Illuminata

This film shines from the loving direction that Tuturro lavishes upon Brandon Cole's screenplay. The entire cast is delightful, with Katherine Borowitz's loving and tormented Rachel and Christopher Walken's sexually aggressive Bevalaqua truly standing out. It was great to see a film about the theatre done so passionately, after the dull and trite "Shakespeare in Love".

I was mesmerized by the performances. Tuturro, Borowitz and Sewell moved so seamlessly in and out of characters that you often felt that you were in "Illuminata".

This film reminded me with an equally remarkable film, Louis Malle's "Vanya on 42nd Street". I'm going to have fire up the laser disc player on that one tonight.

If you are a fan of the theatre or works on the theatre, then "Illuminata" is certainly going to work its magic on you.

"Write what you know about" has long been the dictum for writers ranging all the way from accomplished published authors to struggling composition class students; is there a playwright then who can resist the temptation to compose a play about composing a play? It has, of course, been done countless times in the past ("Shakespeare in Love" being but the most recent popular example), but, alas, rarely as dully as in "Illuminata," Brandon Cole's tale of a turn-of-the-century repertory company struggling, amid personal conflicts, theatrical roadblocks and even death, to produce an original work (itself entitled "Illuminata"). Cole, along with co-writer and director, John Turturro, centers his story on the playwright, Tuccio, (also played by Turturro), as he copes with temperamental actors, theatre owners and critics, all of whom conspire, intentionally or unintentionally, to sabotage his work.

Like so many films that attempt to deal seriously with the creative process, "Illuminata" seems naively to suggest that inspiration can only be achieved after the creator has undergone a series of concomitant life experiences that somehow illuminate the truths hitherto obscured in darkness. Thus, since, in this case, the play-within-the-play deals with the issue of marital infidelity, it is only after the entire cast and crew of the production have participated in a night long sexual roundelay (which consists essentially of switching partners in a style too cute for words) that the play (which failed in its first performance the night before) can come to complete artistic fruition. This cloying and cliched view of theatre as merely a reflection of life (or vice versa) might have been acceptable had the script provided any truly interesting characters, profound insights or satiric wit to carry us through. As it is, though, the characters are both unappealing and woefully underdeveloped, the insights consist of mere self-indulgent paeans to the glory of artistic creation and the humor rests mainly in a series of surprisingly crude illustrations of sexual activity. Furthermore, Turturro is such a dull, uninspiring lead, with his constant sadsack expression and look of pained bewilderment, that he conveys no sense of the dynamism essential to a person capable of producing a work of genius. This leaves the rest of the cast, some of whom are very good, pretty much adrift as they thrash about looking for something solid in the way of character development to hold onto.

Actually, the highlight of this film comes during the opening credit sequence, a beautifully done marionette performance that is almost heartbreaking in its otherworldly beauty and delicacy. It is a measure of the failure of the rest of the film that the audience wishes IT were performed by marionettes as well.

Susan Sarandon! Her work as Celimene is a comic sight to behold. Whenever she's onscreen (which isn't enough) the material's full comedic potential kicks into overdrive. "Illuminata" the movie, leaves a lot to be desired--namely more Susan Sarandon at her most breathtakingly beautiful. At an age when most women give up any hope of ever being thought of as sexually appealing or sexually viable, to be exact, Susan owns her many charms and certainly knows how to make the most of them. Her seduction of Tuccio (played by John Turturro) is one of the most erotic in recent cinematic history. And, that it contains one of the funniest "gradification sequences" ever captured on celluloid just goes to show that no matter what age she may happen to be, the one and only Susan Sarandon is and always will be one of the sexiest women alive and the definitive "thinking man's sex symbol" as well as a truly gifted actress quite adept at comedy. By the way, what you just read was written by a 22 year old man--when it comes to beauty, both inside and out, age is nothing but a number. A virtue that Ms. Sarandon continues to redefine with each passing year. I know a magnificient talent when I see it. Score: The film gets 6 out of 10/B-, Susan Sarandon gets a 10/A+ as always.

Superficially about love (isn't everything?) this effort really concerns itself with a recurring question in theater: how important are the actors?

In recent years, there have been a dozen or so movies by actors that deal with this and insist they are paramount. The most entertaining (in a camp way) is "Wag the Dog," perhaps the most intelligent "Vanya on 42nd St" and the most interesting Branagh's "Midwinter's Night." The most financially successful is "Shakespeare in Love."

This is not a sex farce, nor about love. That's all just grist for motion. Here we have a message from the "puppets," underscored by pleasant framing of the film by puppets. What the writers of this work have done is suggest that the life of any play comes from the lives of the actors. This is in contrast to plays written by genius playwrights like Ibsen, that are merely "performed." For this troupe to have to participate in such an enterprise is seen as hell.

Thus we have their (thinly distilled) lives appear on the stage. Along the way we have an audience that is purely incidental since they don't know what's good anyway. We have the theater owner who likewise is ignorant, but married to a failed thespian who suspects. We have the all-important critic whose real interesting characteristic is not his flamboyant gayness, but his views on art: he values writing, values the fulfillment of the author's intent. So he is particularly vulnerable to being abused. The character is a parody of Wilde who came down strongly on this controversy.

We have the vain celebrity (Sarandon) who does not have the commitment to the art of acting. She briefly tempts our author who really in his heart loves and respects the actors, here represented by the head of the troupe. Sarandon has a speech where she claims she loves the art, but it is clear she loves herself only. Is she a parody on Ellen Terry? Walkin and Sarandon clearly as actors believe in the supremacy of the actor, so in playing the "bad guys" they overly ham it up so that we know where they really stand. In so doing, they undercut their purported honor somewhat. Rather unsettling, especially so since they are amusing at it.

And we also have the troupe itself. They do double duty here: first showing honest commitment. Second providing the material that appears in the play, each representing a distinct stereotype. Wheels turn, people love and not, die and not. This strange crew (and any like it) we are told is worth it despite the strangeness. Along the way many writers are quoted from the Greeks through Chekhov. This is not new stuff, as noted above, but once you know what it is about it is well enough done. However, there is only so much reward one can get, the work can only go but so deep when it is turned over to actors. See where I stand?

If you come looking for a sex farce where the theater is incidental, your mistake will lead you to disappointment as it clearly did many who commented before me.

This is something to watch! A beautiful soundtrack, an excellent cast, and untouchable screen writing! Comedy and drama are woven inextricably well together in it--though I'm of a mind to throw it into the comedy category as it is quite the gut-buster.

Tuturro is indefatigably adorable (literally) as per the usual custom, while his lovely long-time partner Borowitz achieves an austere yet at the same time sensual sort of emotional anchor in the film. Sewell, gorgeous as always, makes for an excellently vain and superficial thespian. Hilarity, however, takes the stage before all else, spinning itself into and around the players and the plot. Spinning around like clandestine lovers, 5-foot bureaus, and pale-faced Pieros--all swirling about between worlds behind and before the red curtain.

Old-timers Sarandon, Walken, D'Angelo, & Gazzara (a theatrical whore, a Wildean "macaroni queen", a stuffy unfulfilled power-wife, and an Old-Father Hubbard respectively) seem to enjoy taking a break from the rigmarole of Hollywood blockbusters and relaxing into the comfort of off-beat but positively unforgettable roles. Least forgettable among them, however, is Walken and his dance of seduction, which will most undoubtedly sear itself permanently into the back of anyone's brain.

Cates, Irwin, Bassi, Behar, Aida, Sussman, and McCann are all indispensable as well, even though I list them in shameful lump here; due time for each would have the film extended another 2 hours, but what is given of them still allows each thespian to shine superbly nevertheless. They are simply smaller gems in the treasure chest this film is.

Too many people have compared it to Shakespeare in Love and other mainstream films--but mainstream it is not. Don't bother to comment on it if you confuse it with them and disdain it insofar as it does not compare with them; you only show that you don't understand it. Understand in its stead that "not getting it" is okay. For those who say, "Poor Tuccio: he was so young, and so untalented," (:-D) know that for the rest of us, the film is almost flawlessly styled, each and every moment an essential thread of a tapestry, silk and gold studded in emeralds and rubies. Yeah, a lot like that.

Much like the play it centers on, Illuminata, it is hard for most people to understand it seems; one of its primary themes I would say, if it must be stated overtly, is that the imperfection of life prevails. But don't read too hard into that either, friend; the film "goes in the wind, like someone that knows their way," which is to say that it 'floats' along. But what many mistake for meaningless meandering is really its fluidity, its subtle weaving. It is a film meant to be enjoyed thoroughly, like fine wine, to use a cliché; an opportunity to cut loose and laugh at the absurdity of it all, life that is. Even the tragic heroine played by Borowitz, whom we all agree is most noble and flawless in the beginning, in the end we see, is flawed. Each of them: flawed. And that's okay; in fact, that's the point.

Thus, I give this a 10 out of 10 because I am satisfied in all respects with the film. Its soundtrack (which I bought), its cinematography (ooh la la), its cast (magnifico), plot (incandescent), and dialog (hilarious)--are all artfully interwoven, making it a gem unfortunately overlooked or misunderstood by the general public.

Oh, and by the way: the puppets are just meant to be pretty, friends. Representative in some instances of the scenes to follow, but for aesthetic effect mainly (kudos on the puppeteering & puppets themselves).

"Tuccio! Tuccio! Tuccio!"