values."
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/825b1/825b107947196100835a407120221d766c67caf7" alt=""
Two events in movie history permanently scarred Katie, Ali McGraw's Oscar nomination for Love Story and Anna Paquin's win for The Piano. Subsequent work firmly established in Katie's mind that neither can act a lick and that honors were bestowed on them in anticipation that they might one day prove to have talent and in recognition of the work of other people. In reaction, she's adopted an informal rule: "Never give someone an Oscar for their first performance."
Here, Maria Falconetti wasn't technically appearing in her first movie—the Internet Movie Database lists small roles in a pair of 1917 shorts—but she might as well have been. And while Katie agrees that The Passion of Joan of Arc is one of the greatest movies ever made and that Maria Falconetti is effective in it, she's convinced Falconetti's performance is a product not of any particular skill but of director Carl Dreyer's relentless bullying, Rudolph Maté's excellent camera work and Dreyer's and Marguerite Beaugé's patient work in the editing room.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5cb07/5cb07cb56579e3cb2c131191b20e08be5ff669eb" alt=""
Katie-Bar-the-Door thinks that given to what degree Dreyer hectored and humiliated her, and worked her to the point of exhaustion, it's no surprise that Falconetti convincingly comes across as hectored, humiliated and exhausted.
Consider too that since this is a silent film we're talking about, there are no line readings, which greatly complicate the actor's task, and because Dreyer shot the whole thing in a series of close-ups, there's very little need for Falconetti to play off the other actors. Dreyer simply put the camera on Falconetti and recorded everything and then assembled a character out of the footage.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8f0e4/8f0e47b836fb6d53f8d851bbe8403b34d44561ce" alt=""
On the other hand, Mister Muleboy who is actually a trained actor in addition to being a highly intuitive blogger, points out that's "presumably the case in every feature film," that most screen performances consist of "a director badgering, sucking, pleading, or manipulating a 'performance' out of the actor. Usually manipulating it at the editing table. Crafting that 'great scene' from the (potentially nonsensical) multiple takes that, when combined, gave rise to that 'perfectly modulated, brilliant' performance. And that, in this director's/editor's medium, the idea of one acting performance that is in the control of the actor is—at best—only conjecture."
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/872dd/872ddbd82ef5ee020be0b4bdf039f69836fb1ba0" alt=""
Hmm. So who's right?
Oh, wait. Katie-Bar-The-Door just reminded me that I'm married to her which pretty much means that even if she's wrong, she's right. But I don't think she's wrong. You know?
Also she says it's recycling day and can I please put out the newspapers? Gotta go.
To read Part Two, click here.
12 comments:
Hey, the recycling went out this morning. Stop blaming your procrastination on the Katie!
BTW I am very occasionally wrong, but this isn't one of those times.
I am very occasionally wrong, but this isn't one of those times.
why Katie, since we're talking about values, how could you possibly be wrong?
When I again speak with Ms. Falconetti, I will ask her to describe her inner monlogue. If she can convince me that it was well-centered, I'll let you know.
As for Ms. Gish -- as much as I would like to come up with something witty or clever to say about her [this is a blog, you know], I can't I can only say that she was immensely talented, and demonstrated that she was a gifted actress over the breadth of a long and diverse career. I enjoyed every picture that I made with her . . . .
She was also close for many years with one of my better friends, mister dDouglas Fairbanks. And she recognized that lon chaney was a no-talent bastard, which was honourable.
Monologue
I bet Maria deserves a "Best Performance" KTBtD
and no, I am not responsbile for your spam.. Blame j hatfield.
It didn't occur to me that you were behind the blog spam, mister muleboy. I saw the signature "Maria" and realized we finally know what Maria Falconetti has been up to for the last eighty-one years.
Good for her!
i'm glad we're not having a katie - Muleboy dustup.
the mule would be the mop
ps I hate the Nats
I would urge you to "fly safely," but what is flying?
D.W., thanks for your good wishes. "Flying" is that thing the Wright Brothers invented in their bicycle shop.
Katie will be pedaling like crazy ...
My dear Torque Y Mada --
Believe me, you don't want to get into any Katie-Bar-The-Door dust-ups. She may be small, but she's wiry.
And she has no compunction about fighting dirty.
I wash every day!
Okay, so she doesn't fight dirty. But I still say if she gets you on the floor, watch out for your brisket!
Post a Comment