CHINESE BOX
John: Jeremy Irons
Vivian: Gong Li
Jean: Maggie Cheung
Chang: Michael Hui
Jim: Ruben Blades
Directed by Wayne Wang. Written by Jean-Claude Carriere and Larry Gross.Running time: 100 minutes. Rated R (for language and some sexual content).
My Opinion
Quick Summary:
Jeremy Irons roams the streets of Hong Kong, filming documentary footage, in this allegorical tale of the Chinese takeover.
Review:Chinese Box is a fascinating little character study, very enjoyable and engrossing, if you are willing to just relax and let it's characters unfold before you.
The setting is Hong Kong in the time before the changeover of power from the British to the Chinese. Jeremy Irons plays John, a journalist who has lived on the island for 15 years, and wants desperately to try to understand/document the city he loves before it changes forever. Later in the film, he is diagnosed with leukemia, and his quest takes on a new urgency.
There is not much plot to speak of. Instead, we are asked simply to follow along, observing the characters just as John observes Hong Kong through his camera lens. Normally, I would find fault with this, but the characters of Chinese Box are all beautifully written and interesting in their own ways, so that being a voyeur in their lives is compelling and satisfying even without a plot. Frankly, I think that an overriding plotline would have gotten in the way in this film.
The characters are all acted very well, with a subtlety that makes them all seem very real. John is one of Irons' most 'normal' characters to date, and he plays him very honestly and with a sincere passion. Maggie Cheung as Jean is ethereal, but very natural. The director films in a documentary-style, which increases the feeling of being a voyeur..but he doesn't get so carried away with the hand-held camera that it becomes a nuisance.
Chinese Box is like a filmed love letter to the city of Hong Kong, and it has many allegorical elements: John representing the 'dying' British influence on the city, and so on. It is fascinating and probably deserves more than one viewing.
Overall Rating : ****1/2 out of *****
Irons Appeal Rating:
9 out of 10!! If you like a more casual and relaxed Jeremy look, this is the movie for you! Jeremy in jeans, and khakis and t-shirts, with tousled hair, and generally looking comfortable and cuddly! I approve!
Ebert's Opinion
BY ROGER EBERT
I have always been drawn toward stories of exile and expatriation, of people living as strangers in strange lands. I enjoy their bittersweet longing for other places and other friends. Jeremy Irons plays John, a character with
some of those feelings, in ``Chinese Box,'' Wayne Wang's film about the last days of British colonialism in Hong Kong.
John is not a sentimentalist about the purpose of Britain's long dominion in its last Asian colony; his latest book is titled How to Make Money in Asia. But he has grown accustomed to Hong Kong, to his crowded little room, to his regular haunts, to his guitar-playing friend Jim (Ruben Blades), and especially to Vivian (Gong Li), the bar girl he is in love with. He doesn't want to give it up and go ``home'' to England--especially not after he learns he has leukemia and can expect to live about six months.
``I wonder if I can hold out longer than the British,'' he muses. John looks, as Jeremy Irons often does, underfed and vaguely ill. He has the sad dignity of the intelligent loser. He met Vivian in Beijing, where she was a prostitute; they might have married then, but ``it slipped away,'' and now she owns a popular club, and is ``engaged'' to the man who bought it for her, Chang (Michael Hui). ``You can spend your whole life waiting for Chang
to marry you,'' John warns, correctly guessing that Chang's reputation will not withstand marriage to a hooker. But Chang leads her on, even posing for a fake ``wedding photo,'' and besides--Chang is the future, and poor hangdog John is the imperialist past.
The movie unfolds episodically. The screenplay by Larry Gross and
Jean-Claude Carriere is based on a story by Carriere, Wang and Paul Theroux--whose latest novel, Kowloon Tong, tells of another hapless Briton stranded by the change of guard. John wanders the streets, courts Vivian,hangs out with Jim, attends a final New Year's Eve party, takes video pictures and (after his diagnosis) begins to look around even more intensely, as if aware time is running out on his eyes and ears.
He sees a curious street sprite, a woman who conceals her face with a scarf and runs scams. She sells everything from pirated videos to cans of pre-changeover Hong Kong air. Her name is Jean, and she is played by the Hong Kong action star Maggie Cheung with a defiant, improvisational air: She may be homeless and broke, but Hong Kong is a place of opportunity, and if she is clever enough she will succeed. Jean is the most interesting character in the film because she is unpredictable; John and Vivian seem
locked into their destinies.
Jean's scarf conceals a badly scarred face, and eventually John gets her to tell her story to his video camera, by paying her. We begin to see a pattern emerging. Just as Vivian sees John as the past, the film sees Vivian as the past, and Jean as the future: In the emerging Hong Kong, glamorous bar girls and their rich tourist clients will be replaced by a tougher generation,
wounded but resilient. (Jean's scars came after a teenage suicide attempt inspired by--yes, her British boyfriend.)
One character in the movie describes the departure of the British as ``like a change of management in a department store.'' But Wayne Wang, born in Hong Kong, now an American director (``The Joy Luck Club,'' ``Smoke''), expressed more ambiguity in introducing the film at the Toronto Film Festival: ``I didn't realize how much the English had always been a part of my life; I was surprised, when the flag came down, by my sense of loss.'' Perhaps Vivian will feel the same way when John dies. And Jean? Will she miss him? Perhaps,but for her tomorrow is always another day.
3 Stars.
Copyright © Chicago Sun-Times Inc.
THE MAN IN THE IRON MASK
King Louis/Phillippe: Leonardo DiCaprio
Aramis: Jeremy Irons
Athos: John Malkovich
Porthos: Gerard Depardieu
D'Artagnan: Gabriel Byrne
Queen Anne: Anne Parillaud
Christine: Judith Godreche
Written and directed by Randall Wallace. Based on the novel by Alexandre
Dumas pere. Running time: 117 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for sequences of
violence and some sensuality/nudity).
My Opinion
Quick Summary: Aging Musketeers come out of returement, facing their own insecurities and conflicts, to depose cruel and snotty King of France with an ingenious bait-and-switch scheme.
Review: The Man in the Iron Mask has some flaws in it's execution, but overall is an enjoyable film, especially for us Irons fans. The most engaging and best-realized aspect of this movie was the emotional innner lives of the aging Musketeers; their various takes on the fact that their once-great selves may now be unneeded and passe makes for wonderful scenes that only leave you wanting more. I could have easily just watched those character studies without any plot.
However, plot we got..and that is where the problems came in. Although it was fairly straightforward, the director took a bit long to unravel it. I'm sure that viewers unfamiliar with the story and setting probably had NO idea what was going on. Generally, the film had problems flowing. There were scene jumps that were abrupt and awkward, and parts that seemed to be lacking important expository moments. At 2 hrs. and 12 min., MIIM still felt rushed because of these errors. I think that with some better attention to editing, and maybe 10 more minutes devoted to backstory, it could have been an excellent film.
As it was, though, MIIM was still pretty good. I have been drooling in anticipation of this cast for a year, and I was not disappointed. The acting from all is wonderful, especially Byrne who just exuded his subtle yearning and pathos. I admit, I was taken aback by Jeremy's turn as Aramis; I've never seen in him such an animated part, that required so much vim and vigor! Certainly a nice change of pace, once you got used to it! DeCaprio was acceptable in his two roles. Although he did a good job with the physical mannerisms, etc. of distinguishing Phillipe from Louis, he did not make me feel anything, either sympathy or dislike, for either character.
Overall Rating : ***1/2 out of *****
Irons Appeal Rating: Off the charts! Oh my!! Probably one of the sexiest Irons parts ever! Run to the theatre! Run, I say! Take chocolate!
Ebert's Opinion
BY ROGER EBERT
On the island of St. Marguerite, offshore from Cannes of all places, still
stands the rude stone fortress where the Man in the Iron Mask spent his
lonely days. I have sat below his window in a little Italian trattoria,
while the owner assured me that the man in the mask was no less than the
twin brother of Louis XIV, held there because the state could not tolerate
another claimant to the throne.
No one knows who the man in the mask was, but his dangerous identity must
have been the whole point of the mask, so the twin brother theory is as good
as any. ``The Man in the Iron Mask'' is ``loosely based'' on the Dumas
novel, and includes a return appearance by the Three Musketeers. They come
out of retirement in a scheme to rescue France from the cruel fist of the
young, spoiled king.
Louis XIV and his brother are played by Leonardo DiCaprio in a dual role,
his first since ``Titanic.'' He looks well-fed as the despotic ruler and not
particularly gaunt, for that matter, as the man in the mask. As the film
opens, he presides over a court that lives in decadent luxury, while street
mobs riot for bread in the streets. The beautiful Christine (Judith
Godreche) catches his eye, and since she's engaged to the young Raoul (Peter
Sarsgaard), the king sends Raoul off to war and makes sure he gets killed
there.
The death of Raoul enrages his father, Athos (John Malkovich), one of the
original musketeers, who enlists his comrades, Aramis (Jeremy Irons) and
Porthos (Gerard Depardieu), in a plan for revenge. Also involved, on the
other side, is the original fourth musketeer, D'Artagnan (Gabriel Byrne),
who remains loyal to Louis XIV and the twins' mother, Queen Anne (Anne
Parillaud).
This set-up, easy enough to explain, takes director Randall Wallace too long
to set up, and there are side plots, such as the king's war against the
Jesuits, that will confuse audiences. There was once a time when everyone
had heard of the musketeers and the Man in the Iron Mask, but history these
days seems to start with the invention of MTV, and those not familiar with
the characters will take some time to get oriented.
The screenplay by Wallace (who wrote ``Braveheart'') is not well-focused,
and there are gratuitous scenes, but finally we understand the central
thread: The musketeers will spring the Man in the Iron Mask from captivity
and secretly substitute him for his brother. The actual mechanics of their
plan left me shaking my head with incredulity. Does anyone think Jeremy
Irons is large enough to smuggle Leonardo DiCaprio past suspicious guards
under his cloak? Wallace should have dreamed up a better plan. The
substitution of the king and his twin is accomplished at a fancy dress ball,
where the conspirators drive Louis XIV wild with fear by convincing him he
sees iron masks everywhere. But the movie, alas, limits itself to the action
in the plot--escapes, sword fights, the frequent incantation ``all for one
and one for all,'' and ignores the opportunity to have more fun with the
notion of a prisoner suddenly finding himself king.
Leonardo DiCaprio is the star of the story without being its hero, although
his first emergence from the mask is an effective shot. The three musketeers
are cast with big names (Irons, Malkovich, Depardieu) but to my surprise the
picture is stolen by Gabriel Byrne, who has the most charisma and is the
most convincing. His scenes with Parillaud (from ``La Femme Nikita'') are
some of the best in the movie. Once all the pieces of the plot were in
place, I was at least interested, if not overwhelmed; I could see how, with
a rewrite and a better focus, this could have been a film of ``Braveheart''
quality instead of basically just a costume swashbuckler.
Copyright © Chicago-Sun-Times Inc.
The Mission
Mendoza Robert De Niro
Gabriel Jeremy Irons
Altamirano Ray McAnally
Felipe Aidan Quinn
Carlotta Cherie Lunghi
Hontar Ronald Pickup
Warner Bros. presents a film directed by Roland Joffe, and produced by
Fernando Ghia and David Puttnam. Screenplay by Robert Bolt.
Photographed by Chris Menges. Edited by Jim Clark. Music by Ennio
Morricone. Running time: 125 minutes. Classified PG. At McClurg Court.
My Opinion
Quick Summary: Loveable Jesuits try to save South American natives from Big Bad Spaniards while converting them (the natives) to Christian capitalists.
Normally, I find Roger Ebert to be a no-talent hack, but every once in a while, I'll agree with his opinion on a movie. The Mission is one of these cases, so I'll just let Ebert speak for me. But first, let me quickly say that, despite its flaws, The Mission is a beautiful movie, and Jeremy is perfect in the role of the holy Gabriel, with the wasted body of an aesthete, and eyes that shone with sincerity .
Now, take it away Ebert...
By Roger Ebert
"The Mission" feels exactly like one of those movies where you'd
rather see the documentary about how the movie was made. You'd like to
know why so many talented people went to such incredible lengths to
make a difficult and beautiful movie - without any of them, on the
basis of the available evidence, having the slightest notion of what
the movie was about. There isn't a moment in "The Mission" that is not
watchable, but the moments don't add up to a coherent narrative. At the
end, we can sort of piece things together, but the movie has never
really made us care.
The action takes place in South America in the 18th century. Two
great colonial forces are competing for the hearts and minds of the
native Indians. On the one hand, there are the imperialist plunderers,
who want to establish a trade in riches and slaves. On the other hand,
there are the missionaries, who want to convert the Indians to Christ.
The central figure in the movie is Mendoza (Robert De Niro), who
begins as the first kind of imperialist and ends as the second. Early
in the film, he is a slave trader, a man of the flesh. But after he
kills his brother in a flash of anger, he yearns for redemption, and he
gets it from the missionaries who assign him an agonizing penance: He
must climb a cliff near a steep waterfall, dragging behind him a net
filled with a heavy weight of armor. Again and again, De Niro strives
to scale the dangerous height, until finally all of the anger and sin
is drained from him and he becomes a missionary at a settlement run by
Gabriel (Jeremy Irons).
The movie now develops its story through the device of letters
that explain what happened to the mission settlement. The missionaries
dream of a society in which Christian natives will live in harmony with
the Spanish and Portuguese. But the colonial governors find this vision
dangerous; they would rather enslave the Indians than convert them, and
they issue orders for the mission to be destroyed. Irons and De Niro
disagree on how to meet this threat: Irons believes in prayer and
passive resistance, and De Niro believes in armed rebellion.
In the end, neither approach is effective, and the movie concludes
in a confusing series of scenes in which badly choreographed battle
sequences are intercut with Irons' final religious services. It is a
measure of the film's disorganization that at the end, when it is
crucial that we understand who the Indians are fighting and how the
battle is going, mere chaos takes over the screen and the actors
stagger out of clouds of smoke as if they're looking for directions.
"The Mission" was produced by David Puttnam and directed by Roland
Joffe, the same team that made the great film "The Killing Fields."
That film was fired by a pure, burning anger against a great injustice,
and it had a dramatic center in the life and saga of Dith Pran, the
Cambodian who survived the occupation of his land and eventually lived
to find freedom. Pran's story was a magnet that pulled us through the
film. "The Mission" has no similar pull. Indeed, it hardly seems to
have a center and feels like a massive, expensive film production that,
once set in motion, kept going under its own momentum even though
nobody involved had a clear idea of its final direction.
I suggested that no single shot in the movie is without interest.
That is probably true. The locations are spectacular - especially a
waterfall that supplies the great opening image of a crucified
missionary floating to his doom. The actors are effective in their
individual scenes. The mysterious atmosphere of the forest seeps into
the story and lends it a certain mysticism. All that was needed to pull
these elements together was a structure that would clearly define who
the characters were, what they stood for and why we should care about
them. Unfortunately, that is all that is missing.
Copyright © Chicago Sun-Times Inc.
Lolita
This review is brought to us by Els, a Belgian fan and visitor of this page. Thanks, Els!
Film based on the legendary roman of the Russian Vladimir Nabokov.
Direction: Adrian Lyne (who also directed Flashdance, Fatal Attraction,
Indecent Proposal, 9 1/2 Weeks, Jacob's Ladder)
Cast: Jeremy Irons (Humbert Humbert)
Dominique Swain (Dolores Haze)
Melanie Griffith (Charlotte Haze)
Duration: 137'minutes
Situated in New-England in 1947
Summary:
Humbert Humbert is kind of an unwordly professor who immigrates to
New-England in connection with a study. He's rather intravert because he
never got over the loss of his first love.
They were both 14 and she was most beautiful. To him, she was a godess,
she meant everything . But after 4 months she died of tuberculosis.
Humbert was broken and he couldn't accept her death. And still after so
many years, he keeps on searching for her, his lost love.
Anyway, when he arrives in New-England, it turns out that he has no
residence. The house were he was supposed to stay, has burnt down. Someone
gives him the address of a young widow who's willing to let a room.
At first, Humbert isn't very enthusiastic, because he doesn't really like
the room and above all that, Charlotte Haze, the widow, is an anoying and
intrusive woman. Yet, when she's leading him through the garden, he sees
her daughter Dolores and all his doubts concerning the room are gone.
-Dolores reminds him very strongly to his lost godess. She's nearly 14 but
to him she's a nymph.- Humbert takes the room and after a while he even
marries Charlotte, just to be close to his Lolita.
Charlotte and her daughter don't really get along together, she sends
Dolores to summercamp and afterwards she wants her daughter to go to a
boardingschool. To Humbert all this is a slap in the face but he is also aware that he
can't change his wife's mind. Right before Lolita's departure, she throws herself into his arms and kisses him passionately. Humbert is totally overwhelmed and filled with
desire for her. The whole time that she's seperated from him, the touch of
her kiss is not only burnt on his lips but also in his soul. The thought
that his love is requited by her brings him into seventh heaven, but still
confusion, doubt and fear remain slumbering in his heart.
His marriage is a complete disaster and every day he prays for a miracle
to eliminate Charlotte instantly. Finally, his prayers are answered and
his wife dies in a car-accident.
For Humbert, this is a new beginning, a life together with his Lolita...As
fast as he possibly can, he fetches her from summercamp and they start a
wild trip through the USA. Being passionate lovers, they both enjoy their
lives together, until Lolita meets the dramatist Quilty who wants to
introduce her into the porno-industry. But Lolita's only interested in
Quilty himself and she is convinced that she'll get him...no matter what.
Meanwhile, she keeps pretending to be Humbert's one and only true love.
Moreover she discovers that he would do anything for her (she even lets
him pay for her body). More and more, she considers him just as a means to
get what she wants. Because of all this, their relationship becomes one of
hate and love, especially concerning Lolita's feelings.
And then, one day, she's gone...gone away with Quilty.
Humbert searches for her all over the country, but after a while he gets
off the track and desides to pick up his old life again. He lives that
life as a broken and lonely man, waiting for his little nymph to return.
Three years later, Humbert receives a letter from Dolores in which she
tells him that she's married to a young workman from whom she is expecting
a baby. Therefore she asks Humbert for money.
Of course, he instantly rushes to her house. Once there he's touched by
her appearance. The woman who's now standing in front of him, is nearly a
vague shadow of what used to be his Lolita. Yet, he still recognizes the
nymph inside of her and he begs her to return with him. Dolores refuses
and treats him as if he means no more than an ordinary stepfather to her.
To his question why she left him three years ago, she replies that Quilty
took her with him, but after some time he threw her out of his house
because she only wanted Quilty himself and wasn't willing to play a role
in a porno-movie.
She also tells Humbert that Quilty is the only man in her life whom she
has really loved.
At that point, something inside Humbert dies and he drives to Quilty's
house where he kills him. His reason: Quilty is the man who has stolen the
most important thing in his life...his godess, his Lolita...
Humbert gets arrested and dies in prison of a cardiac-arrest, later that
same year, Lolita dies while giving birth.
Performances:
There is not much to say about the performance of the actors and the
direction of the film, except the fact that the filming is stunning.
Thanks to the tremendous performance, the strange, oppressive and subtle
atmosphere is brought optimale forward. The casting was done very well, it
was as if the roles had been written just right for them.
Dominique Swain is a natural talent. She has a kind of natural elan which
makes it seem that she's completely herself.
And then of course there is Jeremy Irons who perhaps performed the role of
his life. He plays his role with such a persuasiveness, that you forget
Jeremy Irons completely as 'the actor'. As a spectator you are entirely
wrapped up in Humbert Humbert. It's especially his body language and
facial expression that speaks volumes. The feelings he cherishes for
Lolita, almost jump of the screen.
In short, Jeremy Irons at best!
Own opinion:
Lolita is a very touching LOVESTORY. On the contrary of what people may
think, the film is not about paedophilia. It's much more like a dramatic
lovestory. That's why we do not understand that the film is forbidden in
so many countries.
Back in the 50's there were lots of difficulties with finding an editor
for the book, let alone finding a distributor for the film now. The
subject is persumed to be too sensitive to sell, but that's a narrow view
of people who totally missed the deeper meaning of the story.
Lolita has made a deep impression on us, and we hope that everybody across
the world will get the chance to see this very touching picture.
Written by: -Petra Wouters-
-Els Cauwenberghs-
For more information mail me: ELS.CAUWENBERGHS@student.kuleuven.ac.be
Stealing Beauty
Lucy Harmon: Liv Tyler
Carol Lisca: Carlo Cecchi
Diana Grayson: Sinead Cusack
Alex Parrish: Jeremy Irons
M. Guillaume: Jean Marais
Ian Grayson: Donal McCann
Richard Reed: D.W. Moffett
Directed by Bernardo Bertolucci.
Written by Susan Minot. Running time: 102 minutes. Rated R (for
strong sexuality, nudity, some drug use and language).
My Opinion
Quick Summary:
Middle aged artists mope around in Tuscany leading pointless lives until Liv Tyler shows up and gets them all hot and bothered.
Irons Appeal Rating: 4 out of 10. Disappointing. Jeremy spends most of the film with a bandana on his head, and his character is terminally ill, so he looks pretty bad. If you're looking for a drool-fest, skip this one.
Overall Rating : 2 out of 5.
Review: This time, I agree with Ebert 100%. Basically everything he says about this movie is dead-on. So much so that I don't even need to write a review. Just read his, below.
Ebert's Opinion
BY ROGER EBERT
``I wait and wait so patiently. I'm quiet as a cup... I hope you'll come and rattle me...
Quick! Come and wake me up!''
This is one of several poems written by Lucy, the heroine of ``Stealing Beauty,'' as she
drifts through an endless house party in Tuscany. I quote Lucy's poetry because I want to
set you a test question. Reading it, how old would you guess Lucy is? Nine? Fourteen?
The notion of being``quiet as a cup'' is not bad. ``Rattle me'' is better than ``drink from
me.'' Those double exclamation points, however...
Pencils up. Lucy is 19. If this poetry seems unsophisticated for a worldly 19-year-old,
you should read some of her other poems, which are superimposed on the screen in her own
handwriting, and (I am afraid) her own spelling.
Lucy is a creature without an idea in her head. She has no conversation. No interests. No
wit. She exists primarily to stir lust in the loins of the men. After the death of her mother,
a poet who visited these Italian hills 20 years ago, Lucy has come back to an artists' home
with two things on her mind: She wants to discover the identity of her real father, and she
wants to lose her virginity. Experienced moviegoers can assess the risk that she will
solve these problems simultaneously.
"Stealing Beauty'' is the new film by Bernardo Bertolucci (``Last Tango in Paris,'' ``The
Last Emperor''), who like many a middle-aged man before him has been struck dumb by the beauty
of a nubile young girl, and has made the mistake of trying to approach her on what he thinks is
her level. The movie plays like the kind of line a rich older guy would lay on a teenage model,
suppressing his own intelligence and irony in order to spread out before her the wonderful
world he would like to give her as a gift. Look at these hills! These sunsets! Smell the
herbed air! See how the light catches the old rose-covered villa!
The problem here is that many 19-year-old women, especially the beautiful international
model types, would rather stain their teeth with cigarettes and go to discos with cretins on
motorcycles than have all Tuscany as their sandbox. (For an example of a cannier May-December
seduction strategy, consider the recent release, ``Nelly and Monsieur Arnaud,'' in which an
older man fascinates a young woman by emphasizing his age and experience and pretending to be
beyond her charms.)
Lucy is played by Liv Tyler, a young actress who has been profiled in all the glossies by
writers who find it delightful that she thought her father was one rock star when in fact he
was another. Thus there is an ``autobiographical'' component to her search among the artistic
layabouts at the Tuscan villa for the man who seduced her mother 20 years ago. Tyler is indeed
attractive, and looks enough like Lili Taylor to be her sister. But Lili Taylor usually plays
smart women, and if she were in this movie her BS alarm would be ringing constantly.
The villa is occupied by a sculptor (Donal McCann), who starts on a tree trunk with a
chain saw and is soon sandpapering the curve of Lucy's chin. His earth-mother wife (Sinead
Cusack) is tired after 20 years of cooking and keeping house for a continual house party, and
no wonder. The most interesting guest is a gay playwright (Jeremy Irons) who is dying of AIDS
and attracts Lucy because he is not after her. Other guests include an art dealer (Jean
Marais), an advice to the lovelorn expert (Stefania Sandrelli), an entertainment lawyer (DW Moffett),who sighs, ``I think it would be great, you know, to just sit around all day and
express yourself.'' Neighbors drop in, including assorted young men, one of whom may have sent Lucy a letter which she thinks was romantic and poetic--as indeed anyone who writes like Lucy
would.
The movie is great to look at. Like all those other Brits-in-Italy movies (``A Month by the Lake,'' ``Enchanted April,'' ``A Room With a View''), it makes you want to find this place and go there. In this case, however, you hope the movie characters have moved out before you get there. There is a simmer of discontent beneath the surface of everyday life in the villa, a sort of sullen, selfish unhappiness that everyone has about his or her lot in life.
The purpose of the Lucy character,I guess, is to act like a catalyst or a muse, shaking up old patterns and forcing these exiles to decide where their homes really are. She is fresh and they are decadent narcissists. Only the Jeremy Irons character, absorbed in his dying, and the Donal McCann character, absorbed in his art, have lives of any meaning.
The young men who buzz about Lucy are of no substance whatever. The older men are of similar substance, but can make better conversation, which would be useful if there were any evidence that Lucy was a conversationalist. Actually she serves for Bertolucci more as a plot device than as a person. She represents some kind of ideal of perfect virgin beauty,and the film's opening shots, in which a photographer on a plane sees her sleeping and takes closeups of her lips and crotch, set the tone. The sad thing is that, sleeping, she embodies what she represents to this movie just as well as when she's awake.