Posted by Michael Bérubé October 21, 2007 in Art
(1) Julie Taymor is a genius (and perhaps even a Super Genius) who
(2) has the most striking and inventive visual imagination of, like, anybody ever and
(3) I’m just guessing here, but on stage and screen, “directors” tend to be “guys,” and if Julie Taymor were a “guy” I betcha millions more people would know (1) and (2). Not that she isn’t acclaimed or anything; she is. I believe she was the first woman to win a Tony for directing a musical, and she has her share of devoted fans. But still. You get my point, I’m sure.
46 Responses to “Three-point review of Across the Universe and Julie Taymor in general”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
The movie was visually impressive, but do I have permission to complain about the movie’s plot (or lack thereof)?
No.
And this post is mine, by the way, so this answer is definitive.
The plot was a little weird, but overall, I was satisfied with the movie experience. I was more enamored with the fact that (1) Bono sung “I Am The Walrus” with The Edge on guitar and (2) a lot of it was set in my home, the Lower East Side of NY.
Julie’s definitely good with her direction, and no one can deny her that.
Every generation needs a Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band, and with half the Gibb Brothers and George Burns gone…
Seriously, though, go watch Titus; it’s kick-ass.
Julie is brilliant. And I would think that even had she not taught the non-modern, non-ballet, hippie toddler dance class I was in as a toddler born to hippies.
Raising your kids in a college town: priceless.
I can’t get the draft induction scene from this movie out of my head, especially the inductees trudging over the jungle carrying the Statue of Liberty as they sing “She’s So Heavy.” It was absolutely stunning.
Perhaps even a Super Genius
But does it say so on her business cards?
OMG, the draft induction scene, with the Uncle Sam poster singing the opening to “I Want You / She’s So Heavy.” And the way the apartment opens onto the sky when Prudence comes out of the closet (hem). And the bowling-alley scene set to “I’ve Just Seen a Face.” And the psychedelicacies of “I Am the Walrus” and “Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite,” which could have sucked terribly but rocked from start to animated finish, with nods to Yellow Submarine and Moulin Rouge and god knows what else.
And then the sheer counterintuitive brilliance of using “Strawberry Fields Forever” not as an evocation of an idyll or another green world but as a meditation on carpet bombing and blood and guts and pop art. Un-effing-real.
Any one of these sequences, on its own, would be genius. Strung together, they are Super Genius.
You know what else was Super Genius? The background choreography. From the football players surrounding Prudence singing “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” (watch it carefully — it starts with blocking and gets more and more mannered and surreal until it looks like lindy-hopping) to the suits dancing in front of 6th Avenue’s XYZ buildings to “Come Together,” it’s also Super Genius. And then there’s the way minor characters chip in on the backing vocals, from “It Won’t Be Long” to “Hey Jude.” Extra super genius.
I couldn’t agree with this statement anymore. THANK YOU for posting this. I loved the movie, it was so tactile and sensual and alive. It made me just want to feel things.
And I just want to throw out there, as I have a million times since it first happened, that if Julie Taymor was, say, Wes Anderson or Noah Baumbach or Michel Gondry there’d be ZERO possibility of Joe Roth (director of Christmas with the Kranks, everyone!) “cutting” one of their films to make it “more audience friendly.” But that’s exactly the threat Taymor was faced with. (it eventually never materialized. But it was a well-publicized knock on the movie before it was even released.)
No, if she were any of the above male filmmakers, we’d get to hear lots and lots about her “daring innovation” and her “fearless originality.” Instead we hear, Crazy little theater lady don’t know what she’s doing!!! As another example, check out Sophia Coppola and Marie Antoinette. Or, you know, any female filmmaker since the dawn of time.
(This year at Cannes, former Palme d’Or winners were invited to make a short film illustrating their feelings towards and about cinema. Jane Campion, the only female director to ever win the Palme d’Or, made a short called The Lady Bug, wherein a woman in a ladybug costume is stomped to death in a cinema by men’s shoes. Need we say more?)
1. Agreed
2. Hard to top Baz Luhrmann, but it’s a fair argument
3. Agreed.
That said, I can’t do this movie because I’ve got Boomer fatigue; as a Gen-Xer, I’ve been hearing about the splendor of the Baby Boomers since 1974 or so, and frankly, I reached my limit round about 1985. Not that Boomers aren’t generally nice people, but really, I’ve learned enough about the sixties. Can’t we move on to, like, the seventies at some point?
How about a link?
Let me second norbizness re: Titus, the DVD of which also has truly excellent special features.
But does it say so on her business cards?
no, her business cards proudly announce her background in psychotherapy, as both a talented analyst and therapist.
While you’re at it, try to find a DVD of her production of Stravinski’s Oedipus.
What I loved most about the movie was the incredible way it captured the chaos of 1967-69 America. And the scene of the child singing Let It Be in the midst of the Detroit riots was unbelievably haunting.
I’ve learned enough about the sixties. Can’t we move on to, like, the seventies at some point?
You’re in luck, Jeff! I heard a rumor that I’m Getting Closer to My Home, a musical fantasia based on the work of Grand Funk Railroad, starts production next year.
Funny thing about Titus, though. I saw it when it came out, and had just bet a friend that Julie Taymor was so talented she could take the Worst Shakespeare Play Evah and make it interesting.
And Norbiz, what’s all this about George Burns being gone? I just spoke to him this morning.
Dr. Bérubé, I heard a 70’s musical called Ride Captain Ride was in the works, using all the hits of Blues Image to paint a picture of the contrasts the 70’s represented:
…from Nixon to Carter, the end of the Vietnam War to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran, from walking on the moon to shaking hands with Russians in space, from the trials of the Manson Family to Patty Hearst and the Hillside Strangler, from the rise in profile for Gays after Stonewall to the beginnings of AIDS, from Ronald Reagan as Governor of California to Serious Candidate for President, from the best work the Rolling Stones ever did to the rise of Disco…
What A Decade!!!…
…on second thought, can we just skip over the 70’s?…
Too late, MikeEss! The rumor mill is already working overtime now that I’m Getting Closer to My Home and Ride Captain Ride have been mentioned in this thread, and apparently Universal is rushing Fox on the Run into production — a musical fantasia based on the work of The Sweet. I just got hold of the trailer:
1. Yep.
2. Jeunet and Caro did some amazing stuff, the Aussie Baz guy (or is he a Kiwi) is also pretty attuned to the eye candy, and that guy who did those Bjork videos has a great eye for wonderment. Julie Taymor is in good company, but not alone. Terry Gilliam isn’t exactly dead, either (unless you count the box office.)
3. If she’s making movies, and they always get released, that’s pretty damn good for someone who isn’t making the blockbuster star-infused stuff. She’s Terry Gilliam with a better agent (or is it better films?) And I think that Disney will keep her afloat just from the Lion King touring company residuals alone. We’ll see if sexism is a problem for her after she makes a dud.
And for anyone in NYC, see her Magic Flute. I went 2 years in a row, and if I liked that particular opera more (let’s just say the second half–the ponderous Masonic half–drags), I’d see it again this year, because sweet god below, her staging is brilliant.
“…apparently Universal is rushing Fox on the Run into production — a musical fantasia based on the work of The Sweet.”
Damn! I was hoping the ’70’s would be quietly forgotten and slip silently into the obscurity they so richly deserve…
And then the sheer counterintuitive brilliance of using “Strawberry Fields Forever” not as an evocation of an idyll or another green world but as a meditation on carpet bombing and blood and guts and pop art. Un-effing-real.
That sequence is still dueling it out with the “Let It Be” sequence for my favorite of the movie. I think “Strawberry Fields Forever” wins just for sustained awesomeness, but the little boy singing as he hides behind a burnt-out car still haunts me.
We’re “Saccharine,” a loving tribute to Sweet!
Think she’ll be nominated for Best Director at the Oscars? No woman has ever won. The critics seem to be hating on Across the Universe, but they can’t knock the directing.
Thanks for posting this! I LOVED this movie.
I’m a huge Beatles fan and usually, I hate Beatles covers. But these, I thought were really more re-arrangements of the songs. Though the songs were sometimes performed very differently from the originals, they were still strangely true to the originals, too. The original recordings were paid attention to so carefully in crafting the new ones, and it was such a pleasure for my Beatles-nut ears. I think that most bigtime Beatles fans would agree that we tend to know the songs and all of their little quirks like the backs of our hands, and to see them maintained and noticed by someone else was just incredibly cool. It was also great that whoever chose the songs also has the same exact taste in Beatles songs as I do. Which is a rarity, because Beatles projects usually rely so heavily on their earlier and less-intelligent/inventive work.
The visuals definitely were stunning, as well. In addition to the brilliant I Want You (She’s So Heavy), I also loved the Strawberry Fields sequence for its visuals, the Revolution sequence for its execution, Hey, Jude (a song that I actually don’t really like that much) for its great arrangement and clever usage and Let it Be for its pure beauty. I seriously did tear up during Let it Be. That song always gets to me for some reason, but that little kid could SING and the gospel choir was just amazing. Oh, and when they were doing A Little Help From My Friends, and switched midway from the Beatles arrangement to the arguably more-famous Joe Cocker/Wonder Years arrangement, I thought that it was both brilliant and hilarious.
Yeah, the plot was weird/stupid, but you know what? I didn’t care. At all.
And I’m going to stop gushing now. But seriously. Loved it.
Across the Universe was a lot of fun if you just take it as a series of playful (and yes, visually stunning) riffs on Beatles songs. Which is a perfectly fine thing for a movie to be.
The plot was awful, and insofar as the movie was attempting to say anything, whatsoever, politically about the 1960s/1970s it failed miserably, becoming almost exploitative at some points.
Also, the whole thing was wildly derivative of Moulin Rouge, from the pre-credits plaintive-singing opening to the “boy takes a stand, singing “All You Need Is Love” moment to the whole visual style weaving reality & psychedelia together. Though Taymor did a good job translating that effect from 1899 Paris to 1960s America.
politically about the 1960s/1970s it failed miserably, becoming almost exploitative at some points
Exploitative of what, exactly? Just curious. . . .
Yep, she is good. We used to have good directors in Britain but now they are all too self consciously weird in the hope of attracting Hollywood offers “Ohh look everyone, I direct movies that are whacky and off the wall and are bound to become cults.”
I’m mentioning no names but if you thought of Mr. Madonna you would be on the right track.
“Can’t we move on to, like, the seventies at some point?”
It’s not a a movie. But the newest American Girl is a girl of the ’70’s.
Haven’t seen it yet, but it’s on my list, and hearing others’ comments has got me all het up. Loved Titus, and her Magic Flute (even though its my least favorite opera). I’m having a hard time convincing my Beatles-purist BF to come with me. For one of my qualifying exams, I wrote about sexual/artistic politics as they applied to Julie Taymor and Robert Wilson (think how male/female corresponds with high/low and avant-gard/mass dichotomies). Julie’s amazing.
>if Julie Taymor was, say, Wes Anderson or Noah Baumbach or Michel Gondry there’d be ZERO possibility of Joe Roth
Tell it to Martin Scorsese or Terry Gilliam, or anyone who crossed the Weinstein brothers. Noah Baumbach, for that matter, spent years trying to get the Squid and the Whale off the ground.
I’m not knocking Taymor. But she’s not unknown- she’s famous enough to be parodied on the Simpsons, and her version of the Lion King has been seen the world over (and is more associated with her than the film version is with its directors, who you’d have to look up to remember their names). Every review of her films that I’ve read, even the negative ones, have praised her visual style. I don’t get how it’s supposed to be a state secret.
Frida
Rent it.
Watch it.
I adore Julie Taymor. On screen and off. But honesty compels me to admit that I hated this movie. Not only do a love Julie Taymor, but I am a monstrously huge Beatles fan as well. Call it the curse of high expectations. It made for a great trailer. I did think it had flashes of brilliance — the induction center was definitely a high point, as was some of her more surreal musical numbers. But I agree with the critics about the lack of plot and character development. My one friend pointed out that TITUS lacked a certain amount of continuity and that “Taymor isn’t about plot. She’s about feeling”. I give her that, but still came away thinking I should know these characters a lot better than I did. Plus, I think Lurhman did it much better in MOULIN ROUGE. Whenever Ewan McGregor started singing and I suddenly realized it was “Your Song” by Elton John, it gave me a double thrill of recognition as well as the glee that it was adorably over the top. In ACROSS THE UNIVERSE it felt stale and cliche. Oh of course her name is Prudence - oh there’s the song! Hey Jude. Yeah, saw that coming. I also thought it took itself way too seriously — a flaw MOULIN ROUGE avoided. From the Cavern Club beginning to the concert on the roof, it left me flat. And believe me, I was SOOOOO rooting for it! I gave it every opportunity. It just didn’t soar. But I have to say, I’m really glad it did work for some, because there’s nothing better than falling in love with a movie that totally makes you soar.
It’s just a music video. A fantastic, gorgeous, tour de force of a music video. Probably the greatest ever made. But a music video nonetheless.
Hmmm . . . it’s derivative, it’s a minor genre, OK, keep ‘em coming. Door prizes will be awarded to the first person to say well, it ain’t exactly The Departed, now. I mean, that’s a masterpiece.
And Davey’s right, Julie Taymor is not unknown (see original post). In fact, she is a MacArthur Fellow, which actually gives her the right to put Julie E. Taymor, Super Genius on the business cards she uses when she deals with Acme Backdrops. So, even though I never thought I’d type these next four words, cheers to Michael Eisner for insisting that she do The Lion King.
Oh, and in defense of Angie’s remark about the crazy theater lady (comment 9), here’s one industry outlet on Ms. Taymor:
QED, guys.
My daughter (13) and I loved it. We decided to see it again as we were leaving the theater. Then I went home and plunked down a gazillion bucks to replace at least some of the old Beatles vinyl I no longer have with CDs. Did you see the movie with Jamie, the ultimate Beatles fan?
Did you see the movie with Jamie, the ultimate Beatles fan?
Oh, yes indeed — once on Saturday, once on Sunday. Jamie was thrilled. And even though I’ll put my Beatles purism up against any Beatles purist’s Beatles purism, I thought many of the arrangements were amazing. “Why Don’t We Do It in the Road” and “Helter Skelter” really do respond well when they’re covered with a hard shell finish, and it was a masterstroke to bring out the gospel affiliations of “Let It Be” for the Detroit riots. “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” as a slow, wistful lament from a gay Asian cheerleader? Go ahead, all you Prudence-deriders, tell me you saw that one coming all the way from Ohio; I’ll believe you, I promise. And the Joe Cocker cameo was a nice touch, too.
As for the shortcomings of the plot: WTF? People go to see a musical fantasia and they’re worried about the plot?
Plots to musicals are simple by necessity. Imagine the convoluted mess you’d have on your hands with a musical version of, say, Syriana. It’d be a non stop nightmare of gibbering nonsense. And do we really want to watch Matt Damon and Alexander Sidig sing a duet about the boy who drowned in the pool/international oil politics?
Michael, I don’t know what to say, but dude, the TRAILER to that movie turned me off to the whole thing, because it frankly made no sense. I don’t know how you can defend something like this, especially considering how overrated the director is.
Anyways, back to Transformers for me…
1. Yes, she is, which is why I would think she could do better than a pale imitation of Hair.
2. She certainly does, which is why much of Across The Universe seems overthought and underwritten.
3. Were she a man, people might feel even more free to point out the self satisfied notion (still) of baby boomers who continue to present the story of the War they ended that… well, they didn’t.
weboy:
1. Have you seen Hair recently? If not, please see it again, and try to tell me with a straight face that it attempts anything like what Taymor does here.
Also, you remember the music from Hair? It sucked. Just sayin’.
2. “Overthought” how and “underwritten” how? (And how can a film be both at the same time?) It’s a musical. Remember West Side Story? The plot was way predictable — and even kind of derivative, I’m told. But the choreography was the shit, and that’s the point.
3. If you think Across the Universe promotes the myth that the boomers ended the war, you are, like, so tripping.
Though I’m still curious to hear how the film was exploitative. Christopher M hasn’t come back, but I was kinda hoping that someone would complain that the movie was completely unfair to the well-meaning, innocent members of Weatherman.
Also, you remember the music from Hair? It sucked. Just sayin’.
You didn’t like lyrics like:
“Gimme a head with hair!/Long, beautiful hair! Shining, gleaming/Streaming, waxen, flaxen”?
Or:
“Gliddy glub gloopy/Nibby nabby noopy/La la la lo lo/Sabba sibby sabba/Nooby abba nabba/Le le lo lo”?
I mean, “Good Morning Starshine” is the most painfully bad song in history (or at least it was until the release of “My Humps”), but does that mean that all the music from Hair was terrible?
I say yes. It was.
I swear to the Disco Ball that I came back & explained what I meant by exploitative, but somehow or another the comment isn’t here.
But briefly: the “Let it Be” scene, for example. It was powerful when the boy was singing, but to show him laid out in a coffin…it was too much for me. I think if you’re going to evoke emotion by using pictures of dead black kids being mourned in church after being shot dead in a riot, you really ought to be taking the struggle and the trauma of that era seriously. And (whatever Taymor’s intentions) I don’t think the film really did.
That said, I’ve been listening to the soundtrack and it’s great. I knew “I Want to Hold Your Hand” was catchy, but I didn’t know it was beautiful.
Thanks, Christopher! Point taken, though I don’t think “exploitative” is the right word. But what would count as “taking the struggle and the trauma of that era seriously,” in your terms? Because I’d suggest that from Dr. King’s antiwar position to the evolution of SDS, the movie was entirely serious about the struggle and the trauma of that era — much more so than Hair, btw. Now, if you’d made that comment about Forrest Gump, I’d agree with you.
It’s okay, Berube, you’re on a tear, and brooking no dissent. I respect that. I thought Across the Universe, was interesting, but unnecessary exercise in visualizing the Beatles material in light of the era. I happen to like Hair, and it’s music, and it’s general hopefulness a lot. That’s me. I do think that the Beatles lyrics - which can be quite opaque - were not helped by the stagings in Across the Universe, especially stuff like “For the Benefit of Mr. Kits” and “I am The Walrus” which also suffer from their pseychedelica roots. (And don’t get me wrong, even though I’m not the biggest Beatles fan, I think the music in Across the Universe was actually one of its best assets). The film’s weakest point, it struck me, was that script - often banal, often little more than stringing together song titles and sixties era platitudes to get us to the nest number - which is not, depsite yoour dismissal of the musical as a form, what most musicals do - West Side Story happens to be well written, witha great score, and yes, exceptional dancing on top of all that. Across The Universe is more likely to be an interesting curiosity than a lasting testament. Taymor has done better, and I expect willl again. I don’t argue with the woman being a genius, just with the film.
It’s okay, Berube, you’re on a tear, and brooking no dissent.
It’s just the way I am! I’m a college professor on The Left, after all, and you know what that means. Thanks for respecting that.
Seriously, it occurs to me if I were really brookin’ no dissent, I would’ve taken issue with Cara in 24 — specifically, with her claim that “Beatles projects usually rely so heavily on their earlier and less-intelligent/inventive work.” This is wrong on two counts: one, the official Beatles canon is weighted very heavily toward their work from 1967-69, as here, even when their musical brilliance is actually dulled by hallucinogens (I mean, c’mon, even “Blue Jay Way” and “Flying” appear in this movie); and two, the earlier work is by no means less intelligent or inventive than the trippy stuff. Remember, these clever young men were writing songs like “Please Please Me” and “This Boy” from the get-go — both of which are just ridiculously complex by pop standards. (And don’t make me drag out the chord progressions in “I Wanna Hold Your Hand,” which were actually a completely new thing for rocnrol.) One of the remarkable things about the early Beatles is that they were experimenting with new sounds and instruments and stuff from the outset. I mean, c’mon, 1964 is insanely early for something like “I Feel Fine.” It’s a shame that so many people think of pre-Pepper Beatles as just a bunch of lovable moptops.
Anyway, thanks for the reply. I respect your misgivings about the script.