|
|
oh brother. somebody says something or gets a idea and everybody feels they have to mimic it verbatim. that is so dull witted. you should hear the evidence from the experts sure, but then you should have your own opinion devoid of what others think. i'm surprised that even Liberace fans are a little embarrassed to come to the defense of his acting ability or of this film. since i really don't care what other people say or are thinking (it's usually wrong), i have no problem forming my own individualized opinion.
many Liberace fans are just that. Liberace fans. they aren't really all that familiar with the history of cinema in general. if they were they would know that many films that are now held in high regard were at one time ignored or harshly criticized by the majority at the time. filmmakers from Orson Wells to movies like 'Fantasia', were often years in establishing their reputations. basically i'm saying that when a lot of people "gang up" on something, they are usually siding with a group mentality rather than voicing any real personal opinion.
you wouldn't think Liberace's numerous fan base would have done this to him regarding this film. i was led to believe, even by Liberace's most ardent fans, that this was a silly, failed effort of cinema and that his performance was a half baked attempt at being a thespian. can't say that's what i saw at all. i didn't think it was a great film by any stretch, but it was a entertaining one, and it's syrupy sentiments were, well, very sincere. i also thought that Liberace was actually kind of brilliant as a actor and definitely should not have been discouraged from doing more acting. people were always rather hard on Liberace and they still are. even his fans get caught up in a sort of frenzied hyper-criticism of him as a person and artist to a unnecessary extent. he wasn't terribly political and he never harmed anyone publicly as far as i know. can't say i understand or relate to the critical fussiness that always surrounds him.
i don't usually relate to films like this. you know. melodramatic heart tuggers that are more manipulative than good cinema or screen writing. but i have seen a couple that once in a while work. like i hated that Julia Roberts movie 'Dying Young', but i did find that little movie with Mary Tyler Moore and her dying child to be genuinely moving. i felt the same about this movie. i was surprised at how the sentiment worked and instead of being mawkish or cloying it was appealing and heartfelt. especially the part where the Pianist helps the mother of a pretentious young socialite.
this film also delivers some elegant and lush photography and film direction that is the utmost in style and taste for that time period. a lot of 50's nostalgia can be rooted hopelessly in the clichés and standards of that decade, not so with this, it has a tasteful aesthetic that transcends into a sort of fashionable timelessness. even the costume design isn't trapped in a perpetual, 50's, dated ugliness. something i can't really say for films like 'How to Marry a Millionaire'. ugh.
this was a good film if not a brilliant one. but i did think the performance by Liberace was kind of brilliant and very memorable. he could be sly and sophisticated as in the scene where he is seductive with his older, cigarette smoking, old hen lady admirers,who then feel betrayed by his affection toward another much younger woman (a interesting statement on celebrity worship), and he is frightening in his glares when he is angry and feels betrayed by life and by God as in the disturbing church sequence. there is a lot more power and control in his performance than his critics have ever given him credit for.
it was also kind of interesting to see a very young Guy Williams of 'Lost in Space' and Disney's 'Zorro' fame here in a small role as the young socialite's hubby.
this is a good film with a even better performance by Liberace. by far he is the best thing about the film and his piano playing is pure joy. the reputation of the film is much like the man himself, harshly scrutinized for no apparent reason except to get after the elusiveness of it's enigmatic star. i guess Liberace was in many ways your typical gay man, even with all his wealth. most gay men have to live with harsh criticism not only from society and from those that don't approve of their sexuality, but often scathing criticism from within their own community as to who they should be, how they should live, and what choices they should make. the choices Liberace made were as a individual and he chose not to identify with the political agenda of the gay community. the gay community scarcely forgave him. and they still attempt persecution even in death. don't think it's true? then ask yourself, who was J Edgar Hoover and why did he persecute his own? we might find some answers to why Liberace's legacy remains somewhat beleaguered.
score 8/10
johnstonjames 24 February 2012
Reprint: https://www.imdb.com/review/rw2570878/ |
|
3-3-2021 00:05:14