[Preliminary note: given that this text go into many details about the plot of this film, and I would like it to be forced by adding the words SPOILER almost every line, I chose not to, so I recommend the reader who has not yet seen the film, and want to wait to see it to be (or not) " surprised "that do not read ].
I had intended to speak in this blog, together, two recently released movies, which, as advance- I found extraordinary, with the third major release this month of January, Road to Freedom (The Way Back, 2010), Peter Weir, to which add a fourth new release, if deemed to be so late arrival in the English cinema screens of the wonderful Thérèse (idem, 1986), Alain Cavalier, up the four cinematic masterpieces that have provided a dazzling new film opening this year as a long time that the undersigned did not remember. Those two movies to which I refer are Of Gods and Men (Des hommes et des Dieux, 2010), Xavier Beauvois, and Beyond life (Hereafter, 2010), directed by Clint Eastwood. My first intention, as I was to write a joint commentary on both films based on the common points that can be found in them on issues such as faith, death and belief in the afterlife. However, the fact is that at the last moment I felt the urge to focus on Eastwood's film, by way of divergent visceral reaction to some extremely negative comments I have had occasion to read or listen out loud these days made about Beyond life. Frankly, I'm amazed: at this point, when it seems that much has been written about Clint Eastwood's films, there and a considerable body of research on her life and his films as director, and when seemingly everyone (encompassing press here and hobbies / interests to the movies) knows, or seems to know, what our man walking shoes, it turns out that , when the truth is, every time a new job opens Eastwood in Spain (I do not know if this also occurs in other countries), we must start again from scratch. 
From nothing seems to have served all the time that has happened, and everything has been said and written since it debuted as a filmmaker Eastwood Misty for Me (Play Misty for Me, 1971), was progressing in his style to reach a growing recognition by Pale Rider (Pale Rider, 1985) Bird (idem, 1988) or Unforgiven (Unforgiven, 1992) and reached a kind of artistic zenith Million Dollar Baby (idem, 2004). No one knows very well why, Eastwood seems to have arrived, "as Woody Allen," when the sticks "to the point that every new film of his in recent years-especially the formidable Iwo Jima diptych, the brilliant and misunderstood Exchange (Changeling, 2008), which said more than a few silly, or Invictus (idem, 2009), by no means as negligible as tried many, many- has been made between us to a strange and irritating divided. Quickly pointed out that the discrepancy is considered good in itself, since it works differently difference of opinion that encourages cross-fertilization of thought. But the controversy that usually accompany a while now to the latest Eastwood seem strange, given that repeat again and again, and insistence worthy of a better cause, aspects of his films at this point I think it has been analyzed ad nauseam, as the ambivalence (not ambiguity) of your images, the slow pace (not slow) of his narrative, or dark lighting (not confusing) of their frames, to which we must add some unfortunate canards about his film that, sadly, have become popular quickly and unconsciousness, as his avowed practice of not reviewing the scripts that accepts roll (which is interpreted as a lack of rigor on the other hand, regardless or his long experience in the film industry and, above all, the results from these scripts allegedly minimally processed) and in particular, their tendency, very marked in recent times, to accept projects of which, it says, "did not go." The latter is, as I say, I find it irritating, that attitude, I can not otherwise qualify as narrow-minded, that a renowned film director, famous for a certain style or by a, say, easily recognizable "brand" (visual, thematic, stylistic) can not / should not get off the road by himself and set about trying something different (which, as a rule and with few exceptions, is but a variant of what he had done before, but made otherwise). Eastwood seems that experimentation is prohibited, under a repressive and restrictive decree which has issued it is unclear who or why. It is no coincidence, in this context that the latest film from director received more acquiescence in recent years is the, otherwise excellent Gran Torino (idem, 2008), one of the biggest commercial successes of his career , because it is, so to speak, "the lifelong Eastwood," and also in person (still this is the last film in which he participated as an actor). In other words, Gran Torino is offered as a movie pleasing to the viewer (either critical or amateur) lover of a certain image of Eastwood, and with few exceptions, prefers to ignore / overlook, if not, as now, arrogant and dismissive contempt, to "the other Eastwood", the least popular complacent, which is not obvious, the most subtle and insidious: the experimenter with the conventions of genre film that is easily disguised under the garb of a solid-like filmmaker narrator "classic"-there are, for whom and want to see, Plains Drifter (High Plains Drifter, 1973) Autumn Spring (Breezy, 1973), The Midnight adventure (Honkytonk Man, 1982), A Perfect World (A Perfect World, 1993), Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil (Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil, 1997) or exchange - side returns to the fore in all its glory in this magnificent and misunderstood Beyond life. 
suspect that one reason for the unjust feeling of disappointment has been received this film lies in something that, I insist, at this stage should not have caught anyone by surprise (to anyone that they are given "expert in Eastwood", that is): the sobriety of its tone, the containment of its staging, the nearly absolute serenity with which she watches, front and only with formal flourishes just and necessary (then talk about them), one of those topics that are considered - horror-"big": the possibility of life after death. I can understand, even without sharing, those who like to assess the film in particular (or art in general) under what is usually called "the issue" and believe, as I say, that this "issue" (life after death) is "important" can be deduced that the sober tone used by Eastwood is perhaps not up to the theoretical "greatness" of this issue and that, consequently, so are expected, perhaps, a more bombastic (as I've said many times, particularly I do not understand what "the issue", nor does it matter or if they exist in the movies, in art or in life itself "issues" important, or what "issues" are "important" and what not, or according to what criteria are important or not, hopefully someone makes a date a list as we clarify). In other words, I understand you have to whom the film does not meet certain expectations of spectacular, beyond the first-and-brilliant opening sequence tsunami, especially taking into account, in fairness to the defrauded, that the film has received a promotion campaign somewhat misleading, it has offered as if it were a horror film about apocalyptic background, all helped by the presence in the story-like detail, then a child more or less go-to-people-dead to Shyamalan. To this we must add something which, at this stage should not even be taken into consideration, but apparently seen necessarily has to be mentioned: the pompous English title, which seems to promise a raid unearthly world on the line, say, of Beyond Dreams (What Dreams May Come, 1998, Vincent Ward) or The Lovely Bones (idem, 2009, Peter Jackson), otherwise great . As one would expect, and there are those who find the culprit made his disappointment, said, why not!, Its executive producer and original owner of the project, Steven Spielberg, with whom Eastwood had worked in Bridges Madison (The Bridges of Madison County, 1995) and also referred to Iwo Jima diptych. [Note bene : how convenient it is, in a sense, working with Spielberg! If the movie he will produce and you lead goes well, it's because your talent is, of course, higher than his ... And if the movie goes wrong, you can always blame it on him and his interference ... By the way, Spielberg one of the executive producers of Grit (True Grit, 2010), Joel and Ethan Coen, a fact that nobody, at least to my knowledge, has highlighted]. 
As usual in films of Eastwood, the trees can not see the forest. Beyond life-accept, for purposes of exhibition, this misleading title-wonder, first, the freshness of his narrative. The assembly, contrary to what some have rushed to say, not at all "slow", but even a little "faster" than usual for the director. There are more cuts and more camera sites which had, to quote a title more severe as a sober narrative-in Million Dollar Baby. To take a simple example: the conversation in the spring of San Francisco where they work, George Lonegan (Matt Damon) and a co-task, which basically Eastwood plans through a combination of general almost flat (which used to be known as " American plane) both front traveling with the camera in front of the characters, such as monitoring traveling with the camera following behind him. This has, in my opinion, a certain sense. Given that the crux of the story revolves around three characters affected one way or another with death, understood as the end point of existence, that is why the tone is more routine and "urban" than is usually customary in Eastwood. Thus, detailed planning times daily environment in which the protagonists move, the American George, French LeLay Marie (Cécile de France) and English twins Marcus and Jason (Frankie and George McLaren) thus suggesting that such an environment, the everyday context, is particularly important for the characters, and states, covertly, a key to the film: although it may seem, Beyond life is not a movie about death but about life; greater deepening, Billy (Jay Mohr), George's brother says his friend Christos (Richard Kind) that George left long ago to make a living as a medium because, in the words of George, " a life that is based on death is life." Precisely, if there is something transcendental Eastwood explored in this occasion is the importance life, hence, insist that planning is recreated, more than usual in its director, gestures, looks and daily details, it also explains the association, as simple as beautiful, that between the first time we see Marie in Thai hotel where her lover is hosted Didier (Thierry Neuvic), dressing to go out to buy a gift for daughters of the latter (daily actions leading up to a crucial moment will be one of the victims of the tsunami that is about to swoop down on the city), and the scene that Eastwood returns to minute detail, we look at Marie, now in another hotel room in London, again dressed to go out (most everyday gestures that precede another turning point: his final appointment with George). 
Another aspect that struck me is how seemingly Eastwood uses conventional images for inclusion within the context of the story, makes them a particular sense (is it necessary to reiterate here the ambivalent character , which is not ambiguous, the images that populate the film of its director?). I mean, first, to the display of the brief, very brief scenes in which characters glimpsed that "beyond", in this case both that senses a choked and for a short time Marie dead time, such as those seen George when he picks up in the hands or touches someone's skin, are, so to speak, the typical flashes of white light over a landscape "heavenly" unknown and mysterious to people who move Through this light, also accompanied the equally typical musical accompaniment (as can be seen, of course, a nod or why not Eastwood's homage to his executive producer: the flashes kept echoes of the final sequence of Encounters of the Third Kind / Close Encounters of the Third Kind, 1977). Eastwood also employs classic shot images of the three major cities Western action is concentrated dramatic story behind the tsunami in Thailand, ie, San Francisco (the port, the Golden Bridge), Paris (Arc de Triomphe, the Eiffel Tower) and London 
(the Thames , Big Ben), to place the viewer in each of these scenarios every time the story focuses, respectively, in George, Marie and the twins, later, will do the same with Switzerland, where Mary visited the clinic Dr. Rousseau (Marthe Keller), showing her no less characteristic mountains. What sucks about these conventions is not in its functionality in itself considered, the flashes display the "beyond" who see the characters, the wide flat put us in the geographical area of \u200b\u200baction, "but the fact that these conventional images apparently are consistent with the meaning of the story. On the one hand, flashes on the "beyond" respond to the stereotypical view that everybody has about the afterlife: the famous "tunnel of light"; respond therefore to the concept that life can have after the death of an ordinary man who has been touched by a gift for seeing the "other side" that he considered more like a curse (George) and a journalist "objective" and, therefore, skeptical, whose first contact with the "beyond" also responds to the same stereotype (Marie). If it has been said ad nauseam that Howard Hawks put the camera at eye level of men, we could say that Eastwood, in Beyond life, displays a remarkable phenomenon, bringing it in line with the simplicity and humanity of its protagonists. Moreover, in regard to the use of these planes scenic San Francisco, Paris, London and Switzerland, use shocking, apparently purely functional, is that these views "tourist" (or, if you prefer, "geographic"), designed to mark the differences between the various sites where they move the main characters end up being paradoxical shows that in the end, despite these differences geographical / architectural / cultural / landscape, the conflict that haunts the characters, and therefore everyone is the same: to face life and facing death, or, put another way, that all these differences are nothing more than conventional signs of identity become insignificant or irrelevant to the mystery of fate that puts all human beings. 
course than this, that shows how much is Eastwood a subtle experimenter stereotypical narrative forms, it is hardly the only merit of this exceptional film. It is also very bright, and yet extremely subtle, his way of modulating these narrative forms "traditional" role of the dramatic needs of what he narrates. A great example is found in the first and great tsunami sequence, not so great thanks to the brilliance of its visual effects, but mainly based on their exemplary construction. It starts in the bedroom of the Thai hotel room shared with Didier Marie, the fact, already noted, Marie to get out of bed and get dressed to go down to the street with the intention of buying a gift for daughters of Didier, while the latter prefers to hang around and stay in bed, is a first indication that their relationship is about to crumble, in this sense can be understood subsequent tsunami that nearly killed Marie as a graphic display of the "disaster" that is becoming his relationship with Didier (something that is very clear then, months later at dinner in Paris during which Marie sensed that Didier has been replaced by another lover, 
she says, about "if you had bought something for your daughters, none of this would have happened ... ). Marie, as we have said, gets dressed and goes out, when it comes to a flea market, located in the middle of what appears to be one of the main streets of the neighborhood, his arrival at that location is "marked" with Eastwood through a plane usually combined with falling crane, another conventional remedy here is apparently the most consistent: the downward movement of the camera announces the "descent" of Marie to another level of reality is in the same street where she and the rest of pedestrians will be overwhelmed by the giant wave that will sweep the city and will forever change the meaning of life of women. Master can not forget two points: the general level of the street showing Marie and people looking to fund it, while the distance we see how they are collapsing the palms pushed by the heavy sea (beautiful image that keeps unexpected echoes of King Kong / idem, 1933, Ernest B. Schoedsack and Merian C. Cooper, or Forbidden Planet / Forbidden Planet, 1956, Fred McLeod Wilcox) and insert the poetic Marie's hand, unconscious under water, releasing the wrist of the girl who was at his side at the time of the disaster. 
as eastwoodiana This ambivalence, which allows its best films-and this is one of them-always cherish more than one proposal, which is seen with the naked eye and is offered in second term disingenuously, is that redirects Beyond life into terrain rich in suggestions. Thus, what at first appears as a story of characters confronted with a supernatural experience, or at least, unearthly, just revealed in practice, a thorough study of human characters face, rather than death, life decisions . In this sense, George, a humble dock worker that "contact" with the souls of the deceased of the people it touches- as Marie-a television reporter and investigative journalist who, having "died", decides to find out what they have experienced, such as Marcus, the English boy whose twin brother Jason died victim of a stupid accident-affected people one way or another by the fact of death, or the people that is alien (George), his own (Marie) or that of a loved one (Marcus), are characters searching for meaning to their lives: George want to live apart from death, Marie, to understand something that until then he was indifferent; Marcus, fill the existential void left by his brother to die. It is no coincidence, therefore, that searches carried out in parallel with these three characters have in common gestures and attitudes rooted in strict routines. George left his strange employment for some time as a medium and is concentrated in a "normal work" (port) and fill part of their leisure in an activity on earth (not coincidentally, a cooking course, nothing is more opposed to the death that the act of nutrition and pleasure "earthy" flavor and aroma of good food). Marie leaves a lucrative publishing project, consisting of a biography full of revealing previously unknown aspects of the life of François Mitterrand (another dead person ...) to insist to a personal book investigating his personal experience with death and unearthly similar experiences, consistent with the thought "goal" of character, we will visit the Swiss clinic of Dr. Rousseau, another skeptical, as she has finished convincing in appropriate "scientifically" the possibility of life after life. It is also a great consistency that the answers you seek the small Marcus contrast are more naive, in keeping with the young age of the character: 
the child wants, simply, that Jason "no go" and all their efforts are intended to compensate for the absence of the dead brother's ways Materials: cap wearing Jason, or feel the almost physical need, in the bedroom prepared for him by his foster family while his mother (Jackie: Lyndsey Marshal) is detoxified, installing a second bed, "that of Jason "to be able to sleep at night (one of the best and most emotional moments of the film, comparable in strength and poetic intensity other views of the death of a loved one understood as the absence : see sunset boot little remembered a film by Ingmar Bergman, Woodworm (Beröringen, 1971), or copy of a film mortuary atmosphere unappreciated even be the best to the date of the irregular Michael Winterbottom, Genova (Genova, 2008; respect I refer to what I wrote on this blog on June 5, 2009 : http://elcineseguntfv.blogspot.com/2009/06 / genova-a-reality-alternativa.html ).
Although, as I say, Beyond life is first a movie about the life over death, is no less true that his dramatic approach and drawing his characters are everywhere time conditioned by the fact of death, rather than the conditioning eventually emerged, eventually, vital lessons which benefit all three protagonists. Mention should be made widely criticized these days to "happy ending", under which the small end Marcus accepting the death of Jason with the help of George and Marie latter and landed in what has all the signs of lead a love story. Coda is a more optimistic and hopeful than usual in Eastwood, which breaks the trend toward grim findings of his latest films began in Invictus, though, as always with its director, said happy ending is rather relative and is tinted with skepticism: the future that awaits players in Beyond life is rather bittersweet, in one case (Marcus) live the rest of his life without his brother and the company of a mother who was emotionally unstable and no guarantee that never again relapse into their addictions, in another (George) do with the certainty that can never get rid of this gift / curse that allows contact with the souls of the dead, and another (Marie) with the insecurity of knowing that few will believe in what he experienced and put into question all their prestige professional. 
has also been critical of the forced "accident" raised in the script, under which these three characters end up being in London, the city where Marcus lives and which travels George rental, to fill there his love for Charles Dickens (then return to this), and Marie, to promote the book on his experiences, entitled Hereafter (as the film in its original version) . But once again, the ambivalence with which he presents all these alleged defects Eastwood relativized, or at least, calls into question their status as such, forcing the viewer to constantly ask questions about the nature of what he sees. On the one hand, and until you get that "happy ending", the vital and emotional journey that the characters have continued up to this point has been marked by pain, frustration, misunderstanding and loneliness, and as already noted, this happy end is little more than a breath of hope that precedes an uncertain future, therefore, and depending on how you look, the "happy ending" is in considerable background realistic basis: no one knows what will happen then the rest is pure speculation. As for the "chance" meetings that occur George-Marie and George Marcus, and that from a strictly logical point of view and no rational reason to be, also depends on the eye of the beholder: if before In reaching this conclusion we have previously agreed that a dead woman for a few minutes has been or thought they saw landscape beyond, a man believed contact contact or beyond that if they ask, and that a child feels accompanied daily by the protective spirit of his dead twin brother, in comparison does not seem so illogical not unreasonable that these characters match at any given time, and attracted by a common interest in the same place and time: it is much more unlikely (dramatically) and mysterious (emotionally) what they live daily. In a sense, this again confirms that, rather than on the mysteries of death, Beyond life is a digression on the mysteries of life. 
I almost convinced, finally, that much of the rejection that results in, depending on who (respectable, of course) lies in the fact that this film makes a torrent of questions and suggestions, but most of which are not response. No one who sees Beyond life will find a "solution" to this important question that is as a backdrop to the story: it is very clear by now that the film does not go there. But who "see" and understand this film, but not limited to "look", you will find a very attractive return series of psychological profiles in drawn together, sotto vocce , a brilliant digression on the needs of human beings. Under this view, and I'm not speculating, the film offers enough clues that view it that way, "also draws attention to the protagonists of the story have in common apart from their direct or indirect experiences with the beyond The fact that they need something they have not. We are told that George earned a good living commercially exploiting his skills as a medium, but stood down, in exchange for a more humble employment (more "normal"), because the constant invocation of the dead depressed him. Marie is presented as a journalist "successful", admired for their beauty, intelligence and respected for its popular thanks to his work as a reporter and interviewer for television, but basically does not stop to feel satisfied with their relationship with Didier, her lover and director of TV show that has become famous (and we noted something about the first sequence is Marie who looks down to the street to buy a gift for Didier's daughters), and after the experience extremely vivid, their priorities change, carried away by the urge to see life through different eyes: it is significant, as also noted, that Marie, a reporter specializing in politics, decline to write a Mitterrand book that will eventually benefit the preparation of otherworldly experiences similar to yours. And Jason Marcus and his twin traps as best they could their difficult life with her drunken mother and the constant threat of social services snatch custody to her mother, but the unexpected death of Jason completely alters the perception of the existence of first and drives him (naively, we have said) to find what has been lost: to get his brother. 
Thus Beyond life is also a story about the change of view, or if you prefer, the change of outlook on life of three human beings marked at a given time of their lives in the shadow of death. The strength of such an approach lies, first, in his model building parallel narratives also much criticized (and are looking forward!), So that between the "stories" of George, Marie and Marcus / Jason will creating a dramatic association (lives marked by death) and emotional (life characterized by loneliness and misunderstanding of others), which Eastwood weaves through subtle details of staging. It should be noted, in this sense, combined with crane-angle shot that closes up the first sequence, the image of Marie regained consciousness after being removed from the water and left for dead by his rescuers, and the almost identical shot that shows the death of Jason in the presence of Marcus, after being accidentally run over by a truck in front of which was thrown while fleeing from harassment some young thugs. According to the topic, the movement of cranes rising over the image of a dead person (for Jason) corresponds to a hypothetical "ascension into heaven" of the deceased, but, as in the case of the panoramic city famous lines that we mentioned earlier, Eastwood makes the use of this map is ambivalent: we can interpret it, in effect, as a "rise Paradise "Jason's soul, but will not be operational in the case of Marie, who is still alive, so we can see it also as a way to create a visual association between the characters, in the sense that the camera" takes off "soil but does not rise to heaven, but a symbolic move to another place of our planet to get us to the next character: let us remember that, despite its English title, Beyond life is a story develops, and acquires its meaning in our earthly world. 
that ambivalence is characteristic of the film as Clint Eastwood, I insist, which gives Beyond life full force and complexity, so that the certain and the uncertain, the true and false, the supernatural and the earthly, the living and the dead coexist in a single sequence, sometimes in the same frame, without the clashing together. It is this ambivalence which gives much density George's character, without doubt the best drawn and that as the story progresses is gaining in unexpected hues. It is telling about the entire course of his almost loving relationship with Melanie (Bryce Dallas Howard), his partner in the kitchen workshop, which gives rise to two of the most beautiful sequences that lately has run its author. The first is that, during the cooking class, in which George and Melanie start to get intimate while her first, and then he tested food blindfolded, it does not take a whiz to see that, blindfolded and stands in a delicate metaphor about attracting love, further strengthened by the counterpoint of flavor of the food tasted: an invitation to sensual pleasure accompanied by a volunteer "blindness" (by the way, is it necessary to assert at this point that do not share the criticism about the quality of the script, signed by Peter Morgan?). The second sequence to which I refer is 
to George and Melanie's apartment first I seem to copy a model not for its construction and the skill of the actors (excellent Bryce Dallas Howard, a Matt Damon better than usual), and by the apparent wealth of suggestions that we discovered here that George began to have their otherworldly visions after an accident that required surgery on his head: fleet, so the idea of \u200b\u200ban incipient insanity or mental disorder by the character (which, indirectly, we also casts doubt on what he saw, or thought they saw , self-Marie: she also took a big hit in the head during the tsunami ) but, above all, lies in this sequence a tangible reality: that, despite their efforts to "normal", George is unable to establish stable relationships with people also "normal", to which, as in the case of Melanie, just scaring or causing them to reject their "revelations" and that when the truth, nobody likes someone to reveal their secrets, which expose it to light their hidden fears: Eastwood how close this sequence, with the image of Melanie crying after leaving the apartment George, leaves no doubt about the failure of that relationship that has not even come into being. 
Play in this sense, as Beyond life has portrait of the loneliness of the character of George, the ambivalence with which he is shown what his theory on paranormal powers. There are plenty of planes that sometimes, as an embedded narrative, we see the character alone in his apartment. The appellants are also significant in light planes semipicado George looking out the window, than your apartment or your hotel in London, which express how the character looks distant as life unfolds at his feet is not accidental therefore, that the last time we see him looking out the window from his hotel room in London, is to see Marcus, died of cold in the corner because he is determined to see and speak with him, and that is the child who will overcome the passivity of George, who takes pity on him, invites him up to his room and gave him the opportunity to "contact" with Jason. This is one of the crucial moments of the story, and that best defines the qualities of this film: the words of George Marcus seem-as pronounced by George Christos Melanie or expressions of comfort to the small, in fact, every time we see George "contact" with the past, once again the ambivalence of these scenes allows the viewer to doubt if the character actually has visions of the afterlife, or simply an extraordinary intuition developed, possibly as a result of head injury he suffered, even when it's time Marcus made the-big-question, what is after death, George's response could not be more forceful (and frustrating for who seek high-response "):" do not know .... " 
eastwoodiana ambivalence here is carried to extremes that border the famous "suspension of disbelief": it is possible that, as we have seen a few scenes earlier, Marcus has been saved by the ghost of Jason, snatching the cap so they not caught the subway explosion due soon of an attack, but it is also possible that the cap has blown off because of a gust of wind from the subway tunnel ... Also, the romantic final encounter between George and Marie on the street, there was another flash in Does the mind?, is the imagination?, of the medium, under which "sees" himself kissing Marie; the difference from the other "contacts" is that this is produced without physical contact with anyone nay, when George and Marie shake hands in greeting, the first and not "feel" any perception in the afterlife (the first time he touched each other), perhaps because, unlike other people who played, and he begged his services as a medium, Marie has been "dead" and feels no need for George will talk about something you know, or think we know of firsthand. I note, finally, the reference to Charles Dickens pointed lines I have left behind: George likes to hear radio stories by English writer by night, and even has a picture of himself hanging in his apartment, later, after his abortive affair Melanie, George travels to London to visit the home of Dickens, attracted by the presentation of the book of Marie in a book fair, there will also witness a reading of Little Dorritt by the actor Derek Jacobi (as himself). You can read this reference to Dickens in many different ways, for example, as a nod of fund to "justify" so culteranismo thing about actors Beyond of fictional life: they are characters who, despite their simplicity, have a point bigger than life . Can also be interpreted as a kind of warning for boaters: Dickens was often accused of sentimentality; Eastwood, here, and Spielberg, often, too. 
0 comments:
Post a Comment