MovieChat Forums > Ace_Spade > Replies
Ace_Spade's Replies
He got the last position, which is just as sought-after as the first. So many films have that, "and featuring X as Y" credit come up right at the end (I'm pretty sure Sean Connery got it in The Untouchables). It seems to be used for situations exactly like this one where the biggest name they get (Patrick Stewart) is playing a smaller character (the villain, here, or a mentor with Connery). The lead character still gets the top billing, but they save a sweet spot right at the end for the big-name guy to get his due.
No. I pretty much agreed with the sentiment expressed so eloquently by the Dead Kennedys as covered in the film.
I'll agree with you that O'Toole was underused, but that's for plot reasons, not performance or characterisation.
I don't think the intention was ever to make them match up. Casanova is telling Edith his story. He makes himself a quirky, charming, affable scamp. The real Casanova is less romantic. O'Toole delivers more of a sense of lechery rather than frivolity or fun, and I think that's the point: the story isn't necessarily a lie, but it's not 100% truth, either. The different styles we see are (a) because Casanova has been beaten down by life, but (more importantly) (b) because Casanova the man and Casanova the character aren't the same person.
In addition to kaparotpov pointing out the historical accuracy of racial diversity in the European courts of the day (for goodness' sake, Othello's high status in Venice wasn't a problem for Shakespeare's audiences, let alone Casanova's), I'd also like to add this: even if history wouldn't back up diversity (which it would), there is always the fact that this depiction is non-literal - *especially* the scenes where Casanova is telling his story. He isn't a reliable narrator and is fancifying half of it.
Furthermore, do you recollect the scenes of courtiers commenting on Casanova's "outrageous" Italian accent? They aren't pretending to painstaking historical accuracy, anyway.
I actually thought that the moral creeping in at the end was at odds with some of the earlier scenes.
The second half of the second part seemed to be wagging its finger at Casanova. The culmination of his depravity was, of course, the scene with Jack in Naples. Likewise, the scene with Old Casanova where he rails at Edith and chases her away was getting pretty dark.
I enjoyed those elements coming in to play to show the dark side of Casanova. His perverse side was played mostly for laughs and his capricious nature was romanticised during the flashbacks. I thought that they were going to spin our heads around, make us dislike this fellow whom we have fallen for thanks to Tennant's charms. But, ultimately, I thought they didn't go far enough. It seemed only lip service at the end and the weight of those dark scenes never balanced or surpassed the uproarious fun of the flashback/story scenes.
It was a bit like much of Baz Luhrmann's work, really. Consider Gatsby: we're supposed to find ourselves disdainful of the vapid partying, but Luhrmann is so keen to make his party scenes look marvelous that we never really dislike the notion of being part of that crowd.
For the record, I do like Gatsby, just as I like Casanova, but I felt like Casanova didn't twist the dagger in the right places, so to speak.
Because the Japanese were in tunnels through the place. Battleships have massive guns, yes. Do you know how long they'd take to pound a cliff into the ground? That's a lot of time and ammunition. For a more cynical reason? It's probably a lot more "cost effective" to just throw waves of guys at the cliff than to constantly pummel it with shells.