by Kate Schmidt on November 10th 2008 - 1:29 p.m.
Digg this
| 
Post to del.icio.us
| 
E-mail to a friend
Digg this
| Post to del.icio.us
| E-mail to a friend
Lola is a woman of no talent or substance, a woman whose sex appeal and brash pursuit of her own self-interest made possible a rapid ascent and precipitous fall, literalized here in a climb up the dizzying heights of the circus tent and a climactic dive to the ground, without the aid of a safety net. —Chris Wisniewski
At the Music Box this week is a beautifully restored version of Max Ophuls's 1955 masterpiece Lola Montes. Do not miss it. I'm tempted to go back and see it again every single night despite the inertness of Martine Carol's Lola, but think I may just settle for rewatching Ophuls's equally amazing The Earrings of Madame de . . .
re martine carol's impassivity: not sure it's a problem, not conceptually anyway, though dramatically it obviously doesn't offer much--which may actually be intended on ophuls's part, since the historical lola's an enigma in much the same way: why her, why then, where's the "magic" coming from, the presumed charismatic allure? * it's long been a historian's puzzle, and arguably ophuls's decision NOT to dramatize, to leave a vacancy at the center of the film, acknowledges this paradox * we've also other instances of the same strategy at work, conceptual "black holes" around which a dramatic world takes form, tom cruise in EYES WIDE SHUT being one recent example, a principle of entropy at the dynamic heart of things * and it's apparently true that ophuls didn't set much store in lola's character anyway: just an excuse to hang the "real" movie on, and most of the "cinematic" interest lies elsewhere * arguably the only time we're invited to empathize with her, invest emotionally in her situation, is just before the trapeze plunge--which on the immediate evidence works superbly: my dearest companion almost went into shock!