|
|
|
|
The Beautichian and The Beast, 1997 |
At the same time I have heard delations at
various film sides especially cheap humour, far-fetched story, actor's
"overplaying". Well, everyone has a right to have his or her own opinion� But
I consider this film like very amusing and pretty. Fran Dresher and Timothy
Dalton are wondeful duet in which one complements other. I wouldn't declare
the film contains lambent humour. Is it really essential for comedy? We still
laugh at " Jolly Boys" where lambent humour is absolutely absent.
Now a few words about heroes. It is my belief,
Fran Dresher is completely charming as Joe Miller, american beautichian, who
happy-go-lucky arrived in Slovecia to teach widowed president-dictator's
children. (Slovecia is a little precedently communistic country in the middle
of Europe.) Dresher is beautiful, inartificial and glamourous. I firstly saw
her but I think she is born like comedic actress.
As to Timothy Dalton in a role of slovetski
dictator Boris Pochenko, he surprised me again. I suppose it's great
achievement to be absolutely unlike to himself and his former heroes. Is it
possible to see in Pochenko even a little hint to James Bond or to Rotchester
or to Rett Battler? No, of course!
You wouldn't see it even if you will try to do it. And it's wondreful! I
think, Joe Miller gives the most right definition of Tim's hero: "You have a
boy of eight's character". This phrase sounds nearly to the film's end, but in
the beginning of movie I have felt the dictator is a great child. Really the
children like nobody else can unknowingly behave themselves cruelly and
selfishly. And Dalton clearly shows how his hero grows up step-by-step. As
to me, Timothy is admirable both in lyric and comedic scenas. Does he
overplay? May be. But it is within the framework of film and genre.
"The Beautichian and The Beast" isn't a
lightly fairy tale, melodrama or comedy. May be it was a try to make
satire. More, it is satire on unreal defects, which are fabricated by
author, so it is pasquinade. I was especially distressed about reviewer's
idea of our and US satirists. For example, one man begins to beat himself.
May be he wants to cleanse his soul, may be it is religion act, may be he
is a masochist. In any way this is his choice and we can understand it.
But this is another situation, when somebody begins to help him, begins to
beat him too. May be he is fond of pleasure, may be he is sadist, may be
he asserts oneself. The author of the review doesn't see any badness in
this situation, but I don't agree with him.
Film contains spirit of US nation chauvinism,
contains an idea that US is number one in modern world and may teach other
countries. Any US beautichian is more clever, more cultural and more spiritual
than any president of East Europe country, for example, Boris Pochenko.
Only US ideals helps Pochenko to be a good man. Yes, the work of white man
is hard work (remember R.Kipling). It is difficult to enlighten the
backward European countries.
[Genre]
[Character]
[Chronology] |
||