Talking Movies

June 24, 2025

Youth’s the Season-?

Maynooth academic Graham Price writes this rave review of the Abbey Theatre’s recent production of Mary Manning’s Youth’s the Season-?

Mary Manning’s Youth’s the Season-? was originally performed in the Gate Theatre in 1931 and written when Manning was just 26. It is a play one could describe as being a rewarding cross between Chekhov and F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby. The title refers to a line from John Gay’s The Beggar’s Opera: ‘Is youth really the season made for joy?’. By removing the final part of the question from the title of her drama and thus creating a sense of confusion, Manning perfectly encapsulated one of the play’s central themes, which is the uncertainty of both youth and also of early independence Ireland; when the Irish Free State was grappling with its desire to be both reassuringly traditional in its Catholicism but also wishing to embrace some of the modernity of the Bohemian zeitgeist that was permeating Europe, and had been all the rage during the pre-1929 crash in America: A period that was known as the American ‘jazz age’. Near the beginning of the drama, one character jokingly says that he would hate to be a hero in a Chekhov play, only to have that role tragically thrust upon him at the climactic moment of the play.

The play centres on a group of vibrant young Irish people living in the centre of Dublin. These Hibernian Bright Young Things include Toots (Ciara Berkeley), Connie (Molly Hanly), Deirdre (Sadhbh Malin), Desmond (David Rawle), and Gerald (Jack Meade). These characters joyfully celebrate the freedoms and opportunities that the newly independent modern Ireland has to offer them whilst still being uneasy about the precarious future that is very possibly in store for them. The possibility that these young people’s studied urbanity might be a mask designed to cover desperation is always lurking just under the lush façade that characterises the performances of their daily lives.

The most striking moment of Youth’s the Season-? occurs in the second part of act one when a supremely Bacchanalian party is held in the house of some of the central protagonists. The directorial style of this scene encompasses period realism and also that of the symbolist, expressionistic theatre that one would associate with a play such as Oscar Wilde’s Salome (1892). This memorable portion of the play, in both style and in content, encapsulates the liminal position in which these young characters, and the youthful Irish Free State, found themselves during the time this theatrical work is set. Youthful exuberance and a frighteningly uncontrollable sexuality are staged and performed in a manner that reminds one of what one of Jay Gatsby’s parties might have looked like should Mary Manning have undertaken the task of bringing that great novel’s West Egg ragers to the stage.

This ‘modern’ production of Mary Manning’s Youth’s the Season-? by director Sarah Jane Scaife enacted a moment of retrospective recovery by explicitly staging what was only implicit in the play’s first production in 1931: An openly gay male interacting with a man who is probably his same-sex romantic partner. If the play had been performed then the way it was in 2025 it would have been the first Irish drama to stage a gay man and a homosexual partnership. The history of Irish drama instead states that the first gay character appeared in Thomas Kilroy’s The Death and Resurrection of Mr Roche (1966) and the first gay couple in Brian Friel’s The Gentle Island (1972). This is an example of how new productions of old plays can radically reactivate the energies from the past, and use them to animate the democratically undecidable future for Ireland and Irish Studies that will happily embrace all forms of Otherness. Certain audiences at the time of the first production were well aware of the queerness of the characters in Youth’s the Season-?, but in Dublin this remained largely unmentionable and apparently unnoticed while in London, critics responded with distaste at the characters’ ‘unnatural’ inclinations.

The Abbey’s revival of Youth’s the Season-? allowed for a timely reminder of one of Irish Theatre’s ‘unjustly neglected and (sometimes) forgotten female dramatists’. Along with Teresa Deevy, and others, Manning is one the Irish woman playwrights who is certainly deserving of that description. This production retrospectively showcases the radicality, daring, and modernity of her dramatic aesthetic. One can only hope that it will not be too long before another major production of one of her plays graces the Irish stage again.

5/5

Miscellaneous Movie Musings: Part LIX

As the title suggests, so forth.

The Batman Revisited

Before it left Netflix recently I took the opportunity to give The Batman a second viewing, having suffered thru the first encounter with its gargantuan length. Two thoughts predominated. First, it is too damn long. An entire thirty minutes could be cut out with very little damage. Second, Paul Dano is just as bad as I’d thought. His Riddler is an awful performance. He is insanely over the top, but without any trace of joy. He sing-songs and randomly shouts his words like he’s doing Nicolas Cage doing the Riddler. But I can say with certainty Simon Helberg on Studio 60 doing Nicolas Cage doing the Riddler would be a better performance. I came to like more and more the ponderous nature of Michael Giacchino’s Bat-theme, even if it seems like he was deliberately trying to achieve the opposite of Zimmer and Howard’s endless ostinato. For some reason I also kept feeling that it was about to lurch into Chopin’s Piano Sonata No 2. But that may just be me. This time round I appreciated more what Zoe Kravitz was doing as Catwoman. However, it becomes ever more clear that Colin Farrell’s Penguin could be eliminated from the film with great ease, which is worrying, given how little he really does beyond justifying a Batmobile chase sequence and a moment straight out of 1960s Batman where Gordon and Batman realise the clue was beyond their awful knowledge of Spanish. But having not really had much of a lasting impression after the first marathon viewing, this time I was paying close attention to Robert Pattinson as the Dark Knight. And was quite impressed by his stoicism. I hadn’t noticed the first time round (because of all the hype about his emo eyeliner) that his Batman is given to standing, very still, and staring, very long, and that this unnerves the hell out of the people around him. He is self-possessed to a superhuman degree. He speaks when he needs to, acts as the situation requires, and relentlessly journals his day. Or rather his night. Pity there’s no sequel.

Who should play a man named Doll?

This has been occasionally bugging me since I read Jonathan Ames’ delicious slice of LA noir. I thought at first that this would be a great role for Robert Downey Jr, recapturing some of his Kiss Kiss Bang Bang energy, but in an older, sadder role. But then he mooched off for mucho money with a return to Marvel, God Help Us. So then who? Ames’ previous alter egos Jason Schwartzman and Patrick Stewart are no use in the part of a perma-stoned 6 foot ex-cop with an unfortunate habit of killing hired goons by the handful in a short space of time. Ryan Gosling? (In a few years?) Russell Crowe? It feels like this is something that Shane Black should be aware of. And yet, it also seems like it would be karmically wrong to ask Shane Black to direct something that is so well written already that it does not need his input as a writer.

What is the point of Shoah?

Claude Lanzmann died recently and so everyone was obliged to rave over his magnum opus Shoah. But what exactly is the point of Shoah? It purports to be a film, but it is 9 ½ hours long. The Israeli government withdrew their funding for his project when they realised that this man was incapable of bringing in a two hour documentary as requested. And quite right. Ken Burns and Lynn Novick used a TV series format for their recent documentary on the US and the Holocaust. Steven Spielberg kept Schindler’s List to 3 and a quarter hours. If the point of addressing the Holocaust is to raise awareness, to ensure it never happens again, and nobody ever sees your work because of your self-indulgence, then what was the point of tracking down and interviewing perpetrators? It’s not just likely, it’s demonstrably true that more people saw James Woods and Meryl Streep in The Holocaust in 1978 on American network television in the golden age of miniseries than have ever seen Shoah. Or probably will ever see Shoah. BBC Four tried to show it recently, and ended up splitting it in two, and broadcasting it mostly after midnight both nights. I want to watch Shoah. But the monumental difficulty of logistics of watching or recording it has thus far stopped me. So, again, why so much praise for a man who so very deliberately chose to make an unwatchable documentary on such an important subject?

June 22, 2025

The Redhead is Suspicious

Elsbeth and Poker Face are once again running on TV concurrently, so some thoughts from last year have finally crystallised.

Elsbeth Tascioni is annoying. This is not surprising as an observation, but it is worth noting as a baseline. Because Charlie Cale is not annoying. When her FBI associate describes her as “genial, inquisitive, voice like a rusty clarinet” he is dead on the money. And I think the difference is one of sincerity. Both shows are modelled on Columbo, and even if Lt. Columbo knew that the murderer was the murderer the audience felt at all times like Peter Falk was just thinking out loud, and discovering his suspicions as he went, in conversations with the killer. I found myself, by contrast, siding with Stephen Moyer’s killer in the first episode of Elsbeth from Elsbeth’s first appearance because insincerity came off her in great waves. I simply didn’t believe her when she affected naivety, confusion, or, well, anything else.

There were times when in the first season it felt like the writers realised that Elsbeth was extremely hard to warm up to, and they course corrected by making the villains more boo hiss – a prime example being the virtue-signaller par excellence tech CEO. Elsbeth tries too hard to be quirky. Just compare the musical themes – the over the top bouncy quirky quirk orchestral theme over cutesy animation of NYC for Elsbeth, versus the leisurely strummed Americana which introduces Charlie. Perhaps it is to do with the shambolic nature of charm. Does wealth preclude charm? Certainly, par Steed in The Avengers, the answer should be no. And yet… Elsbeth is rich. Like, way rich. And lets people know, a lot, as part of her faux-naive (ahem) personality. Elsbeth lives in her cavernous Manhattan apartment, and solves cases for one precinct.

And wow does that precinct have a lot of very rich people committing crimes in it. (This ties in to some recent sighs in the Atlantic and elsewhere that TV is stuffed to the gills with aggravatingly rich people these days) Charlie is more like the Brothers Winchester from Supernatural. She works ridiculous jobs, a bit of this a bit of that, and moseys from small town to small town, with the occasional detour to big cities, and fights crime when it intrudes on her life. This puts her far closer to the shambolic charm of Columbo, falling out of his beat up car in a rumpled mackintosh and running his hand thru his tousled hair to puzzle out stuff that doesn’t make sense. You could see Columbo joining Charlie for a free hotel breakfast, gleefully abusing coupons assiduously collected.

Not so Elsbeth. She after all constantly shews up all the detectives in the precinct, who must have been utterly hopeless before she appeared to show them how crime can be solved. Carrie Preston was very winning in Person of Interest as an artist, so I don’t think it’s just a question of Natash Lyonne giving a better performance. (And there once again is the question of ostentatious wealth, because the multi-millionaire Harold Finch (not his real name) was never annoying) There is an air of deep smugness about Elsbeth the show, which is so obviously pleased with itself, that, in combination with the irritating parade of quirks passing as a personality that is Elsbeth the character, is near fatal. I look forward to more picaresque adventures for Charlie. I’m not sure I can handle another fourteen of Elsbeth’s cases.

Poker Face continues its second season on Sky One, Thursdays at 9pm

Elsbeth continues its second season on Sky Witness, Mondays at 9pm

June 16, 2025

Bloomsday: 121

It’s Bloomsday, again. But this year I think of something different when sighing over the annual spectacle of people celebrating a book nobody wants to read; and doing so in such a suspiciously self-aggrandising manner.

This year I think of Joyce, Our Contemporary. I was struck by RTE pushing their 1982 radio adaptation as the best way to approach the novel. First let us dispense with the Chestertonian sigh: like the chair that was too good to be sat on, we have the novel so well written it has to be approached in a different medium, in adaptation. Imagine saying that The Taking of Christ by Caravaggio was so perfect that the best way to look at it was to listen to a ten minute tone poem that Borodin had written based on it. But listening to Ulysses on the go as a podcast, why this is the very spirit of our age! Post-literate. The peculiar challenge of reading Joyce’s 1922 opus has now become the generalised problem of all society. Nobody reads. And, to an alarming degree in the rising generation, nobody can read. (cf.Dickens v Kansas) People are ill-informed because they glean their worldview from TikTok. Of course you should listen to this book, because who could be bothered to read it, or, more importantly, any book in the 2020s. Perhaps this year the apposite counter programming for today is not a series of Jeff Goldblum movies but Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451. Reading books is now almost a furtive rebel activity, but we did it to ourselves.

June 13, 2025

Crossing Dun Laoghaire Ferry – Revisited

Friedrich Bagel, celebrated ChatGPT whisperer, informed me recently that the Machine had improved considerably in its ability to write poetry in the style of Walt Whitman. So I thought I would ask it to again tackle a conceit from March 2024 to see how it would tackle it this time.

Walt Whitman was much happier with this considered sketch by James McNeill Whistler

Flood-tide of Dublin Bay! glimmering swell of the Irish Sea!
Evening clouds streaked rose and copper above the chimneys of Dalkey,
How often I have stood here, leaning over the rails,
The ferry’s engine thudding low like the pulse of the city behind me,
Gulls wheeling, screeching as if to remind me:
This is your place, your people, your hour.

And you!
Who years hence may walk these same gangways—
Stepping aboard from the same stone quay,
The salt spray on your cheek as mine—
I speak to you as Whitman did to me, across time and tide,
For you and I are not strangers.

You will see the lighthouse at Poolbeg blinking like an old sentinel,
The cranes along the Liffey bowing in silent rhythm,
The Wicklow hills, blue and ancient, rising like a psalm at the horizon—
You too will marvel, as I do now,
That these humble things are holy.

I too leaned against the rail,
I too felt the low song of the ferry beneath my boots,
I too watched the smoke of ships curl above Ringsend,
And felt some kinship with the cargo,
Some yearning to be carried.

I passed the mouth of the Dodder and thought of children
Skimming stones, and women laughing in flats with windows flung open.
I saw the evening light slant over Dun Laoghaire pier,
Turning the granite golden,
And I thought: yes, this too is a cathedral.

You too shall cross here,
In another year, another century,
Your breath white in winter, your coat flapping in salt wind—
You shall look toward Sandymount Strand and think of walking it,
Barefoot, perhaps, Joyce in your thoughts,
And feel yourself part of this wide, murmuring communion.

What is it between us?—
The ferry’s horn calls not just over water but across generations,
Bridging not only Howth and the South Wall,
But the space between one heart and another.

We contain multitudes, you and I—
The bricklayers on Pearse Street, the students in Merrion Square,
The busker with his fiddle by Grafton Gate,
All of them riding with us in spirit,
All of them ferried by the same human longing.

Ah! The tide still rises,
The engines still churn the same sea-foam—
And still, even as I go, I remain.
For you will stand where I stood,
And know what I knew.

June 1, 2025

The Phoenician Scheme

Wes Anderson is back, with the usual suspects (including Bill Murray), and the usual stylistic tics, but does this amount to a hill of beans?

The year is 1950. Wealthy arms dealer Anatole “Zsa-zsa” Korda (Benicio del Toro), known globally for his dubious dealings, and for surviving more plane crashes than Hemingway, decides to make his estranged daughter, Liesl (Mia Threapleton), a novitiate nun, his sole heir. To secure his legacy and get his trademark 5% cut on a 150 year scheme –  the titular multi-stranded desert infrastructure project – Korda needs to cover a massive financial “Gap”, suddenly expanded by the machinations of agent Excalibur (Rupert Friend) in the commodities markets. Accompanied by Liesl and new personal tutor Bjorn (Michael Cera), Korda attempts to strong-arm or negotiate with business associates (Tom Hanks, Bryan Cranston, Mathieu Amalric, Jeffrey Wright), and family members (Scarlett Johansson, Benedict Cumberbatch) to finance his scheme. And maybe, just maybe, on a trial basis, he might learn how to actually be a father.

The first thing that strikes you when watching this movie is how heavy Alexandre Desplat’s score is. Desplat in his work for Anderson has often prioritised eccentric instrumentation above all, but here he leans greatly into Rachmaninov’s fondness for large cello, double bass, and bass clarinet and double bassoon sections. This is a muscular score, reflecting Del Toro’s family motto “If something gets in your way – flatten it”, with hints of Shostakovich in its drive, and Anderson also chooses to showcase several works by Stravinsky. The second thing that strikes you is that Adam Stockhausen’s set designs for Anderson have now become so outre that on a couple of occasions you are convinced you are looking at a model, and then people walk into it and around it and you realise it’s full size. Reality bends before three point symmetry.

Wes Anderson abandoned any pretensions to reality a long time ago, and it’s been quite some time since he even aspired to Salingerism. Like Tarantino he has disappeared into his own cathedral of conventions, and you never quite know what you’re going to get. I see it as a coin toss between Artifice and Whimsy. Roman Coppola is his helper on scripting duties this time, and the coin seems to wobble on landing toward Artifice – down to the signposted plot structure. Del Toro is clearly enjoying himself, “Myself, I feel very safe”, and so are Hanks, Cranston, Amalric and fast-talking Wright. Richard Ayoade is hilarious as a Communist guerilla, but are newcomers to the repertory company doing deadpan, or are they just flat? Who can tell? There’s not enough heart. But there is “Have a hand grenade” “You’re too kind”.

The Phoenician Scheme: not as good as Asteroid City, better than The French Dispatch. And at this point one can really only speak of Wes in terms of Wes.

3/5

Blog at WordPress.com.

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started