The Adjustment Bureau (2011): Free Will Hunting

Ever had someone suggest to you that the twists and turns of their life, such as stumbling into their career or suffering a serious injury or winning the lottery, were “meant to be”? Or perhaps you feel that way yourself, that events in your life were fated to happen, that like Luke Skywalker, you have a destiny? If you are a believer, of course, you may feel that God is in charge, that whatever happens is God’s will. Well, that’s the essential premise of The Adjustment Bureau. Our lives are guided by a divine Plan, and just in case we are tempted to deviate from that well laid Plan, minions of the higher authority, called The Chairman in this flick, will intercede and make whatever “adjustments” are necessary to put your life back on its intended course. Nothing personal, it’s just business.

But what about free will? That’s not just a delusion, is it? What if, for once in your life, you meet your one true love, and you know you just have to be together. Even if that’s not in the Plan, we can change that, right? David Norris (Matt Damon), the protagonist of this tale, based on a Phillip K. Dick story (naturally), certainly thinks so. Norris is a young, handsome, charismatic, up-and-coming politician from Brooklyn destined, it seems, for great things. As the film opens, he is about to lose his bid for New York’s U.S . Senate seat, but this may just be a character building setback. He’s tough, he can fight back.

Then he accidentally meets the quirkily charming and attractive Elise (Emily Blunt), and suddenly none of that matters. Everything is different. There’s an instant connection. He feels it. She feels it. We feel it. Indeed, the chemistry between these two is magical, something rarer in film than in life, I think. Many movies strive to recreate such moments for us, but not many succeed. I don’t know whether to credit the director, George Nolfi, or Damon and Blunt (probably all three), but they deserve our thanks. The relationship between David and Elise is at the core of the Adjustment Bureau, and it is what saves this from being just another ok thriller.

Because these two are not meant to be together – it’s not part of the Plan at all. And the agents of the Bureau do everything in their considerable powers to keep them apart. These agents are drab but persistent men in black, all of whom wear hats for some reason. At one point they decide to break protocol and explain the facts of life to David (and us), warning him that pursuing this relationship in opposition to the Chairman’s plan will destroy his entire career, and Elise’s too, and besides it just can’t be done. Ultimately, David rebels anyway - he has to be with this woman come what may. What follows starts out as a cat and mouse game between the hats and Matt, and ends up in a wild, suspenseful chase through New York, aided by some clever sci-fi gimmickry
.
The photography evokes a gritty, rainy, iconic, believable New York City: docks, skyscrapers, Central Park, Brooklyn Bridge, Liberty Island - courtesy of veteran cinematographer John Toll (Gone Baby Gone, Braveheart, The Last Emperor, It’s Complicated, etc). Nolfi moves the story along at just the right pace, although this is his first stint in the director’s chair. He must have a nice rapport with Damon, having previously worked with him as writer of Ocean’s Twelve and The Bourne Ultimatum. Unfortunately, his screenplay is the weakness of this film. Ultimately the story, while posing interesting questions, is silly and full of holes.

But the love story and the attractive lead players hold it together and make this an entertaining and interesting, if not great, film.

Available streaming from Amazon, iTunes, Google Play, and elsewhere.

The Last Station (2009): One of Mirren's Best

I had the notion that The Last Station was a good movie, but probably a downer, about the last days and eventual death of Leo Tolstoy; and so I resisted seeing it when it was in wide release, as well as for several months this year, while the Blu-ray disk sat next to my TV, patiently, unassumingly waiting, waiting. Well, I was wrong. The Last Station is an engrossing drama, well written, directed and photographed, with first rate actors, including Christopher Plummer, James McAvoy and Paul Giamotti, and a brilliant performance by Helen Mirren. And I didn’t find it at all depressing.

The story is taken from real life, and, as far as I can tell, pretty accurately depicts the passionate love and irreconcilable conflicts between Leo and Sofya Tolstoy in the master writer’s final days. It’s an interesting story, raising some interesting issues, but the reason to see this film can be described in two words: Helen Mirren.

Mirren is a prolific actress, and I’ve seen her in a bunch of excellent performances, from her detective series, Prime Suspect, to a string of interesting films like Last Orders and Gosford Park (both 2001), culminating in The Queen (2006) for which she won an Academy Award as best actress. Throughout, one of her great qualities has been the ability to express a wide range of emotion – grief, resolve, affront, sympathy, whatever - through a steely veneer of British reserve. As Sofya Tolstoy, trying to save her marriage and contend with a cabal hostile to her most basic desires, Mirren is able to muster such noble reserve through great force of will, but only sometimes. Other times, her fears and passions overwhelm all constraints and burst force angrily and even hysterically. It is an incredible, heartrending, appropriately melodramatic performance. (I saw Mirren like this only once before: in her electrifying performance as Alice in the Broadway production of Strindberg’s Dance of Death opposite Ian McKellen in 2001, but that was live theater.)

It is 1910, and 82 year old Leo Tolstoy (Plummer), the world’s greatest living writer, is living on his country estate. In his later years, he has written extensively about the need for moral and economic reform, pacifism, non-violence and Christian love. A cadre of devotees and sycophants surround him, calling themselves Tolstoyans. The Tolstoyans, lead by Vladimir Chertkov (Giamotti), believe they are the vanguard of a utopian movement, and want Tolstoy, their prophet, to bequeath all future royalties from his writings to “the people” (i.e. the Tolstoyans). Tolstoy is sympathetic, much to the chagrin of his wife of 48 years, Sofya (Mirren), who has born him thirteen children, edited and transcribed his novels, stuck with him through thick and thin, and who is dependent on her husband’s income for her and the family’s sustenance. She knows her husband as a man, not a messiah: Sofya is the anti-Tolstoyan. Tolstoy is torn between love for his wife and love of his philosophy and beliefs, and he has not long to live. The struggle has reached its denoument. Who will prevail?

The story is told through the eyes of Valentin (McAvoy), hired by Chertkov to be private secretary to the great man, and a spy for the movement. Valentin is a naïf and a devotee of the Tolstoyan philosophy, but he sees the tragedy befalling this family. He is also the vehicle for a digressive love story with the earthy and lovely Masha (Kerry Condon). Happily, this merely serves to bolster Valentin’s understanding and empathy, without interfering with the arc of the main story. McAvoy, as usual, is appealing, and allows us to identify with Valentin’s perspective as the story unfolds.

Giamotti’s screen roles seem to alternate between somewhat nebbishy, Everyman characters, and sleazy, manipulative types. In his Chertkov, we see a convincing depiction of the latter. Thus, in the competition between his Tolstoyans and Sofya Tolstoy, our sympathies naturally trend in her direction.

Tolstoy himself is realistically and movingly portrayed by Plummer, as a man possessed of both hubris and humility, caught between two powerful, compelling desires, and cognizant of his mortality, resentful of the need to make an impossible choice at a time of life when all he wants is peace. Plummer earned an academy award nomination for this supporting role.

Ultimately, this is Helen Mirren’s movie. If you are a fan of great acting or of this actress, or both, you should see it.

Available on Blu-ray, DVD and Netflix streaming.

Paul (2011): Funny Aliens (Brits and Otherwise)

Believe it or not, I DO sometimes see first run movies, notwithstanding the hassles of going out, the annoying commercials, the occasionally obnoxious yokels in the audience, and the sticker shock (slightly ameliorated by the occasional senior ‘discount’). So, last night, we trundled off in the rain to see Paul, the new comedy written by Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, and directed by Greg Mottola.

Paul , essentially, is a satirical homage to science fiction movies in general and those about aliens (of the E.T. variety and otherwise) in particular. If you are not a fan of this genre, don’t despair. Paul is also a buddy film/bromance, a road movie and a chase film. It works pretty well on all these levels. It is a charming and funny movie.

The warm, congenial relationship between the protagonist best-buddies Clive (Frost), writer of fantasy comics and Graeme (Pegg) his illustrator, is at the core. These two blokes start the film wandering about at the annual Comic-Con convention in SoCal, like two kids in a candy shop, immediately establishing their geekdom and likeability. This is their glorious first visit to the US, and immediately following Comic-com they’re off in an RV to visit sacred shrines of UFO mystery, including the ultra-secret Area 51 in Nevada and other iconic sites along nearby highway 375, the so-called “Extraterrestrial Highway”. Soon they run into Paul, a wisecracking ET-like alien, on the lam from the authorities. Paul, it turns out, crash landed here 40 years ago, and has been in captivity ever since, getting poked, prodded and interrogated. Along the way, he has picked up not only our lingo, but our vices as well: drinking smoking, cursing, etc. As voiced by Seth Rogen, Paul is vulgar, amusing and wise. He is also dangerous to be around because The Man, personified by a man in black (Agent Zoil, played by Jason Bateman) and by the mysterious “Big Guy” (not a man at all), wants him back dead or alive, before the public finds out. So the chase is on.

Along the way, fun is poked at fundamentalists, red necks, kitsch culture, sci-fi geeks, and other easy targets – but with such a light touch and cleverness that it feels fresh. The director, Greg Mottola, keeps things moving, so the action and the jokes never bog down. Also amusing are numerous affectionate references to other movies of the genre, from Star Wars to Aliens to Close Encounters; some of these references were laugh-out-loud funny.

(Spoiler Alert: if you haven’t seen the trailer for this movie yet - don’t: one of the funniest moments in Paul is previewed there, and you’ll enjoy it much more in context.)

Ultimately though, what keeps us interested is the honesty of the characters and their interactions, not just the friendship between Clive and Graeme, but with the supporting roles as well. Especially strong are Blythe Danner, as a woman whose life was irretrievably altered by Paul’s arrival forty years ago; and Kristen Wiig as a Christian woman whose fundamentalist world view is challenged, to say the least, by the very existence of Paul. If God created man in his own image, what does this alien represent? While Wiig’s predicament is played for laughs, she herself is not a cardboard cutout, but someone with whom we can empathize. There's a great early scene in which a hotel bellhop (Nelson Ascencio)implicates a very different concern at the mention of aliens. And Jason Bateman is fun to watch as the menacing heavy here, a very different role for him.

By the way, Paul has a pretty decent comedic pedigree. You may have seen Pegg and Frost before in two previous funny movies: Shawn of the Dead (2004) a must-see, classic take on zombie movies, and Hot Fuzz (2007) a wild satire on the action/cop genre. Meanwhile, director Mottola has a prior good film on his resume as well: Superbad (2007), featuring the unforgettable “McLovin”; as well as the less satisfactory Adventureland (2009), (see my review of this turkey).

In theaters now.

Want to read more about this film or see other reviews? Go to Rotten Tomatoes.

Les Diaboliques (1955): Corpus Delectible

Les Diaboliques (“The Demons” or “The Devils”), aka “Diabolique’, is a renowned French mystery/suspense film of 1954, with a surprise, ‘shocking’ ending, which indeed was a surprise for us last week; although in retrospect, maybe it shouldn’t have been. The story is clever , intricate and gripping, as any good suspense film should be. At the conclusion, we are warned not to reveal what happened to prospective viewers. That seems fair, as the suspense and the resolution are what make this such an enjoyable classic, so I won’t include any spoilers herein.

Les Diaboliques was directed by Henri-Georges Clouzot. I have only seen one of his other films [Wages of Fear (1953)], but this is reputed to be his best. Clouzot moves the story along and gets excellent performances from his cast, which includes his wife, Véra Clouzot, as the pretty but sickly Christina, hapless owner of and teacher in a dreary, second rate boarding school, run by her flinty, boorish, sadistic husband Delasalle (Paul Meurisse). Simone Signoret, France’s most revered actress of the time, plays Delasalle’s blonde, fleshy mistress, Nicole, another teacher at the school.

Delasalle enjoys disrespecting his wife; one early scene shows him humiliating and torturing Christina, by publically demanding that she consume a nasty piece of fish. He flaunts his affair with Nicole before her and everyone else. But he’s cruel to Nicole as well. Nicole is made of sterner stuff than Christina, and she’s not going to take that crap. She cajols the meek Christina into a plot to murder the jerk. Seems like a pretty good plot, too. But then, the corpse vanishes, strange things happen, and the mystery and suspense take over. For 1954 audiences, the last part of the film was almost too suspenseful to bear. Bear it they, did, however, as this movie was an international hit. For a modern audience, the suspense still works, but I doubt you will find it quite so shocking.

There are also humorous bits, primarily supplied by the supporting actors, including a retired police commissioner, now private detective, in a great performance by Charles Vanel, in worn trenchcoat, with omnipresent cigar, and seemingly inconsequential questions. Sound familiar? Peter Falk’s Colombo character appears to have modeled on this role.

I found Les Diaboliques to be a very watchable film, and entertaining. It’s kind of a cross between Agatha Christie and Alfred Hitchcock. Indeed, Hitchcock was interested in making the movie but got to the author too late; Clouzot beat him to it. Just as well - it’s hard to see how Hitch could have improved it. Yes, it has subtitles, but they are so well done, they’ll disappear from your consciousness within minutes (unless, you’re an extremely slow reader, I suppose).

I recommend this movie highly.
(Available on DVD and for Netflix streaming. )

Body Heat (1981): Noir in Color

It’s amazing how many movies twine sex and murder. And I’ve been seeing quite a few lately.

Body Heat was one of the better movies of 1981. Of course 1981 was not a very good year for American films, aside from Raiders of the Lost Ark, but this one is well worth seeing or seeing again, if you saw it back in the day. (The best of the rest that year included Escape from New York, Reds, Chariots of Fire, The Gods Must Be Crazy, Gallipoli, On Golden Pond, Eye of the Needle, and Ragtime – and many of those were not even American.)

As the title suggests, Body Heat is a movie about passion and sex, and the danger implicit therein. It is an homage to film noir, despite being in color, and uses many of the conventions of that genre: Chandleresque dialogue, dark, shadowy cinematography, mid-twentieth century-style mood music (heavy on the sax), odd camera angles, and a story that features intrigue, homicide and the law. In fact, the basic story is an update on the noir classic, Double Indemnity ( 1944 – Billy Wilder) with Barbara Stanwyck and Fred MacMurray.

Body Heat features hot young actors William Hurt and Kathleen Turner at the very beginning of their careers (for Hurt this was just his 3rd film, after Altered States and Eyewitness; it was Turner’s stunning feature film debut). Both are “hot” in the current vernacular sense as well, particularly Turner, who makes a great and sexy femme fatale. (My female companions seemed not to mind at all the depiction of Hurt’s glistening torso and handsome mug, either.)

Indeed, one of the distinguishing features of this movie, as compared to its 1940’s and ‘50’s predecessors, is the explicit depiction of the sexual passion that drives the protagonists to their fates. In Double Indemnity, for example, sex is the lure, and there is certainly lust and desire; but in the 1981 film lust and desire give way to passionate sex, which turns to obsession, which then motivates murderous schemes propelling the rest of the story. This is not a detraction: it works. We understand how one caught up in such a fever could kill to keep it.

The plot is familiar: Ned (Hurt) is a somewhat bumbling young lawyer in a sweltering Florida town, who’s favorite pastime, aside from hanging out with his guy friends, is bedding the young gals in town (chasing skirts or dames, in the old vernacular). One day, he sees Matty Walker (Turner), a vision in a white, clingy dress - and his life changes. This woman is hotter than the heat wave engulfing the town. He has to have her. Problem is she’s married. And rich (or at least her husband’s rich.) Turns out, Mattie is lonely, and before you know it, the sparks fly. They can’t get enough of each other. But that damn husband is gonna be a nuisance and pretty soon there’s talk of bumping him off. Can they do it? Will they live happily ever after? Are you kidding? – this is a noir film.

The writer/director Lawrence Kasdan does a nice job building suspense and keeping the audience guessing about what’s going to happen next. I won’t spoil the ending, other than to say it is intended to surprise you, and probably will.

Hurt is brilliant as Ned – a guy who’s intelligent but not very smart – who gets in over his head. He’s warned repeatedly to back off, not to do what he feels compelled to do, but he can’t help himself. Though not a good guy, we can’t help rooting for him. Hurt looks too soft to do "what's necessary", but his Ned does it all, convincingly. Turner is well cast as Matty, with her sultry looks and husky voice. Matty is cool, despite the heat, confident in herself (there is no “You’ll have to do the thinking for both of us” going on with this lady) and confident in her sexuality. Turner’s acting is a bit flat, and would be unconvincing if this were a straight romance or drama; but her job is to be the lure, to draw Ned in, and to provide a touch of mystery, and she’s believable enough. Also, easy on the eyes. (Interestingly, back in 1981, male reviewers largely gushed over Ms. Turner, while female critics did not care for her. Pauline Kael was particularly harsh, describing her acting “as if she were following marks on the floor made by the actresses who preceded her.”)

The rest of the ensemble is also notable. Ted Danson (a year before Cheers) is charming as Ned’s friend Peter, a slightly nerdy, loquacious, deputy D.A., vicariously enjoying Ned’s womanizing ways. J.A Preston is believable as the police inspector, caught between his friendship for Ned and his professional obligations. Richard Crenna, playing Matty’s husband, strikes just the right note as a brash, male chauvinist businessman - not likeable, but not particularly deserving a murderous end. (Ned notes that he will die “for no reason, other than we want him dead’; Matty describes him as “small, mean and weak”, but he is neither small nor weak.) A young Micky Rourke is brilliant in a small, but critical role, as a professional criminal, a former client of Ned’s, who offers assistance and advice. Of all the cast, with the exception of William Hurt, Rourke seems the most natural, the most real.

I liked Body Heat and recommend it. But it will not displace the better noir films of the 40’s and 50’s on my list of greats - films such as The Third Man, The Maltese Falcon, Double Indemnity, The Big Sleep, I Am a Fugitive From a Chain Gang, Thieves Highway, etc.

(Available on DVD, BlueRay, and Streaming Netflix)

Visconti's Senso (1954): Cinema as Opera

Just saw the Criterion Collection’s new release of Luchino Visconti’s Senso from 1954. This a storied film, signifying among other things Visconti’s move away from the Italian Neo-Realism movement, to the extent he was ever truly a part of that post-war scene. I was interested in Senso for a number of reasons: It was featured in Scorcese’s terrific My Voyage To Italy detailing the great post war Italian films that the director grew up with (including, in addition to Visconti, Rossellini, DeSica, Fellini, Antonioni and others). Also, the star of the film, Alida Valli (aka Valli) was the love interest in The Third Man, which I just saw and reviewed in last week’s blog post. In fact, The Third Man’s cinematographer, Robert Krasker, also worked on this film.

Senso is a period piece, a costume drama that takes place in the middle of the 19th century. It is the story of Livia, a beautiful aristocratic Venetian woman (Valli), married to a stuffed shirt older husband. Livia falls in love with Franz, a young, Austrian army officer (Farley Granger), and their affair eventually leads to her, and his, downfall. Shades of Anna Karenina. This is set against the backdrop of il Risorgimento, or "The Resurgence", the movement to unify the Italian states into a single nation and drive out the occupying Austrians from Venice and Lombardi. Livia’s cousin is a leader of the patriots. Her liaison with Franz is not only a betrayal of her marriage and of her class, but of her cousin, her political ideals, and of her very self.

This is all very emotional and very melodramatic - intentionally so. While melodrama is out of fashion in cinema nowadays, here it works in a quite satisfying way, as in a good opera. Visconti was an accomplished operatic director and went on to stage many productions at La Scala and elsewhere. Indeed, the film opens at La Fenice, the famed, and famously beautiful, Venice opera house, during a performance of Verdi’s Il Trovatore. This opera is about love, passion, and above all, revenge; and these themes foreshadow all that is to come in Senso. This opening scene is a brilliant, gorgeous, dramatically satisfying set piece. (See it here). From the start, we are made to feel that change is in the air, that this is a time for drama.

We also immediately understand that we are in for a lush, extravagantly rich visual experience. And one of the joys of Senso is the beauty of the technicolor photography, of the sets, the furnishings, the costumes, the scenery. It is a sumptuous visual delight. Normally, this sort of thing doesn’t excite me, but this is no Merchant-Ivory production with slow pans of the sedate furnishings and bric-a-brac. Visconti brings us into the Italian aristocracy’s world, a world of mansions, chockablock with lavish art, sculpture, draperies, servants, massive doors, groomed lawns and gardens, carriages, you name it. But he doesn’t pause to show us these things, they are just there. I was even dazzled by the magnificence of the horses – carriage horses and cavalry horses alike. Visconti was an aristocrat himself, and, according to David Thomson, his chief interest was horses before turning to cinema. All this sumptuousness vividly recreates a bygone time and place, and brings you into the world of the movie’s characters like no other exposition can.

In addition to the tragic, melodramatic story, the voluptuous visuals, and the opening Il Trovatori, the operatic nature of Senso is underscored by its music. Why hire a composer when everything you need is available by sampling from Bruckner’s 7th symphony, which Visconti did throughout the film. This musical accompaniment works wonderfully: it is rich and romantic when called for, then ominous, then tragic. Pairing music with film is a bit like finding the right wine for a particular food – when it works, the overall experience is enhanced, as is the case here.

Senso does drag a bit in the middle. Although this part includes a beautifully staged battle scene, without a better sense of the actual history, it left me and my companions confused more than stirred. (What’s going on here and why should we care?) That said, the tragic tale of passion and ruination picks up again at the end, and we are satisfied. Overall, it is an epic story, well worth a visit.

(For a more detailed examination of Visconti and the making of Senso, see Mark Rappaport's excellent essay at Criterion)

The Third Man (1949)

The Third Man is a GREAT example of Noir, notwithstanding the fact that this was a British production, with a British director and a British/Australian Cinematographer, filmed on location in Vienna. I always associate Film Noir with American crime films, and that’s certainly where the genre developed, but the Third Man conclusively shows that we Yanks don’t (didn’t) own this approach. The Third Man was voted the best British film of the 20th Century by the British Film Institute. I don’t know about that, but it is a must-see film, in my opinion.

Robert Krasker won an Oscar in 1951 for Best Cinematography (Black and White) for his magnificent work on this project, deservedly so. If the film were made today, it might well win again. There is a lot of shadow and darkness in the filming and in the storyline. Camera angles and lighting effects are interesting and creative. Krasker may have been goaded or inspired by the fact that one of the masters, Orson Welles was a star of this film. In fact, one of the great moments of the movie is when we see Welles’ character, Harry Lime, for the first time (after a quite long and interesting build-up). We see a cat rubbing up against the legs of a man standing in a doorway, in the shadows. We remember Lime’s lover mentioning that Harry was the only man her cat liked, and we wonder, could this be…? Then a light suddenly illuminates the face of Orson Welles and we go, “Aha!!!”

There are many other visual delights amidst the darkness and the mystery, including the famous scene on the Ferris wheel, some great angular shots, such as a claustrophobic view up a 19^th century spiral staircase, and the climactic hunt through the Vienna sewers. The final shot of the film is just classic.

The basic story seems simple but quickly grows complicated, with appropriate twists and surprises along the way. It’s just after WW2 and Vienna is occupied by the four allied victors: France, Russia, England and the US, plus – we are told – a central district jointly run by all four. There’s a black market for everything. Anything goes, almost.  Joseph Cotten, in one of his finest roles, is our American protagonist, Holly Martins, a hack writer of Western adventure novels, down on his luck
 and apparently without funds, who has just arrived in Vienna, to take up a vague job offer from his old childhood friend and school chum, Harry Lime. But Harry was just run over and killed the night before, so Holly goes to the funeral. There he meets British Major Calloway (a delightful Trevor Howard) who has been trying to track down Harry Lime for alleged nefarious underworld activities – a shock to the innocent Holly, who had no idea. At the funeral, Holly also lays eyes on Harry’s girlfriend, Anna, an actress , who we soon discover has troubles of her own. Holly is romantically drawn to Anna , played by the lovely Valli (aka Alida Valli).

Holly now has no job, no money, no friend. Rather than pack himself back home, he starts to ask questions, and finds that the stories about Harry’s death don’t quite add up. And we’re off to the races with a pretty good mystery.

What about Orson Welles?  Well that’s part of the mystery, and I don’t want to spoil it. I will say that when he shows up, he justifies his star billing.

The story was written by the great novelist and screenwriter Graham Greene (Brighton Rock, The Heart of the Matter, The Quiet American) who knows this terrain pretty well. The story moves in and out of the darkness. The dialogue is worldly, witty and engaging. The characters are alive and interesting. The director, Carol Reed, gets good performances out of his crew and keeps the action moving along nicely. Reed was already in mid-career by this time, and was quite eclectic. He later directed such diverse films as Trapeze (1956) with Burt Lancaster and Tony Curtis, Our Man in Havana (1959) with Alec Guiness (another Graham Greene screenplay), The Agony and the Ecstasy (1965) with Charlton Heston, and the musical Oliver! (1968).

Valli, by the way, was expected to be “the next Garbo”, which may be why she travelled for a few years using only her last name. She was beautiful enough, she was ‘foreign’, mysterious and reserved in a Garbo sort of way, but for some reason, IT didn’t quite happen for her. She is the female lead in Visconti’s Senso (1954) , one of the next movies I hope to see.