Tuesday 21 May 2013

#85 Swept Away (2002) (Colin)


Swept Away was a 2002 film directed by Guy Ritchie and is a remake of the 1974 movie of the same name by Lina Wertmueller.  Wetmueller's version caused quite a storm with its portrayal of violence against women but is critically acclaimed and recognised as a thought provoking piece of cinema questioning the role of man and woman. It explores society, power and politics in an unflinching and sometimes uncomfortable way.

Although it may not be one of those movies which everyone has heard off, the fact that it did garner interest and is discussed in various circles means that there is awareness of this film.  The critical acclaim would also suggest that the first effort was rather good or at least particularly interesting.  Why then did Ritchie decide to remake it?  This is the first thing that bothers me, long before I have even picked up the DVD out of the reduced section of my local Cash Converters, (other rip off stolen second hand goods stores are available).  I would not be daft enough to compare Swept Away with say, Casablanca or Citizen Kane, but if it was good enough, started the debate and carries on being relevant today, why in blazes interfere with it and try to make it 'better'?  Ritchie must have know he was setting himself up for a fall.

Indeed I did not realise until coming to write this blog, that Ritchie appears to be regarded as somewhat of a 'weak' director and that his most famous films, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch, are regarded as 'style over substance'.  That is harsh, I mean Pulp Fiction could also be regarded in this way.  I remember a review in the UK newspaper 'The Mirror' which described Pulp Fiction as 2 men in a car discuss cheeseburgers in Quentin Tarantino's lame follow up to Reservoir Dogs.  Now we are all entitled to an opinion but the guy who wrote this was clearly a moron.  Yes, storywise you could argue not a lot happens but it's the way it doesn't happen, the telling of the story out of sequence, the fantastic soundtrack and superb cinematography which all makes Pulp Fiction anything but 'lame'.

I would not want to call Ritchie 'Tarantinolite', because that would be unfair but there are similarities in his earlier work.  Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch were gritty but funny, mundane conversations seemed 'cool' and 'trendy' and the filming was quirky and fun.  I liked these movies and remember looking forward to seeing Swept Away in 2002.  But then the reviews started and they were scathing, I could not find a decent review or positive comment.  Despondent but grateful I side stepped it and for 11 years continued to do so.  Then we started this poxy list......

Swept Away is the story of socialite Amber Leighton, (Madonna) and sailor / fisherman Giuseppi Esposito, (Adriano Giannini).  Amber is on a cruise from Greece to Italy with her rich husband, Tony Leighton, (Bruce Greenwood) and a group of her equally rich 'friends'.  Amber is hot headed, rude and arrogant and treats the staff, particularly Giuseppi, with disdain and contempt.  When Amber and Giuseppi's boat breaks down whilst travelling to an island which the rest of her group are visiting, they end up off course and stranded on a deserted island.  Without her money and influence and with Giuseppi's fishing skills and practical knowledge the power balance shifts and it is Giuseppi who has the upper hand.  The pair fall in love whilst in their private world but this is ultimately doomed once they are rescued and return to their respective roles in modern society.

The first thing you will notice, if you have watched the original 1974 film, is that Ritchie sticks very closely to the original.  Sometimes far too closely.  They are huge chunks of dialogue which I recognise straight away from the original and wonder why Ritchie did not improve, change or alter in any way. There are scenes, also, which as far as I can tell, are also cut and pasted from the original.  Remakes should surely offer something new or there really is no point and you may as well watch the first version.  It is a bit like cover bands who release albums of the music of the band they are covering!  I have never understood, say, a Foo Fighters tribute band releasing an album of Foo Fighters covers.  I imagine people buy this and think, 'wow, they sound so much like the original', whereas I think, 'Erm, then why not just listen to the original'.  Anyway, I digress.....

One element Ritchie has omitted from his version though and I think that this is a massive mistake on his part, is the political element of the story.  In the 1974 version, the Amber and Giuseppi characters, (called Raffaella, (Marianglea Melato) and Gennarino, (Giancarlo Giannini, who interestingly is the father of Adriano who plays Giuseppi in Ritchie's version)), were very political and held some interesting debates and arguments, some of which are relevant to today.  For example, Gennarino, a staunch communist, gives a passionate speech about how the rich people deliberately burn crops or dump food to keep prices high and to starve poor people.  Raffaella, a true believer of capitalism strongly argues against this and what follows is a fascinating discussion between 2 diametrically opposite opinions.

These political views from the 2 lead characters are important because of the role reversal which takes place on the deserted island.  Raffaella's capitalist views represents modern society, with free markets, money, the rich having the power and wielding it.  Gennarino's Communist leanings represents a more traditional way of a learning skills and using this to help each other.  He also has a clear view in the role of men and women which is more 'old fashioned'.  This view has no place on the cruise but once they are stranded on the island, Raffaella's money and ways of life are meaningless and Gennarino's beliefs become more relevant.

Ritchie's versions of these characters, Amber and Giuseppi, only really hint at their political beliefs.  For example, Raffaella's views seem to be borne out of this is all she knew, having been raised in a rich, well off family and Melato plays this with a sort of innocence and naivity.  This makes Raffaella, whilst certainly not a pleasant person, a character you can understand.  Madonna's portryal is just of a rude arrogant bitch who is fully aware that there are other ways but thinks 'fuck them'.  This comes across as Ritchie has not really given Amber any political beliefs, just lazy opinions based on nothing, (like the Tories) and the same is true for Giuseppi who just comes across as a stroppy trade unionist who keeps lobbying for walk outs but doesn't really know what he is angry about, (Labour).

Therefore, when they have the sudden role reversal between Amber and Giuseppi, it does not play out as an intresting dynamic, but as Giuseppi turning into a cruel bastard intent on revenge.  When Giuseppi starts to slap Amber, it is anger and rage on Amber because she's Amber.  This is how it comes across and is not a good thing and does absolutely nothing for Giuseppi's character.  When Gennarino started to slap Raffaella, it was frustration over his perception of being downtrodden by the rich classes off which Amber represented.  This off course does not excuse his actions and the scene in which he slaps Raffaella and finally loses his temper is hard to watch, but is relevant to the storyline and explained in context.

Another problem is when Giuseppi slaps Amber, you think it's not hard enough and you wished he had done it a lot sooner.  Why?  Well so far I have ignored the elephant in the room, but I feel we must turn to her now because if Ritchie delivered a poor script he also supplied a poor actress.  By far and away the biggest problem with this movie has to be Madonna.

When it comes to acting skills Madonna really does stop at nothing.  She can not do it and I do not know why she insists on continuing to do it.  Dick Tracy, Who's That Girl, Desperatley Seeking Susan, the list goes on and on of movies in which she is just so terribly bad that you wonder why on earth directors keep offering her roles.  The only decent film I have seen her in is In Bed With Madonna which came out when I was 15 and which I must admit I had to watch in 5 minute bursts and through half closed eyes, (I love the fact that when this movie was shown on ITV for the first time, the sponsers were 'Kleenex'.  It's true!).

When Ritchie was thinking about making the movie, I feel that he accidentally mentioned it to Madonna, maybe in passing and she immediately jumped in and said 'I can do that'.  For the next 6 months he must have been saying things like, 'look, if you want to go on tour it's OK, we can get someone else in for the part' or 'you wouldn't let anyone down if you are not feeling up for doing this movie'.  Eventually there was no choice and he had to tell Kate Winslet the bad news.

From the beginning Madonna delivers lines like she's reading the back of a cerial box in a supermarket.  There is no emotion, which suggests that Madonna's main problem is that she is herself during filming.  Off course, because of this you would think she was good at acting like an arrogant, spoilt bitch who thinks far more highly of herself than the rest of us, but I am afraid you would be wrong.  When you can't even act out your normal persona, you know it is probably time to look for a different career.  Maybe Madonna should try roof felting or something.

When Giuseppi bumps into a drunken Amber, he drops an enormous fish which he had just caught.  Lifeless, cold and fishy, Madonna is best known for hits such as 'Like a Virgin'.

I won't go much further into Madonna's poor attempt at acting in this movie as I think Wes covered it rather well in his blog and with enough bile for both of us.  But she does remind me of an old UK gameshow called 'The Generation Game'.  At the end of some episodes, contestants, (members of the public), would 'act' out a play at the end and the words were written on cue cards and hidden around the set.  The contestant would have to read from these cue cards and often they were spelt in such a way that the contestant would say something funny or the contestant was so poor at reading them, that they would trip themselves up and make themselves look stupid.  Each and every one of them was a better actor than Madonna.

I will admit though, the location was stunning and I did like the old boat that featured in the movie.  Weathered, wooden and having seen better days, Madonna hopes to tour again next year.

Overall, Ritchie did not bring anything new to this remake and in fact managed to make a watered down version which lacked the bite and interest of the original.  The 1974 movie is nearly 2 hours long with Ritchie's version being only 89 minutes.  For some reason, Ritchie's version feels longer.  Maybe if he gets the chance again he could set aside his differences, re-hire Madonna and try to put things right.  On the deserted island, whilst Madonna is out buying a baby, Ritchie and the crew should sneak off the island, taking all boats and means of escape and leave her there.  He should then make a demand that she will only be rescued if she never tries to make a movie again.  He may have to wait some time......






No comments:

Post a Comment