The Roman Spring of Mrs. Stone (2003)

Knowing of its cable provenance I rented this with mild trepidation. It bears a few telltale signs of Cable Drama 101 but manages at least partly to transcend. Mirren is superb as always and near the end even looked a little like Vivian Leigh. (Some credit due to costumes and makeup). Kudos to her for baring her breasts. The interesting surprise here is Olivier Martinez who is better than Warren Beatty in the 1961 original. WB was derailed by the Italian accent with which El Martinez has no problem. Also, Martinez is the right age for the part; WB was young and up-and-coming, wrong for the story. Both Mirren and Martinez seem to have been aware of the cable tendency towards obviousness because the best thing about the remake is the fact that they do bring layers and subtlety to their respective performances. Enough years have elapsed to make this is a period film, whereas the 1961 version was not. Any period film also has to finesse the sensibility of the time when it was made. This remake portrays the period fairly well and in some ways takes a rather fresh approach. Despite its shortcomings you too might find yourself liking it more than you thought you would. (2014)

By the middle of the movie, we decided to continue watching only for the costumes and the scenery. All of the actors are wooden except for Helen Mirren. Poor Anne Bancroft. Spmeone went to a lot of trouble to make a beautiful movie but skimped on the editing.There were parts of the movie that were intended to be dramatic, but we found humorous. Did people in the 1950s really walk around Rome eating pizza? I have to figure out if Karen Stone's fey senior friend was an original character or an allusion to Tennessee Williams himself. Was it really necessary to add a flamboyantly gay senior male to this production?

I found myself reminiscing about this film long after having seen it. Initially expecting a probable pale imitation of the 1961 original; it seemed this new film appeared to possess many symbolic occurrences and images that seemed strangely familiar. For example, the homeless man knocking at Karen Stone's door reminded me of a picture I had seen as a child. The caption below the picture read "Look, I am standing at the door knocking. If one of you hears me calling..." Revelation 3:20I also remembered some of Helen Mirren's past performances as characters very unlike Mrs. Stone; therefore it required a preliminary adjustment to accept her as the more sensitive, deeply passionate, fading beauty. However, her outstanding vocal delivery and subtle nuances in voice and movement combined very effectively to bring Karen Stone to life. Karen Stone, a woman bewildered and lost after her humiliating final theatrical performance, the death of her husband and the loss of her youth finds herself "drifting" with no particular focus after finally deciding to settle in Rome. She meets an "old harpy" named the Contessa and her "man for hire" Paolo Di Lio. Olivier Martinez plays Paolo in stereotypical fashion as a vain, arrogant, self-centered rogue and Karen Stone is totally captivated by him. "Love is blind" is truly one of the film's major underlying themes as Mrs. Stone refuses to accept the total reality of her arrangement with Paolo anymore than he fully accepts the fact that he is, in actual fact, a purchased lover. Even Karen's physical appearance changes as her "addiction" progresses to the point where she resembles a heavily made-up caricature of her former self.The films heavily stylized 1950's costuming, artful set decoration, masterful cinematography and haunting, poignant score set against the backdrop of the "eternal" city serve as a very effective combination of elements in creating the films memorable romantic impression.For the most part, the characters are interesting and enjoyable to watch providing one accepts them strictly for who and what they represent. Anne Bancroft as the calculating Contessa appears to have a fun loving side as opposed to Lotte Lenya's vicious ruthlessness in the original film. Coral Browne's performance as Karen Stone's friend in the original film is, however, sadly missed.Rodrigo Santoro's performance as the homeless man presents an interesting character study because of his primary reliance on facial expressions which are powerfully supported by the films unique presentations of symbolism, colour and sound. When Karen Stone first makes eye contact with him on a bridge he responds with a provocative leer and exposes his chest, his hand held over the heart area. This gesture is dramatically different from her initial meeting with Paolo, wherein he lights her cigarette, a probable symbol of a fleeting but fatal pleasure.From the beginning the homeless man appears to be on a quest to establish contact with Mrs. Stone. His motivational perspective as a positive or negative force remains unclear throughout the film. At one point, there is a wonderfully effective camera shot circling around his head as he gazes up at Mrs. Stone on her veranda. An impoverished vagrant, he goes largely unnoticed as he eats scraps off the ground, gets kicked by a police officer, is laughed at by Paolo's barbers and is repeatedly viewed with disdain by Mrs. Stone. Thus begins a series of unexpected but plausible Biblically symbolic references: "...without majesty, we saw him, no looks to attract our eyes, a thing despised and rejected..." Isaiah 53:2 The homeless man's next couple of appearances are lewd demonstrations perhaps meant to reflect Mrs. Stone's "addiction" to physical pleasure at the expense of her personal dignity. Later, Paolo calls Karen to the window and asks her the identity of the man in the street. There are cathedral bells ringing in the distance as she refers to the him using the somewhat unusual description as a probable "money changer." Luke 2:14. When the mysterious man knocks on her door for the last time, Mrs. Stone finally confronts him with her impassioned plea, "Why do you follow me?" He responds with a mute, tear filled expression.The film is brought to a overwhelmingly unhappy, emotional climax at Karen Stone's final "party" when she overhears the Contessa describing her as "a harlot who has struck it rich." Karen looks to Paolo for reassurance. There is none. Mrs. Stone is at last forced to come to terms with the person that she has become.Left alone after throwing out Paolo, the Contessa and friends, Helen Mirren performs a wonderfully effective mime performance as a woman alone and humiliated while pacing around her clock as she silently acknowledges her helplessness over the passage of time.She then wraps the three keys to her apartment in a white handkerchief. Waving the handkerchief like a flag of surrender from her veranda, she throws it down to the homeless man waiting on the street. He takes the keys and looks up, his face a rich tapestry of emotion. As he approaches the first gate to her apartment, a "trinity" of lights shine in the background. In addition, directly behind him an obelisk-like formation reflecting an ice-blue light projects toward the sky resembling a "conduit" of sorts. As he approaches the second gate it becomes apparent that the stairway leading to Mrs. Stone's apartment has become awash in the blue light as well. When he opens her door the light enters her apartment and it also flows in through the windows. The blending of the various colours form an echo reminiscent of a renaissance painting. The homeless man moves silently toward her, his face half obscured in shadows, his eyes a profound reflection of love and understanding.As Mrs. Stone smiles back, the couple's faces go out of focus, as though each person had suddenly ceased to exist.

*****May contain spoilers***** Okay - where do I start. Although he has quite a pretty face, Olivier Martinez can't act his way out of a bag in this movie. He just wasn't convincing and his lines were stiff at best. I personally thought that Rodrigo Santoro who played the beggar in the street was better looking and more appealing - this should tell us something.Anne Bancroft was a miscast in the role of the "pimp". She came off as a comic character - you just had to laugh at her trying to be pathetic and evil. It lacked any feeling at all.Brian Dennehy probably was the best portrayed although he dies in the first 20 minutes of the movie.Then there is Helen Mirren who is quite a good actress, but is surrounded by lack luster performances. Nothing she could have done could drag this movie out of the ditch.I also think that the people who see the ending as some death wish are reading way to much into it - I can't give this director that much credit. I just think it shows how far Mrs. Stone has sunk - she wants so badly to be loved and wanted that she takes the beggar/stalker off the street.All in all - just pass this one up folks and get the 1961 original.