Romane excelente, ecranizari proaste

Eu cred ca fiecare natiune are mentalitatea ei mostenita din traditii, mod de viata, felul in care a evoluat tara respectiva de-a lungul secolelor. Iata de ce literatura tarii reflecta atat de fidel spiritul unui popor. Intr-o inlantuire logica, ecranizari literare ar trebui sa se faca numai pe baza literaturii autohtone. De exemplu, francezii ar trebui sa-l ecranizeze pe Balzac, englezii pe Dickens si rusii pe Tolstoi. Dar ce se intampla atunci cand unii se aventureaza sa ecranizeze literatura straina? Nu poate urma decat un esec, sau o prezentare distorsionata. Viziunea originala a autorului nu coincide aproape niciodata cu viziunea regizorului.

De ce mi-a venit sa scriu despre asta: am vazut de curand un film facut de francezi in 2006 pe baza romanului "Lady Chatterley's Lover", de D. H. Lawrence (unul dintre autorii mei preferati) care m-a revoltat. Chiar nu inteleg cum au ajuns francezii sa ecranizeze un roman autentic englezesc si de ce… Mare greseala (literatura lor fiind atat de vasta, incat ma mir ca duc lipsa de subiecte). Numai cand ii auzi pe francezi cum pronunta nume englezesti deja iti vine sa renunti. Actori alesi foarte prost, actiune prea lenta, chiar si settingul nu seamana deloc cu cel din carte.

La aceasta categorie se mai incadreaza si alte filme, cum ar fi "Anna Karenina"(1997) sau "Rasputin" (1996) facute de americani. Tot respectul pentru Sophie Marceau, o ador, dar cand se apuca sa vorbeasca ruseste e dezastru. De ce sa faci un film in Rusia, despre rusi, cu actori americani? Mai bine l-ai face in intregime rusesc. Nu zic, e buna globalizarea, si la capitolul ecranizari literare, dar... de multe ori aceastea lasa de dorit.
Un alt exemplu similar: "Cei trei muschetari" filmat de americani in 1993, cam stupizel spre lamentabil. Nici nu pot sa mi-l imaginez pe d’Artagnan vorbind alta limba decat franceza, cu accent de gascon! Poate cer prea multe... Dar pentru mine unele romane sunt atat de sfinte incat mi se pare un sacrilegiu sa-ti bati joc de ele prin ecranizari proaste.

Aici insa trebuie sa mentionez cateva exceptii, si anume:
1) Rusii au facut cateva ecranizari dupa Alexandre Dumas tatal foarte reusite: "Cei trei muschetari" (1979), "Regina Margot" (serial 1996) si "Madame de Montsoreau" (serial 1997). Subiectele au fost tratate cu seriozitate, s-au respectat minutios toate detaliile prezentate in carte iar personajele desi nu vorbesc franceza, sunt minunate. Voi revedea aceste filme ori cate ori mi se face dor de ele.
2) Francezii si-au creat propria "Regina Margot" in 1994, cu Isabelle Adjani. Este una dintre cartile mele preferate dar Dumas n-a scris un roman violent si scandalos, ci a dezvaluit niste evenimente istorice intr-o maniera romantata. Interpretarea evenimentelor din film e slabuta, personajele parca sunt fugite de la casa de nebuni, Margot are relatii intime cu necunoscuti pe strada, etc. Un tablou ingrozitor si total necorespunzator realitatii. Nu e un film pe care sa vrei sa-l revezi.

Deci, filme bune, filme proaste, pana la urma tot mai bine e sa citesti cartea in original si sa ramai cu propriile tale imagini, atat de placute.

Reflections on the eve of my birthday

Hamlet’s question haunts me since I was nearly 16 and faced life’s difficulties for the first time. Not too much changed. But of course, efforts to be optimistic have been made all these years, attempts to become a better human being, to accomplish some great things and achieve a state of inner contentment. Too much agitation, energy spent on working, learning, fighting, hoping, every day. New ideas rushing into my head and not letting me sleep.

And all for nothing. In vain I have struggled. Old thoughts keep coming back to me. I am the same fragile teenage trying to escape reality, but all the doors are locked. I am condemned to watch myself grow into a dangerous state of frustration and alienation from my life.

We are thrown into this world, whether we want it or not, and forced to survive. Some of us are doing it better than the others. Some of us like the idea of constant fight and aspire to get on top of the wave to display their power to survive so well… while others are merely wondering what they are doing here and hide themselves behind the painful mask of illusion.

Non-sense? Not at all. These are the thoughts of a grown-up who has lived more than a quarter of a century, and has already experienced a lot: happiness in childhood, disappointment and anger in adolescence, love, hatred, passion and hope in youth and is now trying to draw some general conclusions. 

I am not the right person to confirm the existence of happiness. The concept is different for every one of us. But as long as we don’t have inner peace, self-contentment and self-confidence, happiness is almost impossible. Such an emotional equilibrium can hardly be acquired.

“To be or not to be?..
Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them?”

Movie review: "Anne of the Thousand Days"

Great movie, though old enough (1969) to stir some reactions. I must say I am not a fan of very old movies, mainly because some of them are really boring (such as "The six wives of Henry VIII" series, 1970). But this illustration of Anne’s life amazed me with magnificence, excellent cast and quite truthful interpretation of events. It is the story of Anne’s ascension to power and downfall, during her 1000 days of happiness and love shared with the king. 

The actors - Geneviève Bujold, perfect in her role of Anne Boleyn, beautiful, delicate, keen but proud and very determined; makes almost a perfect Anne, though I picture her less nervous and a little more cunning; Richard Burton – the ideal Henry VIII, however too much goodness in his eyes for such a cold-blooded monster as he was sometimes; handsome, still attractive at his age (over 40, unlike the Henry played in "The Tudors" series by Johnatan Rhys Meyers who looked too young). I didn’t particularly enjoy the performances of Thomas Cromwell (played by John Colicos) and Thomas More (played by William Squire).

For 2 hours and almost 20 minutes we are going through the most important events related to Anne’s life starting from her meeting the king in 1527 up to her death in 1536. Anne’s attempt to resist the king before their marriage is admirable and totally explains his impatience to get hold of her body and soul but as soon as he possesses her, he no longer needs her. (That happens in real life too!) I am not going to tell the entire story; you might know it from history books, other movies or my own previous notes. I just have one negative remark. The movie states no connection between Henry’s breach with Rome and the spreading of Protestantism in England. This element has been ignored or wittingly put away to focus on others. Such neglect can hardly be forgiven when it comes to presenting major events taking place in 1533-1536 that lead to the Reformation of the English Church, especially since Anne presumably took part in this initiative.

"Anne of the Thousand Days" won many international awards and received great praise from film-makers worldwide. I recommend it at least for great costumes and setting.

Revue de livre Jean-François Solnon "Henri III"

J’ai toujours été fascinée par le destin des enfants de Catherine de Médicis, surtout celui d’Henri III, avec qui s’éteigne la dynastie de Valois qui a dominé la scène politique de la France entre 1358 et 1589.
L’auteur du livre nous entraine dans l’aventure de sa vie, depuis sa naissance le 19 septembre 1551 à Fontainebleau, jusqu’à sa mort tragique survenue suite à un assassinat le 1er août 1589 au château de Saint-Cloud.
Henri, né Alexandre Édouard, a passé son enfance entre Blois, Fontainebleau, Amboise, Vincennes et Rambouillet à côté de ses frères et soeurs François (II), Charles (IX), Margot (reine de Navarre) et Marie Stuart. Après la mort de François II et l’avènement de Charles IX, en pleine maturité, il devient une sorte de vice-roi et commandant de l’armée responsable de la victoire de Jarnac et du siège de la Rochelle. Même si son comportement s’avérait plutôt ultra-catholique, Solnon exclue toute participation d’Henri dans les décisions prises pendant le massacre de la Sainte Barthélemy, premièrement à cause de son esprit tolérant et deuxièmement à cause de sa position comme candidat au trône d’une Pologne quasi-protestante.
Longtemps amoureux de Marie de Clèves il a énormément souffert en apprenant son mariage et puis sa mort. Elle a été la passion de sa vie, même s’il a montré plus tard beaucoup de respect et amour pour sa femme, Louise de Vaudémont.
Pendant le siège de la Rochelle en juin 1572 il apprend son élection au trône de Pologne (grâce à ses qualités militaires) mais ne s’empresse pas d’y partir. La santé fragile de Charles IX lui donne l’espoir d’hériter le trône de la France, ayant l’appui de sa mère Catherine. Il considérait la Pologne comme un exil.
C’est devant la Rochelle et puis dans son chemin vers la Pologne qu’il commence à constituer son entourage privé des futurs mignons: Saint-Luc, Caylus, La Valette, Saint-Sulpice, François d’O.
L’aventure de Pologne a été un échec. Aussitôt qu’il a appris la mort de son frère en juin 1574 la fuite vers la France devient inévitable.
C’est vrai que jamais aucun prince n’avait été plus impatiemment attendu par la France. Jeune, intelligent, bon militaire, religieux et bureaucrate, Henri III possédait toutes les qualités pour continuer la tradition de son grand-père François I.
Malgré les espérances, 15 ans plus tard, il devenait le plus détesté, haï et calomnié roi que la France a jamais eu. Ce qui me parait le plus curieux est notamment son caractère trop alternant et inconstant. Dans sa jeunesse il a démontré des capacités excellentes comme capitaine, guerrier, homme politique, mais aussi intellectuel raffiné (beaucoup plus raffiné que ses frères et qui avait plutôt des affinités intellectuelles avec sa sœur Marguerite). Toute l’Europe le voyait comme un autre François I. Mais dans la seconde moitié de sa vie, après avoir occupé le trône de la France, il se montre faible, craignant, instable. Sa prédilection pour la pénitence, la douleur, la foi excessive aussi comme son attachement à quelques bourgeois qu’il préfère dans son entourage plus que les membres de sa famille, relève un autre Henri, que sa mère Catherine ne connaissait pas, que la France ne pouvait pas anticiper. Comment a pu-t-il changer de cette manière en quelques années? Le vainqueur de Jarnac devient le roi désarmé, envahi par l’autorité des Guises et le travesti à mœurs dubitatifs…
Solnon explique cette transformation par la situation de la France à la fin du XVIème siècle: le pays étant divisé entre protestants et catholiques après huit guerres de religion, l’autorité royale ruinée.  Les passions ultra catholiques ont condamné Henri à la guerre contre les protestants et à défendre sa position contre le Balafré (François de Guise) qui a signé un traité d’alliance avec l’Espagne dans l’espoir de succéder au trône de la France. Monsieur son frère, François d’Anjou a aussi contribué à l’impopularité du roi par ses nombreuses fuites, révoltes et rêves de conquérir un royaume. Après sa mort en 1584, le duc de Guise devient l’ennemi numéro 1 d’Henri.  La vie du roi reste en danger surtout après l’occupation de la capitale par les ligueurs en 1588. Il est impuissant et faible, forcé d’exclure Henri de Navarre de la succession.
Á l’occasion des États Généraux de Blois, le soir de Noël 1588 Henri III donne l’ordre de tuer le duc de Guise, suite à une nécessité politique. Mais la paix ne s’installe ni dans son pays ni dans son âme. Plus acharnés que jamais, les ligueurs ne désirent que la vengeance de leur chef et organise l’assassinat du roi, le 1er août 1589, par l’intermédiaire d’un moine fanatique, Jacques Clément.
Le dernier Valois disparait ainsi sans héritier, laissant une nation plongée dans le désastre de la guerre civile. Pour la première fois personne n’a prononcé la célèbre formule: "Le roi est mort, vive le roi!" car la perspective d’un roi protestant était à ce moment-là innaceptable. Pourtant, après des luttes sanglantes et sa conversion au catholicisme, Henri IV, le premier Bourbon, accédera au trône de la France et initiera l’ère de la modernité.

Un bon livre, très compacte et objectif, à recommander pour des études sur la personnalité d’Henri III ainsi que pour une lecture agréable.

Voilà quelques citations que j’ai particulièrement aimé:

"La popularité d’Henri n’avait été qu’un soleil de janvier"
"Ce que j’aime c’est avec extrémêté" (Henri III)
"Il (le roi) redoute la défaite catholique, cependant il la désire"
"Mon fils, c’est bien taillé, mais il faut coudre" (Catherine de Médicis à propos de l’assassinat du duc de Guise)

Possible reasons for Anne Boleyn’s downfall

Anne Boleyn is one of my favorite personalities in the history of England. Her rise and fall have always been sympathetic to most history passionates and her fate caused many controversial discussions over the last 500 years since her death. So far, I know several alleged reasons for her downfall, though I do not totally agree with them and doubt they are based on real facts.

- The guilt of adultery summoned her as traitor to the Crown. She has been accused of intimate relationships with her brother George and some other men. Who could believe such a non-sense? Anne was too well educated and respectful of her family to be able to commit such an immorality. She cared too much for her position as queen to imperil it as did Catherine Howard. The testimony of Countess of Worcester and the poem of Lancelot de Carles were taken  as only proof, which in our days is not sufficient evidence. Moreover, the investigation lasted only 17 days. The time was too short to clarify things in a proper manner.

- Henry was deceived in Anne due to her frequent miscarriages. This is probably the most powerful argument in his decision to get rid of her. It’s true, she failed to produce a male heir during their three years of marriage but even so, he was too harsh on her. Anne was fully aware of the huge responsibility on her shoulders and thus put under a lot of pressure. I don’t think she had fertility problems but stress might obviously affect the normal development of pregnancies. Henry was too hasty, she was too eager to offer him what he wanted and so her hours were counted. Let’s not forget that the king lived with Catherine of Arragon for 24 years and she only produced a girl, the future Mary I. If Anne had been spared her death I am sure she could have given him many sons.

- Anne dug her own grave by showing too much of her character. Yes, her strong personality charmed Henry VIII before they were married but irritated him after. She was indeed very ambitious, straightforward, sincere, jealous, proud and impulsive which caused her great trouble in the relationship with her husband, Thomas Cromwell and other members of the court who either adored her or hated her deeply. But that could hardly be a reason to imprison or kill someone.

- Thomas Cromwell’s dislike of Anne and the fear for his own position determined his plotting against her, even before Henry had anything to do with it. There was no evidence of her being unfaithful, so he had to find it. Cromwell was more of a pro-Spanish partisan while Anne, due to her education in France, has always shown more interest in a French alliance. There was also another issue between them concerning the dissolution of monasteries, an affair entirely controlled by Cromwell. The two enemies were constantly and visibly competing over Henry’s mind, but unfortunately for Anne, some additional circumstances determined the king to claim her disgrace. The beheading of Cromwell followed soon after, but at that particular moment his position at court was not threatened.

- Some say that the appearance of Jane Seymour in Henry VIII’s life determined his cruel attitude towards Anne and his urgent desire to get rid of her. I do not agree here. Jane was the right girl at the right moment, when the king needed a new hope for his descendancy. And we all know how easily he was sometimes influenced and how changing was his mood. He met Jane, fell for her and saw in her a possible match, especially since she seemed to be everything Anne wasn’t: shy, obedient, submissive.

- According to popular belief of 16th century England, Anne Boleyn was a witch. I am sure Thomas Cromwell and the other members of the court initiated the rumors and you know how superstitious people can be. A terrible story of her miscarrying a deformed fetus was circulating throughout the country but no such evidence ever existed.

- Anne’s Reformist ideas led her into trouble. I do not totally agree with this argument. As part of the Boleyn faction Anne clearly supported new ideas and the transformation of the English church but she never exaggerated her faith nor imposed her opinions on others. Henry’s break with Rome was entirely his own intention but Anne had to bear the consequences.

I sometimes wonder what could have happened to Anne if she succeeded to produce a son during her short reign. Her fate would have certainly been different. Nonetheless, she and Henry were too similar in character to have a long-lasting and peaceful relationship.

Just received from Amazon Eric Ives’ book on “The life and death of Anne Boleyn” and can hardy wait to devour it during my vacation. Perhaps I would find other arguments to delight you with next time!