Peter and Wendy, A Film Begging To Be Made

It seems that many classic pieces of writing that lend themselves to cinema have been realized by the industry's producers and recognized for what they can offer to the craft. Whether they were made years ago or recently many have been translated with success with the help of the professionals that dedicate themselves to the reinterpretation of the art. One such story that has been translated in many different instances but has yet to make its mark is the story of Peter Pan, J M Barrie's classic play which was originally titled Peter and Wendy.
Not since Disney's animated film Peter Pan has a fresh yet faithful interpretation been brought to the screen. This is a story that lends itself so well to the cinema it seems as though it would be an pitch to any studio. Spielberg's Hook was a fantastic film that seemed to really capture Neverland and the feeling of Peter Pan although this was its own entity, it was not J M Barrie's story. The recent 2003 version was made very cheaply, or at least it appears so and introduced bland story lines not included in the original work.
With a budget that could support the material and extensive casting (something that seems to have been rushed in the 2003 version) Peter and Wendy could be a classic that would entertain both adults and children. A live action version of the film (which Spielberg himself was attached to before Hook came his way) seems to be begging to be made and would seem to be right up the alley of the Disney studio with new franchises such as the Pirate films and soon to be the 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea remake. Bring this classic story to the screen so that audiences can enjoy a proper interpretation of the story of three young children and their adventure with the boy who never grew up.

Interpretation of an Interracial Life

by Douglas Williams

In 1934 there was a picture made by filmmaker John M. Stahl titled Imitation of Life. The film follows a poor white family’s rise to riches during the trying times of 1930’s with the help of their loyal black maid Aunt Delilah, an obvious reinterpretation of the then extremely popular character of Aunt Jemima. The white Pullman family, Bea and her young daughter Jessie, rise to the upper echelon of society by using Delilah’s secret pancake recipe, boxing the powder and selling it to millions. The inspiration coming from the Aunt Jemima Corporation, which in today’s terms is not the most politically correct product to be reinterpreting. The term Aunt Jemima today is often associated with Uncle Tom or the idea of a loyal, abiding black person who primarily holds the interest of their white employers above their own. This, in essence, describes the character we are to follow for the duration of this film.
The film, either consciously or unconsciously, draws a very distinct line between what the filmmaker feels the differences between the family relationships of white and black families by providing a concentrated example, a single white female with one daughter and a single black female with one daughter. The distinctions can be seen by the very first frame of the film. As we fade in we see a small rubber duck floating in a bathtub and a child’s voice calling out for it, “I want my quack quack,” As we pull back we see Bea drying her young daughter Jessie after her bath. The demands continue from Jessie as she tells her mother that she does not want go to school. These are very genuine behavioral traits for a young child to display but when they are compounded with the interpretation Stahl provides of Delilah’s family the division is very apparent.
When there is knock at the door downstairs Bea answers the door to find a delightfully friendly character named Delilah. Delilah quickly identifies what Donald Bogle, author of the book Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies, & Bucks: An Interpretive History of Blacks in American Films, would describe as the Mammy character. Bogle states in his book that most all characters played by African American actors in early cinema can broken down into these five groups. The Mammy character is described as “distinguished, however, by her sex and her fierce independence. She is usually big [and] fat,” (Bogle 9). This description very vividly describes the character that shows up on Bea’s doorstep.
Delilah comes asking about a job that she saw in the paper, yet Bea does not remember ever putting an ad out for a maid. Sure enough it was Delilah that made the mistake, she is on the wrong street and foolishly knocked on the wrong door. Still she desires to stay and talks Bea into taking her and her very light skinned daughter Peola in. When Jessie, Bea’s two-year-old daughter, meets Delilah she greets her by calling her “horsy”, seemingly never having been around an African American before. Both Bea and Delilah laugh the matter off, an event that occurs more than once in the film.
Delilah’s speech in the film is also something that sets her, very apparently, apart from any of the other white characters, she always “has-a” some to do. This speech was a very common trait for many filmmakers to dispose upon their black characters according to Bogle.
As the film continues Bea and Delilah become closer and closer, while still maintaining their working relationship, though it being much more relaxed than one may assume. Before long Delilah lets Bea in on her family’s secret pancake recipe, her most prized secret. Surely this was no mistake by the filmmakers, Delilah is delighted in the kitchen, it seems to be her favorite place to be. The most important thing to her and the legacy that she will pass on to her daughter is her dear pancake recipe. Perhaps the statement by the filmmaker was not to be this offensive but the undertones can be noted. The obvious difference between Bea’s legacy to her own daughter can also be noted. Jessie’s future holds higher education, a good job, and a healthy family by Bea’s own admission.
Soon Bea and Delilah go into business together, or rather Bea goes into business with Delilah’s pancake recipe and puts Delilah’s name on the box while she herself takes in the rewards. Even when it becomes time to incorporate the company, after they have hit it big, Delilah wants no part in the profits, only enough to provide a good funeral for herself someday.
The distinction between the two woman’s goals also plays a part in the film. At one point Bea begins to talk about vacationing from the pancake business and taking some time off perhaps, “Somewhere outside of the country,” where as Delilah simply says that, “All the vacation I need is to get off my feet,” a humorous remark that has a serious subtext, yet almost unnoticing what she herself has attested to, still Delilah swears that she loves to cook and clean for others, especially Bea and Jessie. She wants nothing more than to spend the rest of her life serving them.
Another interesting and possibly the most important subject of the film occurs between Delilah and her daughter Peola. At the beginning of the film Delilah describes to Bea how Peola’s father was very light skinned resulting in Peola’s own complexion which is also very light. It is because of this, and the very white community that they live in that Peola begins to resent her mother for ‘making’ her black. “This is your blood,” she cries at one point when Jessie calls her black. Delilah holds her in her arms telling her child that she must become accustom to such ridicule to survive, even refusing Bea’s plea for Jessie to apologize. She wants Peola to learn and endure.
One moving and sobering scene occurs when Delilah arrives at Peola’s school to bring her a raincoat so that she will not get wet in the rain. The teacher meets her at the door telling her that she must have made a mistake, that she has not “colored” children in her class. It is then that Delilah spots Peola sitting at her desk, covering her face with her book so as to hide from her mother. But it is too late, she has been exposed. She walks to the front of the room to receive the coat from her mother only to hear the mumblings from other students proclaiming that they didn’t realize that she was “colored”. The color of her skin, to the students, does not matter, no matter how light it is, the fact that she has black blood is what makes her colored even if her skin is as light as theirs. Bea then asks why she doesn’t just move Peola to a different school yet Delilah replies “I can’t keep sending her to different schools all her life,” repeating her message of endurance.
The film then takes a very sudden turn. The audience is flung ten years into the future. Aunt Delilah’s Pancake Mix is immensely popular and Bea is throwing a party for the 10-year anniversary. Although this should be a celebration for all, Delilah chooses to stay outside the party and listen to the band from outdoors. She stands with her daughter who has grown cold over the years, seemingly unable to endure as her mother does. The filmmaker has changed Peola’s character into a rude villain of sorts because she refuses to accept her role as a black woman although she looks light skinned enough to pass for white.
It is in this way that the second act of the film begins to mirror the relationship between Bea and Delilah. Bea is indoors, now a popular mogul with a booming product where as Delilah is on the outside looking in, with only enough money to her name to give her the funeral she has always dreamed of. Bea is rich, Delilah only wishes to serve, a controversial choice by the filmmaker.
After the party Bea proposes to Delilah that sending Peola to a black school may be better for her, that the stress of the intergraded schools may just be too much. Suggesting segregation seems like a good idea to Delilah, all she wants is for her child to be happy. Conversely Jessie is away at a prestigious school studying to achieve those goals that Bea had always talked about.
The plot of the film in general seems to deviate away from the race relations that have played such a dominant role in the rest of the picture. Bea begins to fall in love and we lose sight of Delilah. Its not until Jessie returns from school do we discover that Peola has run away due to the talk of sending her off. When Jessie voices her own opinions about leaving school Bea’s chief concern is that she has a football captain she is hiding whereas Delilah’s own problems seem much more severe.
We shy away from Delilah even more as a small subplot of Jessie falling in love with Bea’s love interest takes place. When we return to Delilah has suffered an enormous amount from the pain of losing her daughter. She is bed ridden and begins planning out her dream funeral, laying out the procedure as Bea explains that there is no way she and her family could go on without her. It is interesting that her character chooses to use those particular words when for the last half hour of the film she has in fact been going through life in the lap of luxury without much of a thought to Delilah, the audience as well has let Delilah drift to the back of their minds. The film ends with Delilah’s funeral taking place, just as she had foreseen it. Peola attends and begins to weep and beg her mother for forgiveness, feeling guilty for her mother’s death.
The film does, as I believe was the filmmaker’s goal, show a very direct difference between a black and white family during the 1930’s although the characters are riddled with stereotypes. The filmmaker chose to use a very stereotyped black character to appeal to the white audience that was going to see it, a happy cheerful black maid who only wishes to serve, no matter if they rise to the upper class society or not. Their friendship is based on the master, servant relationship and the maid of all people desires the least change.
There are many undertones of the racism that occurred during these times in many films, though we are to believe they were committed unconsciously, one cannot watch films such as this today and not see the subtexts. The most blaring example of this may be that Louise Beavers, the very respected actress who portrayed Delilah, was billed fifth in the credits, certainly not the placement for one of the two main characters of a film. Whether these plot points and undertones were intentional or not they are still present. We, the audience, are now able to look back and see the conditions and situations the filmmaker wanted us to see and also the ones he didn’t. Either way there is a lot to learn from a film such as Imitation of Life.

Rick Blain Through the Eyes of Victor Lazlo

by Douglas Williams

Rick Blain from Michael Curtiz’s immortal Casablanca (43) seems to not care for anyone or anything until, as we all know, Elsa comes back into his life bringing both love and pain into Rick’s existence. While the focus of the film is the relationship of Rick and Elsa, Victor Laszlo, Elsa’s husband, has much broader goals. He is an enemy of the Nazi Party and the Third Reich, he is a danger to them. His influence over those oppressed by the Third Reich is very strong and prevailing.
For a character so present in the plot, Laszlo really has little to do with the romance between Rick and Elsa. He hardly even seems to notice the strong pull each has to the other. Laszlo’s business is, in his mind, on a distinctive level. Laszlo is fighting for the people who have been affected by the war where as Rick and Elsa exist on a human level, a physical level. Their concerns are only of each other and their love. Laszlo, who has and always will have Elsa, looks too far forward to even notice his wife, it is his curse. He obviously cares for her a great deal, their committed love can be seen in most every scene they share together, yet Laszlo does not understand the value that Elsa has, how fortunate he is to have her.
In the flashback Rick has of Elsa and he in Paris the contrary can be seen. Rick appreciates Elsa, knows what he has and how valuable it is, how fleeting it may be. Although Elsa is young their romantic history with others seems to be vast. They have experienced the pain of love and have, in Paris, formed the greatest of relationships. They don’t ask questions about the past, they live in the present where their love lives. They feel for each other in the most pure way, they do not burden their relationship with jealously of past experience—they simply live to love each other.
It is Laszlo that is Elsa’s unknown past. It is he who unknowingly separates Rick and Elsa. Through all of this, the past with Rick and Elsa, Laszlo is oblivious. He seems to have no desire to know because he has no time to listen or to care. His ambitions are far greater than the troubles of three people. Rick also tries to fool himself into believing that Laszlo’s ambitions really amount to more than his love for Elsa, which is why he decides to let Laszlo instead of himself, board the plane in the film’s climax.
Laszlo has been getting breaks like this all his life. He escaped a concentration camp and has jetsetted all over Europe rebelling against the Nazis. People have performed innumerous favors for him so that he could continue to inspire people in this way. Rick is only one of the many. So he was attracted to his wife to some degree, Laszlo has no idea how deep their love and history together run. No matter how many days Elsa lives she will never live another without thinking of Rick yet Laszlo will never realize this. Rick helped him onto the plane, as he should in Laszlo’s eyes and in doing so Laszlo again just barely escaped from those trying to capture him. Rick was just the person who helped him do so. Laszlo forgot about Rick the moment he stepped onto the plane. His goal is complete, he has moved on and will continue to rebel wherever he goes. Rick, to him, is just a simple café owner who did something right for once; the reason to Laszlo makes hardly any difference.
Perhaps it is the attention Rick gives to Elsa at each moment that draws her to him. Laszlo, always looking to the future has no time to look across the table to the woman he is wed to. Rick is the completely contradictory, he only cares about the present and can only perform in terms of what is occurring at the moment. He has nothing to look forward to until he is reacquainted with Elsa. This may be why he is able to make the painstaking decision to let her and Laszlo go, he lacks the compete foresight of the suffering he will surely have to endure for the rest of his life. He does of course see that he is letting his love go but he is doing so for what he assumes is the greater good. He is, for once, acting as Laszlo would. Laszlo is simply more equipped to perform the duties of the greater good therefore Rick must sacrifice himself. This is Rick’s mistake, in his world, as in ours, the troubles of three people amount to much more than a hill of beans.

The Legend of Will Smith

by Rick Devine

Will Smith has had an illustrious movie career with an array of different roles. He was himself in a television show, a cowboy, a gay man, fought aliens three times, solved a rubix cube, and played God. That’s right Will Smith has played God or more specifically a god. A lot of people overlook the film The Legend of Bagger Vance (00). I myself didn’t understand it the first time I saw it when I was younger. I myself took him to be a guardian angel of sorts, but it goes a bit deeper than that. Will Smith represents the god Krishna and Matt Damon is supposed to be Arjuna from The Bhagavad-Gita.
The Bhagavad-Gita is somewhat of the Hindu bible. Although it is a story, in it the people of the Hindu religion are taught their lessons and how to live a good life based on the speech and advice given throughout the book. Arjuna is a prince who is being driven to the battlefield to fight in a war. Along the way he discovers that the enemies he is fighting are in fact his own relatives. He wants to back out and not fight, deciding it is not right to slay one’s own family members. At this time the driver reveals himself to be his god Krishna. Krishna starts to deliver advice and ideas that are meant to guide Arjuna in this difficult time. Krishna tells him that it is ok to slay his family because they are in fact evildoers and punishment should be delivered regardless of who you are in this world. He goes on to say that just because he kills them on earth does not mean he is ending their “life” because or bodies are just our vessels that hold us in this world. So hen he kills them he delivers their souls to the afterlife and only punishing them for what they have done here on earth. Arjuna eventually goes on to fight in the battle.
As for the film The Legend of Bagger Vance the story is similar, but not close in all respects. The film opens with a man named Rannulph Junah (R. Junah = Arjuna) who is a local golfing legend and when the first World War hits he is drafted. Junah leads the men of the town overseas, which is the first parallel, these men all look up to him and consider him a hero. They are not family by any means but they mean a lot to Junah.
They all die but him in the war and he feels that he is responsible, he like Arjuna feels as if he killed his family. Junah then goes into hiding, until brought out to play a golf match to save Savannah during the Great Depression. He is convinced to play by Bagger Vance (Bhagavan aka Krishna = BAGar VANce) who tells Junah that the future is all that matters. After a series of similar speeches delivered in the Bhagavad-Gita, Junah goes on to tie the other two golf pros, get over the fact that he “killed” those men, and lives a happy life.
There are many similarities as much as there are differences, but the similarities are there. The names as previously pointed out are a dead give away that these characters in this film are meant to be an alternate interpretation of the Arjuna and Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita. The rest of the similarities are not present until almost half way through the movie. Although Bagger is already present and all knowing there is nothing there that ties him to the god Krishna, which is understandable because they don’t want to make it too preachy because they need to keep all different kinds of audiences to see the film. The idea of Yoga which is presented in the Bhagavad-Gita is similar to what Bagger teaches the young boy and Junah about focusing. He tells them to focus on the task at hand, focus on yourself, and focus on the earth. Also when they are in the locker room Bagger says, “The Junah you was, you ain’t never gonna be again,” which can be compared to the idea that Krishna gives that our bodies on Earth do not follow us into the afterlife. He says, “When a sensible man ceases to see different identities due to different material bodies and he sees how beings are expanded everywhere, he attains to the Brahman conception.” But I would say the biggest similarity is when Baggar and Junah are in the woods. The idea in the movie is that Junah’s men were killed in a location that looked similar and that idea has hindered him ever since. Baggar helps him get out of the woods, come to terms with nothing he did was wrong and change his life for the better. Krishna delivers similar hope to Arjuna, both dealing with war, by telling him that he must slay the enemey, its not wrong and its his duty and afterward he will live a happy life. Neither figure stays in the end to help them win their final “battle.”
The differences betweens the two are much greater. Obvioulsy the Bhagavad-gita is not about golf. Also, Baggar doesn’t, at least to myself, come across as Krishna. Krishna is more of a war pusher and has a somewhat stronger and more blunt way of saying things. Where Bagger seems gentle and kind. That is not to say that Krishna is bad, Baggar just seems more like a Christian figure. Which could be the case because the filmmakers were more than likely of Christian and Jewish backgrounds.

Noir Becomes Aware of Its Self

by Douglas Williams

It is often said that one of film’s most distinctive and ambiguous genres, Noir, was once only considered B-movies in their own time. Directors did not have a certain genre they were trying to blend in with; it was only afterwards when the label of noir was applied. In the book The Dark Page: Books That Inspired American Film Noir Kevin Johnson describes a conscious “cut-off” as 1965. According to Johnson all films after 1965 were cognizant their genre and therefore neo-noir, I will therefore use the same year although it is debatable. I have chose three films to use in discussing the use of this cut-off—several films that are unaware of themselves and then conversely the films that were aware of where their allegiance lies, within conscious genre of noir.
The film Out of the Past (47) can clearly be seen as a very important part of the noir catalogue. Although it exemplifies most everything noir has to offer, it is not only a basic mystery, the plot structure is revolutionary and has been imitated by countless films. Its photography is beautiful and the femme fatale is present but as is her foil in the honest and loving Ann Miller. This film seems to represent what American noir was in the 1940’s.
Robert Mitchum, as well, represents the noir hero, a strong yet flawed leading man seeking answers and redemption. A young Kirk Douglas shows his talents playing the menacing and calculating villain. Although the villains in noir can often be physically threatening it is characters like Douglas whose intellectual traits create the tension that give this film its grit. Some of the smaller quarks to the film such as the dumb boy who unexpectedly becomes a hero to our leading man round out the film. So often Mitchum plays the antagonist, especially in his most well known roles, it is great to see him play the hero of a great noir.
Moving ahead a few years the forgotten Night, When the Devil Came (57) represents Euro-noir. Also where Out of the Past is a staple of noir, Night, When the Devil Came has its noir assets underlying. At face value it seems to be a thriller about the hunt for a serial killer. The plot structure itself is again one of the enduring points of the film. A man is on the hunt for the culprit of several murders in wartime Germany and then we also see a large dimwitted man wander through life, this man is our killer.
Some of the scenes depicted are very frightening and effective because of the way the director simply leaves it out there for all to see. The tension is not manipulated or even emphasized yet scenes involving Bruno, our killer, can shake the audience. The realism in scenes such as when Bruno delivers potatoes to a young woman who is hiding out in her apartment is astounding and terrifying. She goes into the kitchen as Bruno gets up and locks the door, planning to later kill her. There is no music, there are no cuts, the audience watches from afar as Bruno gets up out of his chair, walks over to the door, locks it and then seats himself again. Death and murder are not romanticized as they are often in other noirs.
Yet director Robert Siodmak knows when to increase the control over the audience and the frame. In a scene when Bruno is describing to the police how he killed one of his victims the cuts become frantic and violent. This editing is not necessarily commonplace in noir, it even stands out as anti-noir. This perpendicular aspect to the normalcy of noir is a testament to the fact that it is unaware the label and genre it would one day be associated with.
Moving past the “cut-off date” by almost 10 years, the classic Chinatown (74) seems to be one of the most often discussed representations of neo-noir. Directed by Roman Polanski, all the aspects of the now dubbed noir genre seem to be condensed into one film and put on display for the viewer. This to me is what makes Chinatown so great, it depicts with great prowess some of the many elements of noir.
J. J. Gittes is the perfect noir hero, vices, dishonesty and all. A detective in historic Los Angeles trying to solve a mystery that is decidedly not noir. His wonderful wordplay and gritty attitude create a character that is coarser than Marlow but nevertheless one the audience loves to watch.
Here seems to be one of the better examples of a film that is quite obviously trying to fit itself into the noir genre rather than being labeled so later. I do not mean that a “genuine” noir film, unaware of itself and the future of the genre, is superior to the neo-noir films, only that in watching them one should be aware of the difference.
One of the most appealing aspects concerning the cutoff concept, I believe, is that the neo-noir genre has allowed for expansion. Noir no longer has to be segregated by words like shadows or by heroes that are private eyes or even strictly men for that matter. The original noir films are not segregated to these either but what noir is today in our culture has been broadened a great deal. Now the term noir can be applied to films that may not have been labeled so earlier. Films like Chinatown are obviously trying to play to the traditional idea of what noir is but newer films such as Memories of Murder (03) are helping to expand what we consider noir.
A film to be labeled noir is also the goal of many filmmakers, certain choices in making a film can’t be made assuming that the term noir will apply. The term almost seems to always mean something positive, at least I believe so, unless the attempt to be noir is over the top. Noir is something to strive for, where many filmmakers are concerned. To have one’s film dubbed noir is different from having it dubbed a comedy. A comedy is self-evident often times, noir is harder to point to or to recreate, this is probably because the definition is just as difficult to dictate.

The Sexual Evolution of Ms. Portman

by Douglas Williams

…Or her characters rather. Although separated by thirteen years, Natalie Portman’s Mathilda in Leon (94) and her anonymous character in Wes Anderson’s short film Hotel Chevlier (04) have very separate sexual experiences and desires yet it is sex and love (or its absence) that seem to surround the two roles.
Mathilda’s allure is in her innocence and her longing for companionship. Her love for the film’s hero, Leon, stems directly for her longing for love in any form and transforms into her falling in love and eminent sexual yearning despite their gap in years. Leon’s own sexual and emotional immaturity adds to their loving relationship, and the viewers own love for both. Although he is a hit man their relationship is completely void of any danger, romantically speaking. Neither party is taking advantage of the other; their feelings are mutual to a degree.
The film exists in another world where a girl shooting a gun out an apartment window elicits no concern from the viewer, only amusement. Bresson creates an environment where it is believable that a hit man would take a ten-year-old girl under his wing and teach her the ways of “cleaning”. It is only in this world where a viewer can understand and accept the sexual tension between a young woman, only on the verge of puberty, and a mentally slow man about to reach his middle age.
It is in this world where a subject of forbidden love of this magnitude can exist, the most forbidden in fact, that of a child and a man. Yet the audience looks past this, the love between both characters is so potent and powerful. Both character’s need for that love and connection, for another human to care for them surpasses any immoral preconceptions the audience may be harboring. They are both genuine people, meant to find each other. It is here that the most innocent and enduring love occurs. The love between Leon and Mathilda is in one word: pure.
In Hotel Cheviler Portman has aged thirteen years yet her character’s own sexual experience is light years away from that of the innocent and dear Mathilda. The relationship in Hotel Cheviler is a throw away relationship, driven by sex, not by love. It is a complete 180 from Leon. This swap of values is apparent in the way Anderson chooses to shoot the film. In Leon Mathilda’s innocence is upheld and persevered at all times, she is a young virgin in the throws of her first love. In Hotel Cheviler Portman’s character uses sex as a tool, brought forth by the filmmaker by the intelligent and well timed use of nudity.
Jason Schwartzman undresses Portman in front of the camera’s unwavering presence. The most intimate part of sex is displayed in a very intimate setting, yet even the viewer can feel the uncomfortable tension between the two characters and the absence of love.
It is also apparent that Portman has been with other men during the character’s time apart from each other. She lies and deceives. This woman believes she is in search
of love yet she is, in the end, not as mature as the young Mathilda.
Mathilda understands the weight of love and the magnitude of adding sexual relations into that relationship. The character in Hotel Cheviler can been seen as even more sympathetic in some instances because she has no grasp of what love is, only sex and what is one without the other? Just empty and temporary pleasure.
Although sex is a facet of Leon the core of the film is love, which is abundantly clear at the conclusion when Leon and Mathilda exchange “I love yous” during the last moment they are together. This is love that can’t be defined by marriage or family or friendship, it is the love that all strive for. Hotel Cheviler revolves around the use of love, or what the characters believe love is, for selfish reasons. “If we fuck I’m going to feel like shit in the morning,” yet this doesn’t seem to deter either party.
The sex that these two characters share is completely void of love. Even the use of the word “fuck” demonstrates how Portman’s character feels about the act. She uses one of the most derogatory terms to label what they are perhaps about to do.
Mathilda on the other hand uses terms such as “first time” or “being with a man”, compassionate phrases stated by a woman who has never experienced the act, conversely Portman’s character in Hotel Cheviler has perhaps grown tired and even bored of the experience although it is sadly the only outlet she is aware of to express what she feels is love.
The two characters, both performed with profound confidence by Ms. Portman, represent the maturity of love as sex. She composes both performances completely believably; that a 10-year-old girl can be fully aware sexually and of her feelings of love and that a woman almost fifteen years older, who is much more experienced in one sense, can still be searching in vain for what love means beyond simply the sexual connection.