The Holidays
Two ladies (Cameron Diaz and Kate Winslet) suffer romantic disappointments and feel they need to go away for the holidays. The swap their homes (LA and the British countryside) and want to chill out without men. Well, easier said than done… The trailer for this romantic comedy turned me off, but I was pleasantly surprised by The Holidays. Once again I realized that I am in love with Cameron Diaz and Jude Law. Both are so fun to watch and together in the same picture they present a true feast for the eyes. Jack Black is miscast in the role. He can give an Oscar quality performance in a real comedy such as School of Rock but looks weird in a dramatic role.
Heaven
The film reminded me that good art is not artificial. Great art heightens our awareness of reality. Heaven fails because it feels contrived and artificial. Cate Blanchett has one scene in which she unleashes her full acting ability. But she cannot make up for a week script written by Krzysztof Kieslowski, who I admired greatly for the “Three Colors” trilogy. Tom Twyker (the director) covered much more compellingly the idea that love may become more important than life in his splendid The Princess and the Warrior.” The only pleasing feature of the film was the magnificent Italian landscape. But if you want to see a beautiful southern Europe, watch Twyker’s recent movie The Perfume: The story of a murderer which has an amazing plot. The Perfume is a great piece of art.
Miss Potter
Miss Potter portrays the life of the best-selling British children’s book author ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatrix_Potter] Beatrix Potter[/url]. Many authors invent fantastic stories while leading relatively boring lives. Mrs. Potter falls into this category. A film about her life has very little drama to work with. Not much happens on the screen. This is the first time I was able to write a report on the plane while watching this film. I guess that is not much a compliment.
Freedom Writers
The film tells the true-life story of Erin Gruwell, a magnificent teacher in Long Beach, California, who turns a class of violent teenagers into successful students, who leave their gang background behind to become published authors. The film has moments that are truly inspiring and moving. But too often banal or cheesy lines creep into the dialogues. The best part of the film is the music that is wonderfully communicates atmosphere violent American ghettos.
The Lives of Others (Das Leben der Anderen)
i]Good Bye Lenin turned the collapse of the German “Democratic” Republic into a comedy. There is not a single moment in The Lives of Others you feel like laughing. The film chronicles how an estimated 91,000 full-time employees and 300,000 informants recruited by Ministry for State Security (Stasi) helped the communist party to keep control over society by spying on and neutralizing everyone who seemed to harbor doubts about the regime. If you have ever traveled to East Germany you will recognize immediately that the director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck has captured superbly the character and ambiance of this German version of a 20th-century police state. The Lives of Others reminded me that it was simply bad geographic luck that stripped East German of the freedoms that enjoyed by their West German compatriots. I think the film resonates with audiences around the world because of the events after September 11. Now that governments around the world demand more powers to be able to spy on citizens in name of protecting us from terrorist’s threats, we have become sensitive about losing our privacy as the East German did under communist rule. In the western world, it took hundreds of years and countless lives to protect citizens in democratic states from the capricious acts of government. The thought that we might come to live under a regime that recruits your family members and friends to spy on you sends shivers down your spine. The film is a masterpiece because it manages to show the brutality of the East German police state while uncovering the remaining reservoir of humanity that allowed East German’s to overthrow their rulers when the first real opportunity presented itself. At the end of the film, the English-speaking audience in my local cinema spontaneously broke out in applause because it realized that it just watched a great moment in the history of cinema.
Elizabeth
In search of one Cate Blanchett’s great performances, I rented the historical drama Elizabeth. Blanchett received an Oscar nomination for the role but lost out to Gweneth Paltrow who played the object of William Shakespeare’s desire in Shakespeare in Love. I suspect that Paltrow won not because she was more in love than Elizabeth. Paltrow simply had more luck in landing a love story that is cheerful, sassy, and as far as I remember has a romantic ending. Blanchett’s Elizabeth love life starts promising (she is young, her lover is good looking and charming (xx Fiennes plays is the counterpart in both films), but then turns sour and barren. Without Blanchett’s superb acting, Elizabeth would have been rather disappointing. Although Elizabeth repeatedly says that she only wants to do what is best for her people, we never see commoners. The entire film takes place in the social sphere of the court (one exception is a battlefield onto which bodies of average people including a small child are strewn). I would have liked to find out a little bit more how her people lived and reacted to Elizabeth actions.
Letters from Iwo Jima
War movies fall into three categories. Government-funded propaganda that is designed to rally the civilian population, summer action movies that hope to thrill youngsters with exhilarating battle scenes in which good in the end triumphs over evil, and finally critical films that want to undermine the very premise that war is something anyone should desire. Iwo Jima firmly belongs to the third genre. I cannot recall ever watching a war movie that is able to make you believe you are on the battlefield, trying to duck the bullets flying a few centimeters from your nose. Steve Spielberg’s movie on the Allied landing on the coast of Normandy (Saving Private Ryan) went very far in showing show you what it must feel like to be on the battlefield. But Iwo Jima pulls you even closer to experiencing the fear of bodily injury and death that must grip a soldier who is surrounded by much stronger forces and who realizes that it is just a matter of time until he is killed. Spielberg’ s Saving Private Ryan movie was quite good but in the end was melodramatic, trivializing its message. Iwo Jima, Clint Eastwood’s second film on the battle for this Island, is far more poetic because it draws on actual letters Japanese soldiers wrote home to their families and lovers. Of the over 22,000 Japanese soldiers who were stationed on Iwo Jima, 20,703 died, and 216 were captured. The Allied forces suffered 25,281 casualties, with 5,598 deaths. This was the only large engagement of WWII in which the Allied forces suffered more casualties (dead plus injured) than their Japanese opponents. The battle Iwo Jima was an important episode in the war on the pacific because in the opening days of 1945 Japan faced the prospect of invasion by the American forces. Daily bomber raids from the Marianas hit the mainland as part of Operation Scavenger. Iwo Jima served as an early warning station, which radioed reports of incoming bombers back to mainland Japan, allowing Japanese air defenses to be prepared for the arrival of American bombers. That is why the Japanese military gave the instruction that the Island had to be defended as long as possible. Every soldier was asked to fight until death, either inflicted by American hands or by suicide. I am looking forward to seeing the first film by Eastwood on this battle shown Flags of Our Fathers, which shows the same fighting from the American side.
Notes on a Scandal
Don’t! Stop! Don’t! Stop! Don’t… Don’t stop! I thought that Notes on a Scandal was a film about one of these notorious conservative British politicians caught up in a sex scandal. Wrong! The scandal involves people from a very different social group. Not knowing anything about the plot made the film all the more suspenseful. Notes on a Scandal manages to pull off what Little Children failed to do: drive you to the edge of your seat. Call it, “Adults Playing With Fire.” I was lured into the theatre by a recent profile of Cate Blanchett in the New Yorker (see below). The article celebrated her as one of the great actresses of our time. This was not on display in Babel or the Lord of the Rings trilogy. According to the article, her acting in Notes on a Scandal is excellent. Indeed, the film is very good, but not because of Blanchett. She is responsible for its only two flaws:
First, she portrays her character as having a sense of stability and self-assuredness that flies in the face of the actions that emanate from her character. Second, Blanchett is much too beautiful for the role. She reminds one of the perfect symmetry found in the faces of carefully chiseled Greek or Roman statues rather than a living human being. This makes her character even more psychologically unbelievable. Still, the film is well worth seeing. It provides a much better movie experience than Little Children. “Go see Elizabeth” an actor told me at a recent party, “if you really see what Blanchett is capable of.” That’s what I will do.
DISAPPEARING ACT by JOHN LAHR. The New Yorker. New York:Feb 12, 2007. Vol. 82, Iss. 49, p. 38
In Sydney, Australia, on the
bright, blustery morning of November 10th, toward the end of Pier 4, a “finger
wharf” that reaches out two hundred yards into the harbor and houses the Sydney
Theatre Company, a little bit of show-biz history took place. There, inside a
cavernous former wool storehouse—now a dusty gray rehearsal room—amid a
cluster of cameras, lights, and local journalists, the actress Cate Blanchett
and her husband, the playwright Andrew Upton, announced their appointment as
co-artistic directors of the S.T.C., Australia’s most prestigious theatre,
which operates three stages. Theatre history is studded with examples of
renowned actor-managers—Moliere, Shakespeare, and Sir Laurence Olivier come to
mind—but never before had a movie actress of Blanchett’s calibre, at the
height of her powers and popularity, made this kind of commitment to the
theatre community that launched her. Blanchett and Upton will officially begin
their three-year appointment in 2008, after a year of shadowing the current
artistic director, Robyn Nevin. They also happened to be in the process of
staging a double bill at the theatre: Harold Pinter’s “A Kind of Alaska,”
directed by Blanchett, and David Mamet’s “Reunion,” directed by Upton, both of
which opened to strong reviews at the end of November. “Andrew and I are
galvanized by a challenge,” Blanchett said. “Frankly, this is the most exciting
thing that has happened to us, apart from marriage and having children.”
“I feel the need to move forward,” Blanchett, who is thirty-seven, told me
later. “I know it’s going to broaden me as a human being. I hope it broadens me
as an actor.” She added, “Moviemaking becomes a little pointless after a time.
You think, Well, yes, that’s an incredible role, and, yes, it would probably
stretch me as an actor. But performance is not, and never has been, really, all
of who I am.” Still, it is through film that most of her fans have come to know
her. Blanchett’s list of twenty-seven movies is notable for both its range and
its ambition. In her most recent collection of character studies, she plays a
predatory Nazi collaborator (Steven Soderbergh’s “The Good German”), an
American tourist who is shot in Morocco (Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu’s
“Babel”), a British schoolteacher who has an affair with a fifteen-year-old
student (Richard Eyre’s “Notes on a Scandal,” a performance for which she was
just nominated for an Academy Award), and a version of Bob Dylan, complete with
big hair and sideburns (Todd Haynes’s “I’m Not There”). “I wanted to be him,”
Blanchett said of the singer. “It’s the first time I ever had that feeling. I
actually wanted to be Dylan. Ultimately, he just really didn’t care. He’s on
his own path.”
At the S.T.C., Blanchett, who calls herself a “theatre geek,” was following her
own path. Her appointment was also a strategic coup for the company: with
Blanchett and Upton as artistic directors, its productions will attract
international press and talent. (Philip Seymour Hoffman, for instance, will
direct Upton’s play “Riflemind,” later this year.) And for a theatre company
that, in 2005, found itself in the red for the first time in twenty-seven
years, Blanchett’s stardom will draw lucrative sponsorship. None of this sense
of promise and purpose, however, seemed to catch the imagination of the local
press back in November. When it was time for questions, the journalists seemed
nonplussed.What if Blanchett got a movie role? they asked. Would she have time,
in her busy film schedule, to undertake such a job? Did this mean that she and
her sons—five-year-old Dashiell and two-year-old Roman—were going to live
permanently in Sydney? How would her celebrity affect the running of the
theatre? “Celebrity is a by-product,” Blanchett replied firmly. “If that by-
product can be harnessed to the company’s name, fantastic.” After the final
question of the proceedings—which, like many before, was directed only at
Blanchett—she put her hand on Upton’s shoulder. “We’re a team,” she said.
Upton, like his wife, seems to know himself without insisting on himself; he
exudes a sort of ironic equanimity. In 1997, the newly married couple spent
three months apart while Blanchett was shooting Shekhar Kapur’s “Elizabeth,”
and vowed, Blanchett said, to “never ever do that again.” In the decade since
then, they have travelled together whenever possible. The S.T.C. offer
coincided, serendipitously, with their sense that they needed, for their
children’s sake, to settle somewhere. Over lunch, at the theatre’s restaurant
later that day, Blanchett turned to Upton and said, “If it wasn’t for you, I
think I probably would have imploded. Acting takes its toll on people. There’s
a kind of madness in it that’s thrilling and wonderful but also can be
incredibly destructive.” She turned to me. “Andrew is an incredibly strong
person,” she said.
Strength—or the outward appearance of it—is not the first thing that comes to
mind when you meet the impish Upton, who is forty-one. His sinew lies in his
good-humored stability and in his allegiance to his wife’s talent. Upton
studied playwriting and directing at the Victorian College of the Arts School
of Drama, in Melbourne, and has already done a series of successful stage
adaptations for the S.T.C., including a tempestuous version of Ibsen’s “Hedda
Gabler” (2004), starring his wife. He and Blanchett got to know each other in
1996, while working on one of her lesser-known Australian movies, “Thank God He
Met Lizzie.” “We were both taken by surprise,” Upton said. “I mean, it could
have been a one-night stand. We just kept going. Three weeks into our
relationship, Cate says she thought, Oh, God, he’s gonna ask me to marry him.
I’m gonna have to say yes. I asked her three weeks later.” Their decisions to
marry and to run the S.T.C. seemed to share an adventurous sense of optimism.
“Our spirit is jump in, then just keep going until you can make the thing work
or not,” Blanchett said. “If it’s not making sense, you pull it apart and try
to put it back together again.”
“Walking a tightrope” is how Blanchett once described the experience of acting.
A similar metaphor came up over lunch, when Upton described his view of their
family life. “There’s someone on top riding a bike with a bar and a ball
balancing the thing,” Upton said. “I think we’re in there.”
“In the ball?” Blanchett said.
“Me and the boys are in there.”
A flicker of distress showed in her eyes. “That’s not true,” she said.
“In a balancing way.”
“You’re not in the ball with the boys.”
“I mean, there’s balancing in it,” Upton said.
The exchange, in its matter-of-factness, seemed evidence of the clarity that
Upton brings to Blanchett’s thinking, which, she has admitted, is “very
meandering—nothing is linear.”
When I asked Blanchett if she agreed with Upton about their family dynamic, she
said carefully, “There’s something about being an actor that is shaman-like. It
can produce a great amount of superstition in terms of how you connect to it.
To talk about that is very private. Before Andrew, in previous partnerships,
even friendships, I couldn’t go there. I didn’t want to break some spell.” She
turned to Upton. “I met you and I finally could talk to somebody else about
that stuff. I feel like every time I make a film or go into a rehearsal room
I’ve already collaborated with you on it. The hardest thing is to get up there
and voice what it is that you’re feeling, for fear of being misunderstood or
locked down too early or just plain ridiculous. I think that to be able to sort
of air that stuff with you . . . allows it to grow,” she said.
>From the outset of her acting career—she studied at the National Institute of
Dramatic Art (NIDA), in Sydney, from 1990 to 1992—Blanchett exhibited an
uncanny ability to enter the kind of egoless state that her former teacher the
director Lindy Davies calls “transformational.” In work and in life, Blanchett,
whose favorite word is “fluidity,” has a kind of inconclusiveness that lets her
remain receptive. “I don’t like everything to be tied neatly in bows,” she told
me. “If it’s flowing, you don’t arrest it.” Keeping things open when you’re
acting, she explained, reinforces the mystery and the intensity of the moment.
“I think it’s important to pin questions down,” she said. “Sometimes you can
answer things definitively within a character, within a moment. And sometimes
it’s important that you don’t.”
“Cate is willing to throw herself into a chaotic state out of which something
will arise,” the director Shekhar Kapur told me. “The fluidity you get in Cate
is also because of the contradictions inside her.” Blanchett is both candid and
private, gregarious and solitary, self-doubting and daring, witty and
melancholy. It was these contradictions that prompted Kapur to cast her as
Elizabeth I, in “Elizabeth,” one of the films that made Blanchett an
international star. “I was looking for somebody who could portray not only a
reality but an ethereal quality,” he said. “This ability to be both of the
earth and of the spirit was very attractive to me—the ability to be both
vulnerable and totally ruthless. Cate’s absolute ruthlessness is with herself,
an obsessive ruthlessness about her craft.”
“There’s something tightly wound inside her, something hidden,” the British
director Jonathan Kent, who worked with Blanchett on the Almeida Theatre
Company’s 1999 revival of David Hare’s “Plenty,” said. “An uncontrolled core
that she’s not entirely in charge of, which, when it’s harnessed, makes her
riveting.” In “Plenty,” Blanchett played Susan Traherne, a woman whose life
after the Second World War is a slow diminuendo into despair. The production
was controversial, and some of the reviews were catty—the Independent
suggested that only Dame Edna could have done more to expose the weaknesses of
the play. Blanchett was distraught. “She didn’t weep like a prima donna,” Upton
said. “She wept like a betrayed woman.” Since that incident, Blanchett has
never read a review; Kent, for his part, has never quite believed in her
apparent confidence. “That grounded self that you and I perceive—the
directness, the straightness, the lack of nonsense—in a way I think that’s a
performance,” he said. “I think the hidden chaos of Cate is so interesting.”
Scott Rudin, a co-producer of “Notes on a Scandal,” told me, “She’s very shrewd
about what capital she gives up and when. When she gives you the tiniest bit of
insight into why the character’s behaving the way she is, you gobble it up. I
think it’s a combination of alluring and elusive.” He added, “It is the
elusiveness that is the key.” Blanchett herself made the same point. She was
describing her character Lena, a Nazi collaborator in Berlin in 1945, in
Soderbergh’s “The Good German,” which she began shooting, without any
rehearsal, the Monday after she’d completed “Notes on a Scandal.” The scene
Blanchett filmed that day had Lena sitting on a bench with an American military
attorney from whom she’s hoping to get the papers she needs to leave Berlin. “I
thought, The biggest thing I’m gonna do is cross my legs,” she told me. “I’m
not gonna give anything away to this man. I knew everything that Lena was
concealing. But it was, like, I’m not going to let Steven Soderbergh know. I’m
going to be completely, utterly ambiguous.” She continued, “Ambiguity is not
absence. It’s a wildly contradicting series of actions, emotions, and
intentions. There was a line where Lena said, ‘No one is all good or all bad.’
And I thought that she was referring to herself. So I let a tiny little bit of
her own self-hatred come through.” (Soderbergh got his shot on the first take.)
What Blanchett hides from her directors and her audience she also hides from
herself. “I do like to preserve the mystique of the thing, for myself as much
as anyone else,” she has said. Over the years, she has repeatedly dodged
autobiographical questions by claiming, “I’ve sort of forgotten my childhood.”
These ellipses in conversation help Blanchett to trick herself out of self-
consciousness. “I’m not interested in the character I am in myself,” she told
James Lipton on the television series “Inside the Actors Studio.” “Any
connection that I have to my characters will be subliminal and subconscious.”
The first time Blanchett realized that she might have talent is associated in
her mind with this ability to make herself disappear. She was in her second
year at Melbourne University, appearing in a play by Kris Hemensley called
“European Features,” at Melbourne’s La Mama. “My sister, Genevieve, came to see
the play,” Blanchett said. “My sister’s a harsh critic. She said, ‘That’s the
first time I couldn’t see you.’ I understood what she meant.”
Blanchett grew up in Ivanhoe, a leafy suburb of Melbourne, beside the Yarra
River. She was the middle child, between an older brother, Bob, who had a mild
case of cerebral palsy, and Genevieve. (Bob works as a computer programmer;
Genevieve is studying architecture, after a successful career as a stage
designer.) Of the siblings, Blanchett was, by her own admission, the most
adventurous. “I felt very free as a child,” she said. Together, she and
Genevieve invented characters, which Blanchett would play, for days at a time,
around the house. “My sister and I would dress me up in something,” she said.
“I’d pull a face or a stance; she’d give them names and an identity.” When
Blanchett was around nine, her enthusiasm for performance took the form of
knocking on strangers’ doors to see if she could talk her way inside their
homes with a tall tale about a lost dog. “It was the adrenaline rush, really,”
she said. “My friend hid in the bushes. I remember the woman at the door
saying, ‘I haven’t seen a dog. Come in. I’ll ask my husband.’ I looked at the
bushes thinking, Oh, my God, what am I doing? I remember the look in this
woman’s eyes when she started to think, You haven’t lost a dog, have you? It
suddenly had become a real thing.” Blanchett continued, “My whole childhood was
like that. If someone dared me, I’d do it.”
Blanchett’s mother, June, was a jazz-loving schoolteacher. Her Texas-born
father, Robert, who met June when his Navy ship broke down in Melbourne, had,
according to Blanchett, “a very dry sense of humor.” He had quit school at
fourteen—“I went to the school for bums,” he told his daughter. Robert put
himself through night school, worked at a television station, returned to
Australia to marry June, and got into advertising. Then, when Blanchett was
ten, he died. “I was playing the piano,” she has recalled. “He walked past the
window. I waved goodbye. He was going off to work. He had a heart attack that
day. He was only forty.” The fact that she hadn’t embraced him before he left
haunted Blanchett. “I developed this ritual where I couldn’t leave the house
until I could actually physically say goodbye to everyone,” she said. The
ritual continues, according to Upton. “She will never forget to say goodbye,”
he said. “When you’re going off to work, if you’re going overseas, that point
of departure is really important to her.”
When asked about her father now, Blanchett generally brushes the questions
aside. “I don’t necessarily need to consciously understand my past,” she said.
She went on, “Drama school was a place where a lot of these things came up, but
in a way that one could deal with them in a visceral sense. You move them
through your body and out your fingertips. Then you keep the bits that are
useful and throw away the junk.” Still, the loss was clearly a transforming
one, for her and for her work. She has called bereavement “a strange gift.” In
many essential ways, she told me, her father’s death was the shadow that
informed her brightness. “It’s chiaroscuro,” she said.
After Robert died, Blanchett developed a passion for horror movies. “I loved
being terrified,” she said. “It used to be a badge of honor if you could sit
through ‘Halloween II.’ ” Some of the appeal of horror movies lies in the
thrill of surviving them, of, in a sense, cheating death. It’s a thrill that
carries over, as Upton pointed out, to acting. “You go onstage and you’re
alive,” he said. “You walk offstage, then the character’s gone. You survive the
experience. It’s scintillating.” He added, “I think that’s why Cate’s not one
of those Method people who carry the role offstage with them.” Over the years,
Blanchett has turned her appetite for this form of transcendence into a kind of
life style. “You can’t say no to things because you’re frightened,” she told a
group of students in 2005.
The idea of performance first captured Blanchett’s imagination when she was
about five and saw a production of “The Mikado” in which an actor’s long
mustache fell off onstage. “You could feel the whole audience go, ‘Oh, my God,
something real just happened,’ ” Blanchett told Lipton. “He said, ‘Oh, you can
never trust these Japanese,’ or some joke. I remember that moment—seeing the
actor handling a real moment in a completely surreal and unreal production. I
thought, I wish I could be up there with him.” Throughout her childhood, on
Saturday afternoons, Blanchett attended a drama class in a musty warehouse,
with a costume box full of “things that were slightly frayed around the edges.”
“I would often spend the whole class by myself, or with another girl, trying on
this stuff and making little things up,” she told me. She was, she added, “the
child of whom everyone said, ‘Oh, she’s gonna be an actress.’ “
Still, Blanchett started out at the University of Melbourne as an art-history
and economics major. After two years, she auditioned, on a whim, for the three-
year acting course at NIDA. Her most celebrated performance at NIDA was one for
which she wasn’t originally cast. She was playing Clytemnestra in a production
of Sophocles’ “Electra”; two weeks into rehearsals, the woman playing Electra
withdrew. The director, Lindy Davies, asked, “Who can work over Easter?,” and
Blanchett raised her hand. “One of the things that she can do,” Davies told me,
“is move into the realm of metaphor, but without being histrionic.” Davies
recalled Blanchett weeping during rehearsals. “She sobbed on the floor in the
sunlight. She was talking about Menelaus. The sense of grief was like a
waterfall cascading. The thing is that she understands loss.”
“When I came out of drama school, I wasn’t that hot young thing,” Blanchett
told me. But she gathered heat soon enough. In 1993, at the Sydney equivalent
of the Tony Awards, she was voted Best Newcomer, for her performance in Timothy
Daly’s “Kafka Dances”; the same year, for her appearance opposite Geoffrey Rush
in a memorable production of Mamet’s “Oleanna,” she was named Best Actress.
(She was the first person ever to win both categories at once.) Three years
later, Blanchett auditioned to play the role of the mercurial title character
in Gillian Armstrong’s “Oscar and Lucinda” (1997). The movie, which was based
on the novel by Peter Carey about two obsessive gamblers, brought Blanchett’s
“chalky phosphorescence,” as the director Anthony Minghella called it, out of
the Southern Hemisphere and into the international arena. After her next movie,
“Elizabeth,” the world, and every film director in it, knew her name.
At NIDA, one of Blanchett’s teachers gave her some advice that she took to
heart. “When you’re performing, always keep your lights on,” he told her. “When
you’re home, turn them off.” Blanchett and Upton have settled down in the
sleepy heart of Sydney normality, the sedate suburb of Hunter’s Hill, about
fifteen minutes northwest of town, where the noisiest thing in the street is an
explosion of purple jacarandas. Ten minutes from their rented sandstone house,
they are renovating a house on three acres of land seeded with Norfolk pine and
eucalyptus trees, which hide the neighbors and muffle the sound of cars. To
Blanchett, the place, which she calls her “oasis,” has “a feeling of being
completely in the bush.” Even in her current cramped residence, Blanchett has
established a sense of calm order. The living room is dominated by a
television, photographs of a windswept Upton and Blanchett on the New Zealand
coast, and, in the corner, a small children’s table, where, on the day I
visited, Roman was proudly learning how to maneuver his knife and fork over
some fish sticks. Nowhere was there any sign of Blanchett’s line of work. (A
converted closet off the dining room serves as her office; a bevy of her
awards—Academy, Golden Globe, and BAFTA among them—is pushed to the far
corner of her desk by a morass of papers, books, and photographs of the
children.)
When he was finished with his lunch, Roman came over to discuss the possible
modes of transportation to the playground, where his nanny was about to take
him. He was leaning toward taking the stroller. Blanchett listened closely to
his argument, then said, “Maybe you should walk. What do you think? Walk on
your little feet?” Roman considered for a moment, then agreed to leg it. Later,
Blanchett negotiated with the inquisitive Dashiell, whom she’d just picked up
from the local Montessori school and who had gone from voluble curiosity in her
gray BMW (“What are guts? What are the guts of the house?”) to visible fury
over his lunch menu of soup and fish sticks: “I don’t want it; they’re
disgusting!”
“That’s his favorite word of the moment—‘disgusting,’ ” Blanchett said, as
Dashiell’s complaints escalated. She leaned down to speak to him. “Hang on,”
she said. “You’re giving conflicting messages. You’re saying you don’t want
fish fingers, but all of a sudden you do want fish fingers.” Dashiell mumbled
something about wanting a sandwich and not soup. “If you start to eat your
meal, darling, then we can make you a sandwich,” Blanchett said.
Dashiell said, “I’ll eat the bread but not the soup.”
“This is the new Dash,” Blanchett said, smiling. “He thinks he’s living in a
hotel and wants to order room service all the time.”
“I don’t want to,” Dashiell said, and slapped at Blanchett’s hands. She calmly
scooped him up and took him to his bedroom at the back of the house. A few
minutes later, the sound of his grievance ceased, and Blanchett returned.
“There’s a whole thing with my generation about having the children like you,”
she said. “Most parents want to be friends.” Her role at home, she made it
clear, was mother, not pal.
At home and at work, Blanchett has a talent for listening. When she studies a
script, she often writes down everything that her character says about herself
and about other characters, as well as everything that other people in the
script say about her character. “You get an objective sense, within the story,
of how they’re perceived and how they perceive themselves,” she said. “You get
a sort of threedimensional sense of what they are doing.” She went on, “Each
project you encounter reveals to you the way to work on it. It’s all about the
text. Some pieces need to be invented, or reimagined, or teased out. Some just
need to be unlocked.”
She has the capacity to see herself as part of a larger landscape. Her form of
storytelling, therefore, lies not just in the dialogue but in the dance of the
character. “She has a constantly amorphous physicality,” Geoffrey Rush told me.
“That’s why she seems to transform from role to role.” She also has the acuity
to sit inside an emotion and parse it. In Tom Tykwer’s “Heaven” (2002), for
instance, she played Philippa, an English teacher in Italy, frustrated by the
failure of the corrupt carabinieri to stop the drug lord who is selling to
children at her school and whose drugs killed her husband. In an act of rough
justice, Philippa plants a bomb in the drug lord’s office. We watch Blanchett
place the device in his wastepaper basket before escaping from the building; we
also watch a cleaning lady empty the contents of the basket into her cart,
which she wheels onto an elevator carrying a man and two girls. The scene in
which Philippa is confronted with the news that she has killed four people,
including two children, is perhaps Blanchett’s greatest emotional moment on
film. Her expression goes from blankness, to shock, to sorrow, to disbelief, to
moral horror, to a grief so overwhelming that she finally faints in anguish.
In her career, Blanchett has played Australian, American, Scottish, Russian,
English, Irish, French, Italian, and German characters. “She can do a voice in
soprano, a baritone voice, a nasal voice, an adenoidal voice, a three-octave
voice, or she can do something quite tinny and twangy,” the dialect coach Tim
Monich told me. “People use the phrase ‘I’m gonna make it my own.’ With Cate,
it’s quite the opposite; it’s about adapting herself.” The key to Blanchett’s
characterizations is not so much the imitation of sound as the penetration of
syntax. “An actor’s job is partly anthropological,” she told me, and the
character’s idiom is where she does much of her excavation. “The way people
speak reveals how they think,” she said. “The rhythm reveals emotion, it
reveals intention.” When she was at Melbourne University, working part time as
a waitress at the Old Homestead Inn to pay her way, Blanchett would jot down
overheard conversations on her pad; those “found moments” went into a play that
she wrote with another student, about life in the city and how people’s
conversations are often “a way of avoiding rather than communicating.”
Over the decades, her methods have become more cunning and more detailed. When
preparing to play the title role in Joel Schumacher’s “Veronica Guerin” (2003),
a portrait of the Irish journalist who was murdered for her investigations into
the drug trade, Blanchett listened to every interview that Guerin had ever
given. “You could hear the way she was thinking,” Blanchett said. “You could
hear the missteps; you could hear when she wasn’t telling the truth; you could
hear when she was unsure of something. I thought, Ah, she’s not sure about her
own intelligence.”
“Every seemingly little trivial piece of information is something that can feed
her,” said Monich, who worked with Blanchett on her version of Katharine
Hepburn’s imperious, vowel-strangled Yankee barrage of words in Martin
Scorsese’s “The Aviator” (2004). It was Monich who first told Blanchett about
Hope Williams, a socialite and actress for whom Hepburn was an understudy in
“Holiday,” on Broadway, in 1928. “She was a genuine rich girl whom Philip Barry
wrote a couple of plays for,” Monich said. “I had this theory that Hope
Williams was a role model for Hepburn as a person, as a character, as an
actress. They called her the Park Avenue Stride Girl. Later, it became clear
she was a lesbian. She had very short hair. . . . Cate was completely intrigued
with my theory. We both became obsessed with Hope Williams.” Monich and
Blanchett told Scorsese, who screened for them Ben Hecht and Charles
MacArthur’s “The Scoundrel,” in which Williams makes an entrance in a stylish
hat with a breezy “Hello, hello.” In “The Aviator,” Blanchett pays homage to
that scene, when Hepburn arrives at her family’s New England summer lunch
party. “Cate is imitating Katharine Hepburn imitating Hope Williams,” Monich
said.
At her first meeting with Scorsese for the film, Blanchett brought a coffee-
table book containing studio stills of Hepburn. “She said, ‘Look, I looked at
some stills of Katharine Hepburn,’ ” Scorsese told me. “And she got in a
certain position, sort of crouching down. Cate said, ‘I think she was like
this.’ Sure enough, she just had it. She had the gesture, she had the body
lines, the look of Katharine Hepburn.” In her research, “the most fantastic
resource,” Blanchett said, was Dick Cavett’s 1973 two-part interview with
Hepburn, then in her mid-sixties. “She was older and her voice had calcified
and her whole personality had become a burlesque of itself, but it was
fascinating to see how she behaved, and how uncomfortable she was,” Blanchett
told the Times. Her portrayal of Hepburn, for which she won an Academy Award,
managed to suggest a defensiveness behind the brusque bravado, especially in
the vocal restrictions of her machine-gun laugh.
In a preproduction discussion for last year’s “Notes on a Scandal,” Richard
Eyre says he got off to “a slightly sticky start with Cate.” He told me, “She’d
had one session with a dialect coach, and was she going to have another? I was
worried about whether she’d be class-specific. Her character is kind of upper-
middle bohemian. I wanted the distinction between her and Judi Dench’s
character, who is petit bourgeois, to be clear.” Eyre continued, “I think she
thought I was overconcerned with the externals instead of the psychology.” “He
was really worried about the issue of class,” Blanchett explained. ” ‘Richard,’
I said, ‘I need to work on it because I’m not a mimic. I need to sit down and
work on it.’ So the accent became an issue, when I didn’t want to focus on the
accent but on the meat of things.” No sooner were Eyre’s words out of his mouth
than he realized that he’d made a mistake. “I was sitting in my kitchen and
talking. She said, ‘Don’t you think I can do this?’ ” Eyre said. “She was
upset. I must have been eroding her self-confidence. I felt as bad as I’ve ever
felt. I apologized. She didn’t extract revenge.”
In fact, Blanchett turned in one of her most thrilling performances, as the art
teacher Sheba Hart. “She was quite ruthless in the way she approached that
role,” the British playwright Patrick Marber, who wrote the screenplay, said.
“This was a woman whom she was not going to explain or apologize for—she was
just going to play it. She never asked me to write something that would make
her more sympathetic or her predicament more understandable.” On the other
hand, Blanchett was willing to disagree with lines that she felt didn’t match
the character she had in mind. In one scene, after Sheba’s affair with her
fifteen-year-old student is made public and she has taken refuge with her
teaching cohort and confidante, Barbara, she discovers Barbara’s toxic diaries,
full of twisted sexual obsession with her, and taped-in mementos of the
infatuation. Sheba melts down. Marber recalls, “I put this line in it, ‘Where
did you get my hair? Did you pluck it from the bath with some special fucking
tweezers?’ She said, ‘I don’t want to say that line. It’s too funny. It will
corrupt the tone of where Sheba’s at.’ We hammer-and-tonged it for about ten
minutes. Eventually, I said, ‘Oh, please, just please.’ I think she felt
compelled to concede to the writer, even if he was a bloody idiot. I think
that’s because she’s come from the theatre.”
On the day that Blanchett and Upton announced their artistic leadership of the
Sydney Theatre Company, she assured the wary journalists, “We’ve got good
instincts and a good eye.” Her visual sophistication is apparent in her art
collection, which includes works by Paula Rego, Howard Hodgkin, and Tim
Maguire. After tea, she suggested that we visit a gallery that featured artists
in whom she had an interest. There was a provocative show by the Chinese
conceptual artist Zhang Huan, that included disturbing images of the artist
buried beneath a mound of books and appearing to sodomize a donkey. At the same
gallery, Blanchett studied the Chinese-born Sydney artist Guan Wei’s “Echo,” a
series of forty-two panels painted as mythological maps of Australia, which
appropriated figures from European colonial exploration, as well as Chinese
landscape painting. On the periphery of another Guan painting, a wild seascape
in black, were iconic emblems of Australia’s past and present: galleons,
soldiers, Aborigines, and kangaroos. At the center were roiling waves and
clouds, in which pink figures fell from boats and bobbed in the surf. At the
edge was the desert.
Blanchett scrutinized Guan’s works. “He’s very witty,” she said. “Towns called
Dread and Bathe. It seduces you with one feeling, then it undercuts it. He’s
got actual creatures, then mythological creatures. He’s got Chinese characters,
to which he’s added little brushstrokes that make them not quite those
characters, so it’s an invented language.” She went on, “It’s about the way we
tell ourselves stories: how we handle failure, how we handle success, how we
place ourselves against the rest of the world. All these things are at the core
of who I am, who we all are. It’s somewhere bound up with this journey inward.”
Two days later, Blanchett, Upton, and I met at the S.T.C.‘s three-hundred-seat
main stage, to look at the set for “Reunion” and “A Kind of Alaska,” which had
just been constructed. Blanchett regarded the moody, brackish gray-green
backdrop and the walkway that led to an angled square in the center; she and
Upton intended to flood the space so that the performing area would appear to
be a floating island. “One thing I do understand is space,” she’d told me
earlier, and so it seemed. The design was playful and daring, poetic and
timeless. “It really liberates preconceptions,” she said. She said that she had
seen a similar effect used at the Saatchi Gallery, in London. “I asked the
curator how deep the water was. He said, ‘It’s as deep as you want it to be.’ “
In “Alaska,” which is inspired by “Awakenings,” Oliver Sacks’s study of several
survivors of “sleeping sickness,” the heroine, Deborah, after having been
“asleep” for thirty years, awakens, struggles to get her bearings in this
strange new world, then sinks back into darkness. “I’ve always been interested
in the emergent consciousness—that point between wakefulness and slumber, that
place where the sense of one’s self is extremely malleable,” Blanchett said.
“She’s a broken person who’s trying to reassemble herself.” Toward the end of
the play, Deborah starts to feel her mind receding. “Oh, dear,” she says. “Yes,
I think they’re closing in. They’re closing the walls in. Yes.” On the play’s
last beat, Blanchett and Upton planned to have the water seep upward. “It
somehow formally completes the evening,” she said.
Later that day, I met up with Blanchett again to accompany her to the opening
night of “Keating!,” a musical revue about the trials and tribulations of
Australia’s flamboyant former Prime Minister Paul Keating, directed by Neil
Armfield. Before we left, she insisted on playing for me the soundscape she was
devising for “A Kind of Alaska.” “Chris Abrahams is an amazing pianist and
plays in a jazz trio called the Necks. Abrahams did this music—sort of a
hybrid form,” she said. With her elbows planted on the desk and her face in her
hands, she leaned forward, concentrating on the insistent pounding that was
both funereal and celebratory, like a heartbeat getting stronger. Voices and
archival sounds were layered into it: a piano played a snippet of “If You Were
the Only Girl in the World”; a voice growled “piss in your face.” The cursing
voice was authentic—taken from a video of Sacks’s patients, which Blanchett
had tracked down, she said, after noticing a footnote in “Awakenings.” She
listened awhile longer, then hit “Pause.” “The theme is good,” she said, “but
it’s just too present. You don’t want to give it all away in the soundscape.
There are all these memories, inventions, planes of supposed reality. If you
describe them literally, then it depletes them. The audience has to listen with
their reaching ears.” Blanchett shoved the CD into her bag. “We’re gonna have
to fuck with it,” she said.
When we arrived at the Belvoir Street Theatre, a converted tomato-sauce
factory, the lobby was a scrum of people, with blinking red lights strung
around the low ceilings and the exuberant buzz of a beer cellar. Blanchett
pushed her way through the well-wishers and newshounds until she ran into
Gillian Armstrong. In the hubbub, it was impossible to hear what she was
saying. Instead, as the cameras flashed, I watched her easy smile and thought
about a story that Armstrong had told me on the phone the night before. “I ran
the first answer print of ‘Oscar and Lucinda’ at the lab for the color grader,
Arthur Cambridge, whom I worked with for many years,” she said. “You sit in the
dark. You watch the film at mute, with no sound at all. No one had ever heard
of or seen Cate before.” She went on, “We’re halfway through the film when
Arthur said, ‘Is she a nice person? It just comes through that she is.’ I
thought, Isn’t that great? He’s the first audience.”
After we took our seats, a tall, handsome older man in a blue sports coat
stopped beside us. “Hello, Cate,” he said. It was Keating himself. The lights
dimmed. “I love it when it goes dark,” she said. “It’s like a slumber party.”
She settled back to be, for once, a member of the audience. The show had a fine
set of impudent lyrics and an inventive staging; it seemed to release
Blanchett’s robust sense of humor. The sultry face of the glamour pages gave up
its famous composure; the poised lips dissolved into guffaws. Blanchett rocked
in her seat. At one point, in “Freaky,” a song about Alexander Downer, the
current Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, who became a figure of fun
after he was photographed in fishnet stockings and women’s shoes for a charity
event, Blanchett was surprised to find herself part of the joke. Downer was
played by the show’s lyricist and composer, Casey Bennetto, a large man with a
hairy back who swanned onstage in the tight-fitting garter-belted mufti of a
dominatrix. He looked, more or less, like a bratwurst in heels. Bennetto worked
the room with gusto:
I’m a greasy-cheek freak
A leader of tomorrow,
But I won’t be ‘round next week
‘Cause I’m too freaky.
As he marched up the aisle loudly lamenting his volatile career, he came upon
Blanchett. He looked at her for a split second, then flopped into her lap and,
invoking the singer Barry White, ad-libbed, “It’s S.T.C. / When you’re next to
me.” The audience, and Blanchett, howled.
When the show was over, she made her way toward the exit. Just before we got
there, Blanchett was asked to return to be photographed. When I turned around,
she had vanished, swallowed up by the milling crowd. For a moment, I thought
I’d lost her; then it occurred to me to follow the popping flashbulbs, which,
like the landing lights of an airstrip, led inevitably to Blanchett. About
forty-five minutes later, we made our way back through the theatre, through the
dressing rooms, past the laundry room, the wardrobe, and out into the rain-
cooled air.
Blanchett had made a reservation at an Italian restaurant she liked. From the
table, she phoned home to check on the boys, which led to a discussion of
parenthood. “I find it’s made me more economical, more focussed, more generous,
less self-centered,” she said. “I’m grateful for it.” She went on, “I remember
embarking on ‘Veronica Guerin’ after Dash was born, thinking I have nothing to
give this project because I’m so filled up with this creature we’ve created.
But I’ve become a better actor because of it. I think parenthood is knowing
what cards you’ve got and then throwing them up in the air. You need to let go.
It’s like when you experience intense grief—you often have the deepest
insights because the dead wood’s been cleared out. When you’re absolutely
exhausted, somehow the work you’ve been consciously trying to do gets done on a
different, deeper level.” Earlier, Upton had told me that Blanchett was “in a
constant battle between optimism and pessimism—the futility of all the
effort.” As Blanchett tucked into her fagottini di carne, I asked her about
this. “We sort of liberate one another from melancholy,” she said of her
husband. “At least, he certainly does with me. The only thing that gets in the
way is lack of time.” Nonetheless, they have considered having another child.
Just that day, Blanchett said, Upton had taken a Pilates class at home with a
female instructor who had a newborn baby. Blanchett held the baby while Upton
ran through his stretching regime. “I was in my pajamas,” she said. “I held
this seven-week-old baby. He came out looking at me like ‘Don’t.’ And I did.”
Blanchett looked away for a moment. “The reality of what three children would
be like?” she said. She turned back to her pasta. “We like a bit of chaos,” she
said.
Cate Blanchett branches out.
Continue ReadingThe Last King of Scotland
If I could decide the Oscars all by myself, the King (Forest Whitaker) and the Queen (Helen Mirren) would receive the 2007 Oscars for best actor. The two roles could not be more different. But Whitaker and Mirren individually deliver one of the best performances in the history of cinema portraying a real human being. Mirren plays the reigning Queen of England (see my review of a few weeks ago) whereas Forest Whitaker plays the Idi Amin, who brutally ruled Uganda from 1971 to 1979. Forest Whitaker has given many fine performances, for example in The Crying Game. Playing the complicated and contradictory personality of Amin Whitaker has handed him a role that I am sure will become his defining role. The feelings you experience in The Last King of Scotland could not be more different from The Queen. The Queen satisfies one’s curiosity by seemingly offering you a look into the private life of the British Royal family. In the end, you come to like this reserved English aristocrat because she has dedicated her entire life to serving the British people. The King, by contrast, butchered an estimated 300,000 of his countrymen who initially believed his charismatic promises of turning Uganda into a proud self-sufficient society. Within the flesh of a few seconds, Amin can turn from an extreme charmer to a scary strongman. Whitaker plays these mood swings so well that you almost fear Amin could leap out from the screen and brutalize you. Having recently watched Babel I realized that expecting tragedy is profoundly different from expecting violence. The King gets deeply under the skin. The only reason why you flee from the cinema to save your life is because the director never allows the shocking and disturbing scenes go on for too long. The movie is a marvelous piece of work. It beautifully captures the style and music of the 1970s. Shooting the film in Uganda gives the drama pleasing authenticity. The Queen felt like a low budget movie compared to this marvelous Hollywood film on a difficult period in Uganda’s history.
Little Children
Sarah (Kate Winslet) and Brad (Patrick Wilson) meet on a playground in a suburb of Boston just as their marriage is entering a difficult period. They feel an immediate attraction. Little Children chronicles how people who are stuck in a staid, lifeless marriage struggle when they develop extra-marital romantic feelings, unexpectedly standing before a temptation they thought only other people could yield to. The interesting part of the Little Children, however, is not this main plot, but the story of the other characters that show up in the community of Sarah and Brad: a man who had been in prison for exposing himself to little children, a crazy ex-policemen who makes it his mission to protect the community from this “pervert,” the mother of the “pervert” who tries to get her son’s mind off children by finding him a wife through newspaper ads;
© 2026 Peter Murmann. Powered by ExpressionEngine.
