Maria Callas

Just watched the film at a film festival. Our entire group was disappointed by what we watched.

The story line was paper thin to us, focused on the last part of her life, with major parts of the history around how events tied together left out. We would move from one scene to another without a clear link between sequences.

The focus seemed to center around Jolie posing for us, rather removed of the charm of the real Maria. I get it - Angelina is gorgeous but where was the spark?

I never felt like I connected with the characters and didn't feel bought into the film. There was a hollowness to this version of Maria Callas.

At the end of the film, as the end credits start, there are scenes of the real Maria Callas - full of personality and charisma - which were unfortunately not portrayed in Jolie's performance.

Gorgeous costume designs but that was it for me.

I have to say director Pablo Larrain's 2024 entry into his iconic 20th-century women trilogy was a disappointment. It starts with the casting as Angelina Jolie may be too iconic herself to portray supreme diva Maria Callas, the least remembered of the trio, the other two being "Jackie" (2016) and Diana in "Spencer" (2021). Jolie conveys the necessary self-possession to carry off the regal image of the world's greatest opera singer, but physically she looks too skeletal to emulate convincingly the more robust figure Callas struck. Written by Steven Knight, the lugubrious, longish film covers the last week of Callas's life in 1977 Paris, a fictionalized account with inevitable flashbacks that cumulatively plays out like a ghost story. All the production elements like the burnished cinematography and set details are impressively handled, but Larrain's creative choices are more arguable, for example, the hallucinogenic images of choruses of people singing back to her in public spaces. There is the ambiguous role of an interviewer (opaquely played by Kodi Smit-McPhee) with the same name as her prescription medication who forces her to confront her legacy. Some of the flashbacks signal more intriguing elements to her story like her rather inchoate relationship with Aristotle Onassis, her traumatizing encounters with Nazis when she was a child, and an intriguing conversation with JFK (played by Caspar Phillipson cast in the same, somewhat inconsequential role in "Jackie"). Her cloistered existence is leavened only by two devoted servants played poignantly by Pierfrancesco Favina and Alba Rohrwacher. Still Jolie's star power has a showcase befitting of her singular talent to convey hubris and vulnerability at almost the same time.

I understand the criticism of this movie. The lip synching was indeed terrible. And the writer and director did Callas a personal disservice by focusing on this part of her life, when she was crazy and high and alone. But I don't believe a biopic has a responsibility to show a person's entire life. It can show a portion, if meaningful and true - which this was, even if it was unflattering. The sad decay of a brilliant life is a story worth telling, and this was told with tenderness.

The flashbacks could have added more value and depth by following a linear plot, showing the arc of Callas's career, her great love story and the many sides of her personality. They could have done more to educate viewers about who she was, the complexity of her character and her artistic process. But the director chose instead to play her life back as her own mind might have in those last few days: fragmented, intense last gasps. We see her grapple with pride and regret, asking herself if it was all enough. It's as much a movie about the act of dying as it is about her, and for that I found it beautiful.

Jolie did better than I expected, and I even think she looked like Callas in the black and white scenes. Too beautiful, but Jolie possesses a similar woundedness that translated certain elements sufficiently. While she captured Callas's tortured and demure sides, she did not capture her charisma, temper or ruthless perfectionism. It was a valiant attempt at a role no one could have played perfectly. Callas was untouchable in life, and knowing she still is in death made me love her even more.

In short, the movie was imperfect but its intention was sincere. A deep love for Callas came through that made it worth watching, if you can focus on the story being told instead of the story you wish were being told.

This movie came as a pleasant surprise to me.

It is not only the great,studied performance by Jolie,an actress that hadn't really convinced me of her ability to act up to now. Nevertheless,in this movie,all the self-admiring,borderline narcissistic traits are absent.

Jolie,immerses herself in Maria's fragile, overall declining character and produces a more than convincing portrait worth accolades.

The representation of the era is quite meticulous too.

The really pleasant surprises are the directorial approach and the screenplay.

Focusing on her last week before dying it has a balanced approach to her memories through few flashbacks,her past and current relations,her adoration of music and opera,her failing health,her feeble attempts for a comeback,her warped perception of reality through the use of a slew of barbiturates,her nostalgia,her need for adulation and love. All in proper doses.

A fine two hours spent getting in touch with Maria..not the Callas!!!

Pablo Larraín's film Maria attempts to portray the life of the famous opera singer Maria Callas, but it doesn't fully capture her strength and mystery. The film focuses mainly on the tragic aspects of her life, such as her difficult relationship with Onassis, the pressure of her career, and the pain caused by her fame. It is a film about sadness and suffering, but it misses the opportunity to highlight her immense talent and the beauty of her voice.

Nevertheless, the film does have its strengths. The cinematography is stunning, and Larraín's direction captures the heavy atmosphere of Callas' life well. The film subtly portrays the loneliness of her existence. The costumes and sets are beautiful and provide a visual tribute to the opera world in which Callas lived. The music is also well-chosen and creates some emotional moments that deepen the story.

One of the biggest issues with the film is the casting of Angelina Jolie in the lead role. She is a talented actress, but her appearance doesn't quite align with how Maria Callas looked. Callas had a very unique, but not "perfect" face-her face was full of emotion and vulnerability, which made her so human and real. Jolie's face often looks too polished, making it harder to see the true Maria Callas. Instead of Callas, the viewer mostly sees Angelina Jolie.

The film also lacks balance between showing Callas' sadness and celebrating her incredible musical talent. Callas' voice was one of the most beautiful in opera, and it's a shame that the film focuses so much on the difficult moments of her life. Yes, her life was filled with pain, but it would have been good to also show how magical her performances were, how technically skilled she was, and how much passion she put into every aria. A film about Callas should not only show her as a victim, but also as the great artist she was, who captivated the world again and again with her art.

If Maria Callas had seen this film, she might have felt uncomfortable. Instead of a film that celebrates her talent and voice, we get a somber portrait of her life, with little room for the beauty that defined her career. The film emphasizes her pain, rather than her most glorious moments. This is not what she deserved. Maria Callas deserves more than a film that focuses solely on her sorrow. She deserves a film that celebrates her as the legendary artist she was.