Joseph Bologne, Chevalier de Saint-Georges (1745-1799), is a long forgotten virtuosic musician due to his pigmentation (erased from the history by Napoleon I), so it is high time to introduce his less heralded, if, unavoidably unfulfilled legacy to the whole world. Hence, Stephen Williams’s biopic dutifully does the job, though it somehow reeks of unsavory chauvinism.
A peer of Mozart, the before-title introduction scene pits Joseph (Harrison) against Mozart (Prowen) in a cadenza duel and ends up with Joseph upstaging the latter, A fanciful artistic license to imply that if we live in a just world, Mozart would’ve been called “Black Bologne” and not the vice versa. It might be too big a stretch, but it is imperative to do impelled by the necessity of rectifying past wrongs and empowering the repressed and mistreated, which is also something very easy to error on the side of for any artistic creation.
One of the major issues is that the script aridly makes a meal of Joseph’s interpersonal relations with members of the opposite sex to ginger up the insipid plot. For anyone who is equipped with adequate common sense, it pans out without any tact and surprise. To make matters worse, every female character is conceived only to counterpoise Joseph’s remarkable virtues: Madame Guimard (Driver) is vengeful because she is offended for failing to have her way with him; Joseph falls into disfavor is because Marie Antoinette (Boynton, breaking a sweat to compose herself as royal breeding is not in her element) backpedals and pulls the rug out from under first; even Marie-Josephine (Weaving, dismally miscast in period fineries), with whom Joseph engages an extramarital affair, is too craven to start a life anew with a black man, and is partially responsible for a dastardly infanticide. Even Joseph’s mother Nanon (Adekoluejo) fits right to the “magic negro” trope, dignified by her suffering and judgmental of Joseph’s deviation from his root. When she gives his son a piece of her mind, you can bet it is the nuggets of subsisting in a vastly unjust world.
As a performer, Harrison’s arduous industry of practicing violin is nothing if not remarkable, but his effort is woefully cheapened by Joseph’s anodyne characterization, whose personality is zilch, and whose every emotional output is mechanically predictable. Considering that the French Revolution is in the horizon and Joseph’s participation in it is completely left untapped, the omission CHEVALIER leaves behind is outright regrettable. That said, the grace note is that now anyone can freely savor new-discovered Joseph’s works to dispel any grievance, a justification of the low-hanging fruit sort.
Inhabiting in a cinematic world suffused with a glut of high-intention-low-execution biopics, audience has already had a bellyful, CHEVALIER is an umpteenth case in point. It is not okay to see talent and money get squandered in such a fashion, however noble the initiative is. Hereby, I rest my case.
昨晚睡觉前刚看完这部电影，因为我比较喜欢18世纪欧洲洛可可风格的精致服饰，所以对于以这个时代为背景的古装剧，我一般都比较感兴趣，之前一直想看这部电影，可总忘，昨晚终于想起来，但是在看完电影后，我感觉不太好。n 虽然通过以往的观影经历，我也知道在那个时代，欧洲上流社会的圈子特点就是奢靡和淫乱，男男女女在一起胡搞瞎搞，导致花柳病在当时的欧洲肆虐，或许是中外文化的背景不同，以及我从小所接受的道德教育所致，让我对片中的感情线完全无法共情（喜欢那个时代的服饰，不代表我能接受当时开放的性观念），对于婚姻完全没有忠贞二字可言也就罢了，明明是婚内出轨搞破鞋，还非得煽情整得跟多伟大的爱情似的，如果说女主勇于冲破束缚女性的封建枷锁，当男主在教堂恳切的向她提出私奔的请求时，她怂了，而且也冷漠的拒绝了，或许是因为不愿意舍弃当前优越的物质生活。可你要说女主懦弱吧，控制欲强的侯爵的丈夫不让她演歌剧，哎，她还就非要去，还信心满满的表示她能处理好丈夫的不满情绪，事实证明她根本没这能力，主打一个又菜又爱玩，最后不光出轨，还生下一个小黑孩，让侯爵头顶一片青青大草原，从当时贵族间经常因为一点芝麻大小的事，都会觉得自己尊严受到了天大的冒犯，必须要来个决斗，用鲜血洗刷耻辱的德行来看，侯爵遇到这种事居然还能隐忍下来，不晓得是怕家丑外扬丢脸，还是担心用剑打不过男主，最后只是杀掉了妻子私通生下的小黑孩来泄愤。n 男主是个才子，但同时也是个浪荡子，当然，我多少能理解他从小因为肤色被人歧视，所以迫切的渴望通过不断获得的成功和荣耀，被白人认可的心态。但是很明显他因此表现得有点急功近利了，他之所以反对王后，加入革命的阵营，我并没看出他有多高的思想觉悟，只不过是王后没有支持他担任歌剧院的音乐总监而已，说到底不过是私人恩怨，而且王后也说了，之所以选择不支持他上位，只是不想在当时已经日益艰难的环境下，再去给自己树立更多的敌人，然后这黑哥们儿没有设身处地站在王后的角度去考虑，只感觉自己受到了背叛，在舞会上灌了两杯酒后，借着酒劲就翻脸了，而且翻脸后也没达到在激烈痛斥这些虚伪的贵族一番，然后放下功名转身潇洒离去的效果，换来的除了被人当众羞辱，就是当众顶撞了原本对他还有点好感的王后，而王后对他是有提携之恩的。我个人觉得男主作为一名常年混迹于上流社交圈子，且深知社交礼仪的体面人而言，居然出现这种低情商的低级错误，让人觉得他很不体面。n 男主一直努力的想融入白人上流社会的圈子我能理解，毕竟在当时，白人的文明无疑是较为先进的文明了，他从衣着、行为举止、音乐风格理念等都把自己打扮成一个白人，然而最终发觉皆是徒劳，在上流社会的白人眼里，他不过就是一个点缀所谓国家开化文明的宠物，穿上衣服的猴子。家里的黑人也嘲笑他不伦不类，有着黑皮肤言行却像一个白人，就像是电影《绿皮书》里的黑人博士一样。这让我联想到海外的某些华裔，他们虽然极力向白人靠拢，但欧美白人不一定能接受他们，同时咱们国人也不认同他们，觉得他们不过是数典忘祖的香蕉人。
Joseph Bologne, Chevalier de Saint-Georges (1745-1799), is a long forgotten virtuosic musician due to his pigmentation (erased from the history by Napoleon I), so it is high time to introduce his less heralded, if, unavoidably unfulfilled legacy to the whole world. Hence, Stephen Williams’s biopic dutifully does the job, though it somehow reeks of unsavory chauvinism.
A peer of Mozart, the before-title introduction scene pits Joseph (Harrison) against Mozart (Prowen) in a cadenza duel and ends up with Joseph upstaging the latter, A fanciful artistic license to imply that if we live in a just world, Mozart would’ve been called “Black Bologne” and not the vice versa. It might be too big a stretch, but it is imperative to do impelled by the necessity of rectifying past wrongs and empowering the repressed and mistreated, which is also something very easy to error on the side of for any artistic creation.
One of the major issues is that the script aridly makes a meal of Joseph’s interpersonal relations with members of the opposite sex to ginger up the insipid plot. For anyone who is equipped with adequate common sense, it pans out without any tact and surprise. To make matters worse, every female character is conceived only to counterpoise Joseph’s remarkable virtues: Madame Guimard (Driver) is vengeful because she is offended for failing to have her way with him; Joseph falls into disfavor is because Marie Antoinette (Boynton, breaking a sweat to compose herself as royal breeding is not in her element) backpedals and pulls the rug out from under first; even Marie-Josephine (Weaving, dismally miscast in period fineries), with whom Joseph engages an extramarital affair, is too craven to start a life anew with a black man, and is partially responsible for a dastardly infanticide. Even Joseph’s mother Nanon (Adekoluejo) fits right to the “magic negro” trope, dignified by her suffering and judgmental of Joseph’s deviation from his root. When she gives his son a piece of her mind, you can bet it is the nuggets of subsisting in a vastly unjust world.
As a performer, Harrison’s arduous industry of practicing violin is nothing if not remarkable, but his effort is woefully cheapened by Joseph’s anodyne characterization, whose personality is zilch, and whose every emotional output is mechanically predictable. Considering that the French Revolution is in the horizon and Joseph’s participation in it is completely left untapped, the omission CHEVALIER leaves behind is outright regrettable. That said, the grace note is that now anyone can freely savor new-discovered Joseph’s works to dispel any grievance, a justification of the low-hanging fruit sort.
Inhabiting in a cinematic world suffused with a glut of high-intention-low-execution biopics, audience has already had a bellyful, CHEVALIER is an umpteenth case in point. It is not okay to see talent and money get squandered in such a fashion, however noble the initiative is. Hereby, I rest my case.
referential entries: Milos Forman’s AMADEUS (1984, 8.9/10); Benoît Jacquot’s FAREWELL, MY QUEEN (2012, 6.4/10).