Author: Alexander Larman

  • RIP Rob Reiner

    RIP Rob Reiner

    The death of the director and actor Rob Reiner in violent and unexplained circumstances is one of the most horrific and surprising stories to have emerged from Hollywood in living memory. One of the reasons why its elites live in areas such as Reiner’s exclusive neighborhood of Brentwood in California is precisely so that they will not be subject to the possibility of random violence in a way that less wealthy Americans face daily. Yet if news reports are to be believed, Reiner and his wife Michele were the victims of intrafamilial strife: a situation that all the gated walls and security cameras in the world could not ameliorate.

    It is particularly ironic that Reiner met such a horrible end, stabbed to death in his own home, because the vast majority of the films that he made, especially earlier in his career, were infused with a sense of all-American joyfulness and hope that made him, for a while, a filmmaker talked off in the same breath as Frank Capra and Steven Spielberg. Son of Hollywood royalty Carl Reiner, he began his career as an actor, most notably in the role of Meathead in the Norman Lear sitcom All In The Family. It made him a household name, but also contributed to a sense of Reiner as a dumb, good-natured left-winger: he once remarked that “I could win the Nobel Prize and they’d write ‘Meathead wins the Nobel Prize.’”

    It was in part in an attempt to escape from this straitjacket of typecasting that Reiner switched from acting to directing – although he continued to appear onscreen throughout his career, both in his own films and in those of others – and the first picture that he made was a particular triumph, in the form of 1984’s rock mockumentary This Is Spinal Tap. With a script that was co-written by Reiner along with its stars Christopher Guest, Michael McKean and Harry Shearer, it resulted in endless quotable lines – not least the description of an amp that “goes up to eleven” – and Reiner’s own performance as the hapless documentary maker Marty Di Bergi demonstrated his ability to play both warmth and uselessness on screen with great skill.

    The film’s modest success led to a new and hugely successful second wind for Reiner, whose first seven films as a director represent one of the most interesting and accomplished runs of form that any 20th-century filmmaker ever managed. He excelled at romantic comedies, which included the John Cusack vehicle The Sure Thing and, of course, the peerless When Harry Met Sally, but his varied repertoire included everything from Stephen King horror (Misery) and swashbuckling meta-comedy (The Princess Bride) to all-American military courtroom drama (A Few Good Men). Another King adaptation, the coming-of-age drama Stand By Me, is commonly regarded as one of the seminal films of the Eighties, and his pictures made huge amounts of money at the box office.

    Although Reiner never won an Oscar – he was nominated for producing A Few Good Men – and was probably, ironically enough, too versatile a talent to be seen as a true auteur, it was once a dependable badge of quality to see A Rob Reiner Film. He was also a skillful producer of high-end cinema through his Castle Rock production company, which was responsible for such modern-day classics as In The Line of Fire, The Shawshank Redemption and the loopy Malice, in which the Aaron Sorkin-doctored script allowed Alec Baldwin to declare, histrionically, “You ask me if I have a God complex? Let me tell you something. I AM GOD!

    Any suggestion that Reiner had traded his soul to anyone – be it a deity or a devil – to achieve success came crashing down with his first megaflop, the Bruce Willis family comedy North, which attracted bemused reviews and repulsed audiences. He rebounded with the Sorkin-scripted The American President, a slick, assured piece of entertainment that inadvertently led to The West Wing, but his directorial career never reached the same heights again. Instead, for the next three decades, he either made undemanding comedies or soft-focus issue dramas that played to his status as one of Hollywood’s premier liberal filmmakers.

    The major exception was 2015’s Being Charlie, an unusually gritty drama about addiction and familial conflict that was explicitly autobiographical; it was co-written by his son Nick and was based on his life as an addict, as well as dealing with his strained relationship with his successful, distant father. The film was both a commercial and critical flop, and most journalists observed that there was a tension, both on and off-screen, between Reiner’s attempts to bring about reconciliation and a real-life happy ending for his troubled son, and Nick himself, who had clearly undergone experiences that no swell of orchestral music could compensate for. If reports of Reiner’s murder are accurate, then it will be this film – not this year’s lackluster Spinal Tap sequel, or indeed anything else in his great, distinguished career – that will be remembered, for all the wrong reasons. Which is an undeserved end to what was a fine life – right up until its horrific ending.

  • The fight for the future of Warner Bros.

    That creaking sound you hear creaking is Jack Warner, the founder of Warner Bros. studio, turning in his grave. Last week, it was announced that Netflix had purchased one of Hollywood’s most respected studios for a staggering, indeed insane $83 billion – which makes Disney’s purchase of Lucasfilm for $4 billion in 2012 seem like the bargain of the century. The sale would create a monopoly the likes of which has never been seen before in the film industry.

    Most people assumed that such a bid – in this increasingly beleaguered business – is very, very bad news. They might be correct. That’s why it’s even more staggering that Paramount have today, with impeccable timing, announced their own hostile takeover bid for Warner, offering an even more outlandish $108.4 billion and asking its shareholders to reject the Netflix dollar in favor of a deal that values its shares at $30 each.

    Paramount, which has offered repeatedly to buy Warner but been rebuffed six times in the past 12 weeks, has shown its teeth in no uncertain terms. CEO and chairman David Ellison announced that it was suggesting a “strategically and financially compelling offer to WBD shareholders” and that “WBD shareholders deserve an opportunity to consider our superior all-cash offer for their shares in the entire company.” For good measure, Ellison called it “superior value, and a more certain and quicker path to completion.” In other words, a very, very wealthy man is set on acquiring Warner, and not even the Netflix deal – which was looking all but a fait accompli last week – will stop him.

    Anyone who knows the slightest thing about cinema will recognize that three very different games are in play here. Warner has traditionally had a reputation as “the directors’ studio,” working closely with auteurs such as Kubrick, Eastwood, Nolan – until they screwed up the release of Tenet and he fled to the loving arms of Universal – and, more recently, Greta Gerwig. Netflix has a similar reputation for working with auteurs (Scorsese, Fincher, Bigelow and Guillermo del Toro have enthusiastically taken their dollar), but they are – shall we say – less than committed to the theatrical experience. And Paramount have just wrapped up their Mission: Impossible series with Tom Cruise – the latter two films of which underperformed financially – and their biggest franchises are Sonic the HedgehogA Quiet Place and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Auteurs are not to be found on their lot.

    Warner has been having a vintage year, notwithstanding the departure of Nolan. Under the inspirational guidance of Michael De Luca and Pamela Abdy, the studio has produced hit after hit, making every other Hollywood institution look uninspired and tame, and this has been recognized accordingly with the Golden Globes nominations. The genius of it is that they’ve put out everything from the likely Oscar front-runners One Battle After Another and Sinners to the squillion-grossing likes of Minecraft and Weapons. No other studio currently rivals Warner for creativity, verve and, indeed, financial success. Lest we forget F1, which they distributed, was a mega hit off the back of Brad Pitt’s charisma and an iconic Hans Zimmer score. Their absorption into either the Netflix or Paramount fold cannot, in all honesty, be seen as a good thing.

    What is likely to happen? President Trump suggested last weekend that a Netflix-Warner acquisition “could be a problem” because of market share laws, and so Ellison’s offer, which was not entirely unexpected save in its enormity, might appear to circumvent this, much as Disney’s purchase of Fox (for a mere $71.3 billion) has established similar precedent. Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos, a man who thinks you can and should watch Lawrence of Arabia on an iPhone, will be furious – and it’s not impossible that he will counter with a yet-higher offer.

    None of this is especially good for cinemagoers. De Luca and Abdy may be visionaries, but the studio is still under the control of David Zaslav, an uninspired bean-counter if ever there was one. In The Studio, the Seth Rogen Hollywood satire, one of the central jokes was that the eponymous institution is desperate to make a film based on the Kool-Aid man. At this rate, whoever ends up buying Warner will have drunk the Kool-Aid in no uncertain terms and will want a return on their investment. Cinema, in its most fragile state imaginable, will only suffer as a result of this dick-swinging – and Jack Warner’s ghost must be tormented by what it is witnessing happen to his pride and joy.

  • Is Prince Harry about to spend a lot more time in Britain?

    Is Prince Harry about to spend a lot more time in Britain?

    For lovers of self-destructive hubris – a quality that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex surely possess in spades – the saga of Prince Harry’s security is surely the gift that keeps on giving. His attempts to obtain British taxpayer-funded armed protection whenever he brings his family back to the UK have been expressed with much fervor and repetitiveness. And now, in this season of miracles, it looks as if he might have got his wish after all. 

    It seemed certain, after various expensive and amusingly humiliating courtroom defeats, that Harry’s desire to hire members of the London Metropolitan Police as his private security detail whenever he is back in the country of his birth would be denied. He even railed against the UK government’s successful attempts to thwart his desires as a “good old-fashioned establishment stitch-up,” blustering: “The other side have won in keeping me unsafe. I can’t see a world in which I will be bringing my wife and children back at this point.”

    Those of us who are not losing sleep at the prospect of the star of With Love, Meghan once again bringing her special brand of joy to the United Kingdom were not, perhaps, beside themselves at this prospect. 

    Yet there has now been an unexpected volte-face, courtesy of Britain’s Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood and the Home Office. RAVEC, the Royal and VIP Executive Committee, has ordered that its risk management board be prepared to reassess Harry’s threat level for the first time since February 2020. This is not a suggestion that the prince poses his own danger to the country, but instead that he is considered a public individual who deserves police protection at the highest level, in the same vein as the King or the Prime Minister. And if the decision is upheld, once again the British taxpayer will be on the hook for police protection for the Sussex clan whenever they are in the UK.

    It should be noted that the final decision will not be made until next month, and that Ravec might still decide to maintain the status quo: cue weeping and gnashing of teeth if so. However, the fact that there has been a reassessment of this nature after a protracted and expensive court fight, which Harry repeatedly lost, must be seen as a surprisingly non-pyrrhic victory for the Duke of Sussex. It is also a suggestion that he was justified in the fuss that he has so consistently made. 

    Still, even if he is granted this belated Christmas wish, it is uncertain as to whether or not the Sussexes will be frequent visitors in the UK once again. This is despite the sentimental protestations that the King would like to see his grandchildren once again. Meghan has not set foot in London since Elizabeth II’s funeral in September 2022, and it is doubtful that she has any pressing urge to do so. Her husband’s largely successful solo trip in September – only slightly overshadowed by the eventual leaks of his rapprochement with his semi-estranged father – demonstrated that he is perfectly capable of conducting a quasi-royal visit home by himself and being well received in the process.

    Many might think that the current situation works well for all concerned, then, and would question the necessity of an expensive, time-consuming climbdown by Ravec. But in a year of consistently dreadful tidings for the royal family, the knowledge that 2026 might yet see a comeback by the cadet branch – with commensurate focus on the ongoing estrangement between Harry and his elder brother – is yet another reason for the Firm not to be cheerful.

  • Will the new Avatar be the last?

    Will the new Avatar be the last?

    For someone who has directed two of the three highest-grossing films of all time – and if we include Titanic in the mix, three of the top five – James Cameron struck an unusually modest figure at this week’s premiere Avatar: Fire and Ash. When asked at the screening whether its inevitable box-office success would result in the planned fourth and fifth films being produced, the erstwhile King of the World responded “I’m not even thinking about four. Are you kidding me? I’m unemployed right now.”

    Admittedly, Cameron’s definition of “unemployed” is rather different to that of most people, whether they be A-list directors or the less fortunate. He has now spent 16 years in the Avatar universe, and after the inordinate success of the first picture – still the highest-grossing film in history – he has shown no interest in diversifying away from the world of Pandora and its motion-captured blue denizens, instead constructing an increasingly baroque and detailed universe that drags in vast audiences. The films may be titanic in length – the latest one clocks in at 195 minutes – but they are also staggering in ambition and imaginative force, even if those who might prefer something more cerebral and less, well, blue are likely to be disappointed.

    Nonetheless, the now-71-year-old Cameron might be forgiven for dampening sky-high expectations with the latest release, as the world of cinema has changed beyond all recognition since 2009. Back then, 3D was the hottest game in town, with the Terminator and Aliens director its leading pioneer, and audiences were desperate to put on their plastic glasses and soak up the spectacle. Now, these same audiences have been reduced in the post-Covid, streaming era, and 3D is a novelty format that only Cameron still seems enamored of, despite or perhaps because of the high supplements that theater owners can charge for tickets.

    There are other issues, too. While the PG-13 Avatar films are hardly adult-oriented, there is also a sense that the only pictures that are doing really well are those aimed at teenagers and children – witness the recent success of the Wicked and Zootopia sequels, and the failure of virtually everything else – and that Cameron’s eco-zealotry may be an uncomfortable fit in the MAGA era; its predecessors both were released under Democratic administrations and seemed almost the cinematic exemplars of those governments.

    There is also the problem that the Avatar pictures aren’t actually all that good. Cameron’s undeniable skills as a director – pacing, action, spectacle – are perhaps outweighed by his deficiencies, namely that he cannot write dialogue or convincing characters to save his life, that his plots are stick-thin and that his love of technology is far greater than his interest in actors. Yet he seems unwilling to move into the kind of joyfully dynamic blockbusters that The Terminator, its superior sequel and Aliens represent – as well, for a guilty pleasure, as 1994’s very silly, very funny True Lies. Instead, he seems as lost in Pandora as his paraplegic marine Jake Sully, forever doomed to walk its groves in his own version of a giant blue body.

    For all this, I suspect that Fire and Ash will be an enormous hit, just like its predecessors, and that Cameron will remain within the Avatar universe, as planned, until 2031, when the final installment in the series is intended for release. By then, the filmmaker will be nearly 80; not in itself an ancient age, but the idea of his doing another Titanic-esque epic might seem beyond him. And when he finally expires, worn out by too much boundary-pushing and technical fiddling, we may look at this long period that this undeniably gifted filmmaker chose to spend in an imaginary world of his own creation, and wish that he had done something more interesting, instead.

  • The new Stranger Things is loopy and sweet

    The new Stranger Things is loopy and sweet

    So, the new – and supposedly final – season of Stranger Things has arrived in Netflix, just in time for Thanksgiving. Expectations have been through the roof that this installment will not be a turkey, but the good (stranger?) thing about the series so far is that it has maintained a remarkably high level of quality since it began in 2016. This is by no means a given for an Eighties-inflected fantasy show that is so devoted (the cynics might and have said slavishly) to all things that Steven Spielberg produced in that decade that the bearded one might have sued for plagiarism, were it not for the fact that the homage remains an affectionate and heartfelt, rather than cynical, one.

    The new season, which has an apparently exorbitant budget of as much as $60 million per episode, expands the palette to include influences ranging from Stephen King and John Carpenter to mid-Eighties James Cameron (rather than the Avatar incarnation of the king of the world). The latter is made explicit by a totemic cameo by Terminator actress Linda Hamilton, as redolent of the Eighties setting as Kate Bush’s “Running Up That Hill” was in the fourth season. But amid the Sturm und Drang, there are moments of sweetness and levity that remind the viewers why this became such a massive hit in the first place.

    As the inhabitants of Hawkins, Indiana, all bond together in an attempt to defeat Jamie Campbell Bower’s nefarious and terrifyingly all-powerful Vecna, whose appearance on screen was heralded from the last series with as much pomp and circumstance as a show like this merits, those who cannot remember all the twists, turns and developments of previous series – the last of which aired in 2022, a considerable period in streaming chronology – might instead enjoy pondering other issues.

    These include, in no particular order, what, exactly, has happened to Millie Bobby Brown, who seems to have gone from being a wholesome, sweet-faced teenager in the first series to a cynical woman of the world in this. Offscreen, she has attracted a raft of negative publicity for what has been seen in some circles as a life lived rather too quickly and large in the public gaze; at the age of 21, she is already a married woman with an adopted child, as well as a veteran of both this and the Enola Holmes series. Yet she’s as dynamic as the Eleven character in Stranger Things as she always has been, ably mixing mystery with jaw-dropping supernatural abilities to give the show genuine jolts of excitement and spectacle whenever she appears.

    Tabloid connoisseurs, meanwhile, might be amused by the continuing presence of David Harbour as Eleven’s quasi-adoptive father Jim Hopper. Harbour has been dogged both by his ex-wife Lily Allen’s coruscating dismissal of him and his extramarital antics on her latest album, West End Girl, and by Brown’s allegations of on-set bullying, which has led to an unusual degree of interest in their on-screen relationship. Yet truth be told, if the stories had not emerged, it would be hard to discern any especial difference, and the warmth and strength of the bond between the two characters has grounded the show, giving it an emotional heart that at times might be lacking amid the sheer preponderance of special effects, lore and big moments thrown in to get the show’s millions of fans cheering.

    As is semi-obligatory with these big shows, the episodes released only constitute half the series, with the remainder scheduled for Christmas and New Year’s Eve. As audiences eagerly await the grand finale – written and directed by the show’s creators, the excellently named Duffer Brothers – there can be little doubt that Stranger Things, in all its loopy, self-referential excess, is pretty much the exemplar of Eighties-themed fantasy on television. A lot of people are going to be made very happy by this, and it would be churlish not to wish them joy.

  • When will the Beatles bandwagon end?

    When will the Beatles bandwagon end?

    The Beatles broke up in 1970, but you wouldn’t know it from the activity of the last few years. In no particular order, we have had an underwhelming valedictory single, “Now and Then,” raised from the dead thanks to the wonders of artificial intelligence and Peter Jackson alike; an eight-hour – eight!– documentary, Get Back, resurrected from the footage of the Let It Be sessions; and now, an all-singing, all-dancing reissue on Disney+ of the Nineties Anthology documentary series, which has been promoted with the fourth volume of offcuts and rare tracks from the band’s career, appropriately titled Anthology 4.

    Even the biggest fan of the Beatles in the world – and I believe them to be the greatest band there has ever been – might be forgiven for feeling somewhat overwhelmed at this artistic necrophilia. Forty-five years after John Lennon was assassinated, the Beatles are now purely the preserve and creation of Paul McCartney, and the amiable but ruthless Liverpudlian has ensured that “his” band continues to be seen as a trendsetting, risk-taking enterprise. Hence this rag-tag assortment of 36 tracks, running a shade under two hours.

    In truth, anyone who has already purchased many of the reissued Beatles albums over the years, including Let It Be… Naked – McCartney stripping the band’s underwhelming final release of the Phil Spector overdubs – will have heard many of the tracks, meaning that only casual fans will find this wholly original. And I doubt that most casual fans will be especially bothered by the opportunity to hear, say, the orchestral arrangements for “I Am The Walrus” and “Something” – the latter of which sounds like really good film music and makes one salute George Martin’s skills as an arranger – or a third take version of “While My Guitar Gently Weeps.”

    The earlier material, meanwhile, is charming – such as the first take of “In My Life,” a song that only grows in poignancy and pathos as the years go by – but it also reminds the listener that over the decade or so that the Beatles were in operation, they had a remarkably swift trajectory from highly successful, polished pop music to daring, boundary-pushing experimentation that was nevertheless always rooted in the Tin Pan Alley-esque basics of great, classical songwriting savvy. It is nigh-on impossible to listen to the final three songs on Abbey Road and not be deeply affected by McCartney attempting to make his peace with a legacy that has, of course, defined his life and work ever since. No wonder he sang “Boy, you’re going to carry that weight a long time”; for the last 55 years, that weight has indeed been carried, through thick and thin alike.

    Anthology 4 will not be the last release of the Beatles. The nearly unlistenable experimental jam Carnival of Light has never been officially (or unofficially) released, and it seems likely that one day McCartney will set it free from its cage, and there are many hundreds of other versions of songs, takes, instrumentals and the like waiting to appear on Anthology 13 and the like. For the committed aficionado, who can have an hour-long argument about whether the sixth or eighth take of the studio version of “Hello Goodbye” is superior, this will be nothing less than nirvana.

    Yet I can’t help thinking – allied to the underwhelm of “Now and Then” – that, for the first time, the sheer accumulation of detail and trivia runs the risk of letting daylight in upon magic, and making the Beatles seem, well, ordinary – which is something that they never were, or never could be. Perhaps McCartney and Ringo, who are both awaiting the Sam Mendes-directed films about each member of the band – expected in 2028 – might be advised to step in and say, “Right lads, enough is enough”, and to let the whole, magnificent enterprise rest in dignity. You might even say that it was time to let it be.

  • What if the Emerald Fennell Wuthering Heights is good? 

    What if the Emerald Fennell Wuthering Heights is good? 

    Every few months or so, a new film comes along and anyone interested in the art of cinema braces themselves, because The Discourse will inevitably accompany it. There is no clearer candidate for fevered discussion next year than Emerald Fennell’s new adaptation of Wuthering Heights, which is released, with smirking predictability, on Valentine’s Day. Ever since the film was announced, there has been controversy over everything from the casting of the Caucasian Jacob Elordi to play Heathcliff (who is referred to in Emily Brontë’s original novel as a “a dark-skinned gypsy in aspect”) to the excessively clean and stylish-looking clothes worn by Margot Robbie’s Catherine Earnshaw. When reports of strong sexual content, including BDSM and hanging-induced ejaculation, leaked from a test screening, word got out: Fennell had made her film again.  

    For some, writer-director-actor Fennell is one of the most exciting figures in contemporary cinema, an Oscar-winning visionary whose previous pictures, Promising Young Woman and Saltburn, managed to say provocative and original things about gender, class and power while still remaining wholly entertaining. For her detractors, Fennell is a nepo baby one-trick pony who is only capable of making the kind of smirkingly superficial films that attract a great deal of attention and make her money without having anything to say about the weighty topics that she tackles. With her third film, the jury will finally return, and the verdict should be fascinating.  

    Certainly, Warner Bros. has enormous faith in Wuthering Heights. The studio has invested $80 million in the budget – Netflix were reportedly prepared to pay $150 million, a ridiculous amount for a literary adaptation, but did not want to release the film theatrically – and forked out for none other than Charli xcx, the pop star du jour, to provide the songs for the picture. The first previews released suggest that Warner have something entirely inimitable on their hands, a strange and dreamlike mixture of swooning Gothic romance, with two of the hottest actors of the moment, and something post-modern and ironic. I was reminded of a similarly divisive film, Bram Stoker’s Dracula, which split audiences down the line on its release but still made a fortune at the box office.  

    The studio will presumably be hoping that the reunion of Robbie and Fennell (who respectively starred and cameoed in Barbie) will be vastly successful. At a time when most period literary adaptations never make it to the cinema, Wuthering Heights is a rare beast, but even as we prepare for endless thinkpieces upon its release, there are a few encouraging signs. Robbie, who has not always been used well by Hollywood, looks too clean and wide-eyed as Cathy, but Elordi, who was a stiff presence in Saltburn, might well be about to capture Heathcliff’s mixture of brutality and magnetism.  

    And the two Charli xcx songs released so far are both excellent. The first, ‘House,’ features none other than John Cale, reciting an increasingly disturbing spoken-word monologue over scraping viola, before the chorus “I think I’m going to die in this house” explodes in visceral fashion. The second, the more conventional ‘Chains of Love,’ is a perfectly judged pop song complete with old-school girl groups “oh-oh-ohs” in the chorus as Charli declares “The chains of love are cruel / I shouldn’t feel like a prisoner.” If they’re anything to go by tonally and thematically, Fennell’s film will be a decidedly modern and downbeat take on Brontë’s original, without the sappy romance of other, less demanding adaptations of the novel.  

    Yet this could also be a false promise. Saltburn marketed itself as a hyper-aware take on Brideshead Revisited and The Talented Mr. Ripley, which instead proved to be an excuse for Barry Keoghan’s charmless arriviste to kill people and dance around a big house naked. And Promising Young Woman was one of the least deserving Oscar-winners for best screenplay ever made, with a lazy, all-men-are-bastards premise that soon resulted in a misandrist twist that made the entire project a repellent one. So there is every chance that Wuthering Heights could be another artistic wash-out. But it could also be like Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette or even the don of all period films, Kubrick’s Barry Lyndon: a fascinating, breathtakingly original take on the material. Not long to go now, in any case, and then The Discourse will have its day. And until then, we’ll always have Kate Bush: “Heathcliff, it’s me! Cathy!” Etc, etc.  

  • Nuremberg and the overpowering greatness of Russell Crowe 

    Nuremberg and the overpowering greatness of Russell Crowe 

    Nuremberg, the latest film by James Vanderbilt – yes, the writer-director is a scion of that distinguished East Coast dynasty – contains two lead performances by Oscar-winning actors. One is extraordinary, and the other is extraordinarily bad. Yet it is a sign of how Russell Crowe and Rami Malek’s respective careers have developed over the past few years that were you invited to pick which actor is capable of greatness, and which one has descended into bizarre self-parody, it would not necessarily be easy to pick which one was which.  

    I shall put you out of your misery. In Vanderbilt’s carefully judged and largely successful recreation of the politicking and drama of the post-World War Two Nuremberg trials, Crowe gives his best performance in at least a decade, and probably longer, as Hermann Göring, the senior surviving Nazi who was put on trial for crimes against humanity by the Allies in the aftermath of Germany’s defeat. Crowe has often been a variable actor, given either to laziness or ham, but here he is focused, intense and remarkably effective as Göring, choosing to underplay the part and avoiding grandstanding in the process.  

    He skillfully suggests what a fascinatingly complex character the German was, and without remotely playing for sympathy or cheap emotion, conveys the sense that he may have been the greatest adversary that the Allies faced. There are points where Crowe, bulked up and dominating the frame, is giving a performance every bit as good as his seminal work in The Insider and Gladiator, and under normal circumstances, this would be a performance that would be getting serious awards attention shortly.  

    The reason why it probably won’t is, ironically enough, Malek. It is now obvious that his Oscar win for his Freddie Mercury in Bohemian Rhapsody was both a fluke and unfair; it created a series of expectations that his increasingly arch and stylized performances have failed to live up. Playing the psychiatrist Douglas Kelley, who is charged with appraising Göring’s fitness to stand trial and whether he is sincere in his claims that he was unaware of the full horrors of the concentration camps, Malek has a tricky role, but while a dozen other actors could have done something interesting, even affecting, with the part, he falls into his usual retinue of tics and twitches. There were several points that I thought that this was going to turn into something fascinating – Kelley going full American History X – but in the end, I realized it was just a miscast actor doing a poor job, and being hopelessly outclassed by a veteran pro in the process.  

    This inequality between the two stars means that the picture, which is never less than gripping and interesting, has a strange enigma at its core. Göring is shown, in Crowe’s carefully nuanced performance, to be entirely plausible and several steps ahead of his Allied persecutors, most notably in a (true to life) courtroom cross-examination scene in which he makes Michael Shannon’s stolid prosecutor Robert H. Jackson look complacent and ill-prepared, throwing his questions and accusations back at him and seizing a final opportunity to promote the glory of Germany under the Führer.  

    The film wants us to be shocked by Göring’s arrogance and self-importance, and to take the side of Leo Woodall’s sweet-natured young translator, Howie Triest, who is eventually revealed to have a very personal animus against the Nazis. Vanderbilt even includes real-life newsreel footage of the concentration camps, which is still nearly impossible to watch, even with all the distance of time, and by the end, as we watch the fascists wet themselves as they hang, we are tacitly invited to see justice being done.  

    Göring, of course, committed suicide by cyanide capsule before such an indignity could befall him, and it is a mark of the strange ambivalence that Nuremberg leaves us with that Kelley’s comment about his death – “He escaped” – could be seen either to connote anger at his cheating justice or a strange kind of admiration at the larger-than-life, Luciferian figure who dominates the film just as he dominated Germany. For a film so alive to issues of fascism and contemporary relevance –  somewhat ham-fistedly expressed in a clumsy, Malek-led coda – it is unfortunate, if inevitable, that the abiding feeling the viewer is left with is as much sympathy for the charismatic devil at the film’s heart as it is horror at the actions of the regime that he was so much a part of. Still, three cheers for Crowe; let us hope that similarly superb performances await in the future, too.  

  • Is Martin Scorsese America’s greatest living director?

    Is Martin Scorsese America’s greatest living director?

    Who’s the greatest living American film director? Many would say Steven Spielberg, and that can’t be dismissed, but he hasn’t made a really good film since Munich (2005). There are many younger pretenders – such as David Fincher, Paul Thomas Anderson, Quentin Tarantino – and the more esoterically inclined might make the case for anyone from Terrence Malick to Spike Lee. Yet it’s hard not to feel that the don of contemporary American cinema is Martin Scorsese, whose career over the past five-and-a-half decades has existed, sans pareil, thanks to a vast dollop of talent, a considerable degree of good fortune and, crucially, an ability to lure both A-list collaborators and deep-pocketed moneymen into financing his films.

    Many of these A-list collaborators are on display in Rebecca Miller’s new five-part Apple TV documentary Mr. Scorsese, a comprehensive, if slightly safe, show that is the most laudatory single-director profile since Susan Lacy’s Spielberg (2017). Many of the same collaborators pop up here: the starry likes of Spielberg himself, Cate Blanchett, Leonardo DiCaprio, Brian De Palma and Daniel Day-Lewis (Miller’s husband) are on hand in both instances to gush as to the excellence of that director. (Scorsese, naturally, was equally warm in Spielberg.)

    Yet the two filmmakers could hardly be more different. One is a Jewish-American optimist from Ohio whose primarily heartwarming pictures – even the darker ones – focus on the virtues of kindness, personal decency and the nuclear family. For Scorsese, meanwhile, a fast-talking Italian-American from New York, the idea of “the family” is largely wrapped up with loyalty to a particular code, whether it’s criminal, spiritual or social. This has resulted in some of the very finest American pictures of the last five decades, whether it’s his earlier work with Robert De Niro –Taxi Driver, Mean Streets and Raging Bull – his more recent collaborations with DiCaprio such as The Wolf of Wall Street, The Departed and Killers of the Flower Moon, or some of the most fascinating examinations of religious faith on screen, not least Silence, Kundun and The Last Temptation of Christ.

    Scorsese, now 82 and in the final act of what has been a truly remarkable career, is unafraid to be filmed in an occasionally vulnerable light, looking conspicuously aged (although not frail) and puffing on an inhaler. The motormouth may still be functioning at high speed, but at 80 miles an hour, rather than the previous 120. (There are rumors of a new film, but nothing concrete.)

    Miller is clearly impressed by her articulate and brilliant subject, but it would not have hurt to have had a little more rigor at times: while it is hard to think of a single Scorsese film that is bad, per se, there is a real case for examining what, for instance, possessed him to spend nearly $200 million of a studio’s money on the charming but ephemeral children’s picture Hugo, made in 3D when that format was briefly popular.

    Still, the stories that are included are well worth five hours of anyone’s time. It’s commonly known that the levels of bloodshed in Taxi Driver gave the Motion Picture Association sleepless nights, but it was a revelation to discover that a distraught Scorsese wished to steal the print away from the concerned studio, possibly with the aid of a firearm, just as it’s amusing to hear Spielberg recount how his friend kept saying, “They want me to cut all the blood spurting, they want me to cut the guy who loses his hand.” Marty was, of course, right to stick to his guns.

    There are many strands of the Scorsese saga that are barely touched on here but which remain intriguing. He came up in the New Hollywood era of such young, daring filmmakers as De Palma and Francis Ford Coppola, but he and Spielberg alone continue to attract vast budgets and appreciative audiences in the decidedly dumbed-down new era of cinema that we currently inhabit. This is testament both to his ability to work well with actors – 24 Oscar nominations or wins for his pictures – and his reputation for producing serious yet accessible work.

    Nor is he afraid to rattle cages. His remarks on superhero movies – “they’re not cinema… [they’re] theme parks. It isn’t the cinema of human beings trying to convey emotional, psychological experiences to another human being” – outraged bean-counters and internet fanboys alike. But he had hit upon a vital truth, namely that these mass-market pictures – most of which are underperforming financially these days – are not serious intellectual nourishment but grossly ephemeral fast food for the brain.

    I doubt that Mr. Scorsese, or its subject, will ever meet the same fate. Miller is sufficiently humble and savvy enough not to impose herself on the narrative that she has constructed, which is, justifiably, a celebration of the director. Earlier this year, many of us laughed at his self-deprecating cameo in The Studio. He’s one of the few working directors who’s recognizable enough for such an appearance to land. As we watch Mr. Scorsese, the question lingers at the back of our minds as to whether the series is a celebration of the director or a premature eulogy. Let’s hope it’s the former.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s November 24, 2025 World edition.

  • Franco Zeffirelli’s slice of paradise in Positano

    Franco Zeffirelli’s slice of paradise in Positano

    If you say the name Franco Zeffirelli to anyone under about 40, you’re likely to be met with bemusement. Find any opera or film lover over that age, however, and you will be greeted with a warm exclamation – “Ah!” – followed by a recitation of the Italian director’s greatest achievements.

    From his emergence in international culture in the 1960s with his seminal film of Romeo and Juliet to his legendary work on stage with such operatic titans as Maria Callas and Plácido Domingo, Zeffirelli became synonymous with tasteful, intelligent productions of the classics, all of which made him, for a time, the best-known cultural figure in Italy.

    It is fair to say that Zeffirelli, who died in 2019, didn’t always get it right, personally or politically. As his career went on, some of his films tended towards the self-parodic and as a man, he seemed torn between his right-wing political instincts and his own sexuality. To further the former, he joined Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia party and came out with reactionary, even shocking public statements on such subjects as abortion and, ironically, homosexuality; as regards the latter, a string of young, handsome actors who worked with the director have come forward since his death in 2019 to testify to his distinctly hands-on working process.

    Still, while one would never wish to whitewash Zeffirelli’s actions, there is no doubt that he was a man of exquisite taste, which he extended into both his work and his private residence, Villa Treville, just outside Positano on Italy’s Amalfi Coast. When Zeffirelli’s biographer David Sweetman was summoned to meet the great man there, it was an inauspicious journey. “It took hours. The taxi bill was unreal, but eventually we arrived at the top of this little winding road. And there was just a gate, and I had to go down all these bloody stairs to the villa.”

    However, the destination soon justified the expense and effort. “Eventually, some ancient servant let me in, and I was shown on to this opera set. I’ve never seen anything like it. It seemed, just possibly, the most beautiful place on Earth.”

    Sweetman was not wrong. Zeffirelli lived at Villa Treville for more than 40 years, during which time he saw Positano change from an obscure fishing village and occasional haunt of the glitterati into one of the world’s most celebrated destinations for cultured A-listers. He did more than his share to bring in international icons, musing on his guests as he sold his home in 2007: “Leonard Bernstein, Laurence Olivier, Maria Callas, Elizabeth Taylor – it sounds like a legend, doesn’t it?”

    Now, a decade and a half since it first changed from being a private home of legendary status to what is surely even this ultra-exclusive area’s most impressive boutique hotel Villa Treville is keen both to honor its past and, in particular, its legendary owner, but also to look to the future. Other five-star options are available, in an area filled with opulent accommodations, but none has quite this level of cachet or history.

    The hotel is reached via private transfer from Naples, which takes about an hour and a half. The last part of the journey is comfortably the most spectacular, as the car must negotiate the narrow roads hugging the Lattari Mountains, and peerless views of the Amalfi Coast are on offer to the enraptured passengers: assuming, of course, that the winding, vertiginous journey has not led to carsickness. Yet upon arrival, earthly cares and worries slip away in moments. Not for Villa Treville some grand, attention-seeking entrance. Instead, the car suddenly turns off through a discreet private gate and you walk down a small track into the reception, where the views – the peerless views – of glittering blue sea and the houses of Positano alike are enough to make even the most jaded and weary of travelers pause, slack-jawed in admiration.

    Wandering round Villa Treville is an education both in aesthetics and in history. While the hotel has been carefully and sympathetically expanded from Zeffirelli’s day – it now comprises six houses, rather than the three (or tre ville) that it originally consisted of when the director lived here – it retains his sense of chutzpah and style in every well-furnished nook and cranny. There have, inevitably, been a few nods to the present day, with a useful lift connecting the various floors and, of course, wifi, along with the usual conveniences of a five-star hotel, but what is so refreshing about Villa Treville is that it has been kept as close to Zeffirelli’s own lifestyle and taste as possible.

    To this end, the director’s books, personal possessions and objets d’art are festooned around the hotel, along with countless photographs of him and his famous friends. If you’re an opera lover, you’ll be delighted to find Zeffirelli’s original sketches for many of the set designs of the shows that he staged at the Met, the Royal Opera House and beyond. But this sense of the impresario just having popped out for a few moments extends far beyond simple décor. At breakfast in the appropriately named Maestro’s restaurant, for instance, guests are encouraged to walk into what was Zeffirelli’s kitchen to choose from a comprehensive and generous buffet selection of fresh fruit, locally sourced cheeses and deliciously decadent cakes and pastries, all of which are accompanied by a wider selection of eggs and pancakes from the à la carte menu.

    The views are peerless, the food sublime; it’s enough to make you want to stay here forever. Zeffirelli was nothing if not well-connected: many of the suites bear the names of some of the famous guests at Villa Treville. Many of them have individual quirks that extend far beyond decorative decisions. The Bernstein suite, named after the composer, conductor and regular visitor Leonard Bernstein, contains a shower in the form of a converted bread oven and an outdoor bathtub in its tropical garden, just as the largest and most lavish suite, named after Zeffirelli himself, has been kept largely as it was when it was his bedroom.

    Yet even the humbler accommodations, junior suites named after operas he staged such as Tosca and Carmen, still feature whitewashed tiles on the floors, walk-in showers, wonderfully large and comfortable beds and, of course, those breathtaking views, which manage to enrapture even the most seen-it-all of travelers whether by day or night.

    The whole point of coming to the hotel is to relax and unwind, rather than embark on a hectic program of activities. Which is not to say that there aren’t plenty of things on offer to entertain you. Peerless treatments, complete with Barbara Sturm cosmetics, are conducted in the La Traviata spa, which itself is housed in a greenhouse rescued from one of Zeffirelli’s opera productions. It’s as peaceful and tranquil a place to unwind as you can imagine.

    Then, if you wish to pep things up a bit, slide over to the all-white, appropriately named Bianca Bar, and admire the Moorish decor (again, another Zeffirelli holdover) while sipping one of the beautifully made and deceptively strong cocktails. Whether you fancy a classic espresso martini, a negroni or a twist on an old favorite, there will be something palate-cleansing on offer for a pre-prandial.

    One of the joys of Villa Treville – and presumably the reason why it pays host to A-list celebrities who have recently included Madonna and Jennifer Lopez – is that it sticks firmly to a policy of complete discretion. The only people who are welcome here are guests of the hotel, meaning that dinner at Maestro’s, which is usually held outside on the terrace, is a relaxed and relatively informal affair. Chef Vincenzo Castaldo specializes in the pasta dishes of your dreams – if you want to see how they’re made, private cookery classes can be arranged, along with everything from ceramics decoration to cocktail masterclasses – and they’re served up along with a selection of pescetarian-heavy dishes, accompanied by a finely chosen variety of local Italian wines.

    Yet even here, the maxim is one of pleasing the guests. I remarked in passing how much I’d love an oyster; a few moments later, a pair of beautifully dressed specimens, complete with apple granita, appeared before me, as if by magic. And magic, in its various forms, is what’s to be found in this most blissfully sybaritic corner of the Amalfi Coast. There is something otherworldly about Villa Treville, which clings to the side of the mountain like an especially opulent barnacle. Immersing oneself in this lifestyle for a few days is as enjoyable an experience as it’s possible to imagine.

    Zeffirelli once remarked that, “Now I could start creating my dream world out of the three villas.” Entering into his dream is opulent, extravagant and unique. Just like its famous creator, then.

    From €830 ($950) per night. For more information, visit: www.villatreville.com.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s November 24, 2025 World edition.