The last time I saw Snake Eyes (comercially released as Dangerous Game), it was still on my VHS tape. I was 17 at the time and I hated the movie.
.
Actually, I wasn't ready to see it. All I wanted to see was my Idol portraying either glamour (like Breathless Mahoney), humour (like Nikki Finn) or absolute coolness (like Susan).
I totally rejected Madonna's body - the actor's instrument - involved in a context of violence, decadence, extreme submission and abuse. It hit rock bottom, during the rape scene. I simply pressed the ffw button. And I couldn't see the movie ever again.
But one thing I did retain in my mind, regarding Snake Eyes (apart from the fact that she was incredibly gorgeous in the film): her stunning performance as an actress.
I totally rejected Madonna's body - the actor's instrument - involved in a context of violence, decadence, extreme submission and abuse. It hit rock bottom, during the rape scene. I simply pressed the ffw button. And I couldn't see the movie ever again.
But one thing I did retain in my mind, regarding Snake Eyes (apart from the fact that she was incredibly gorgeous in the film): her stunning performance as an actress.
.
.
Even when Evita came in, I remember keeping this opinion. She's amazing in Evita. But she was perfect in Snake Eyes. Still, I couldn't lay my eyes on that movie again. Until a few days ago.
As an adult, I felt prepared - and curious - to get in touch with the meaning of this movie, what it really wanted to portray.
My suspicions were right: Snake Eyes is, actually, a great movie. It depicts the «battle between Heaven and Hell» in a perverse way, the same way that Lars Von Drier would later expand: grabbing you by the guts, between attraction and disgust.
The movie within a movie concept makes it all even better (or worse), leading you to greater confusion - and interest.
Then, there's Madonna. The idea I kept, for all these years, couldn't be more accurate:
As an adult, I felt prepared - and curious - to get in touch with the meaning of this movie, what it really wanted to portray.
My suspicions were right: Snake Eyes is, actually, a great movie. It depicts the «battle between Heaven and Hell» in a perverse way, the same way that Lars Von Drier would later expand: grabbing you by the guts, between attraction and disgust.
The movie within a movie concept makes it all even better (or worse), leading you to greater confusion - and interest.
Then, there's Madonna. The idea I kept, for all these years, couldn't be more accurate:
it is Madonna's best performance as an actress.
Because to be a great actor, in my opinion, is to have the ability to embody a character that is truly your opposite. And take it as your own.
Among all the characters from M's curriculum, Eva Peron and Susan are usually the most acclaimed performances - by fans and by the press. But Eva and Susan were very realted to M herself. Claire (the character played by M's character, Sarah Jennings), however, was definitely not. And from the first moment we see Madonna on screen, we can feel an amazing performance coming through.
Because to be a great actor, in my opinion, is to have the ability to embody a character that is truly your opposite. And take it as your own.
Among all the characters from M's curriculum, Eva Peron and Susan are usually the most acclaimed performances - by fans and by the press. But Eva and Susan were very realted to M herself. Claire (the character played by M's character, Sarah Jennings), however, was definitely not. And from the first moment we see Madonna on screen, we can feel an amazing performance coming through.
.
Her performance is so intense, so real, that halfway through the movie you really forget that it's Madonna. It's really Claire. And that is amazing. She would do it again later, in Evita.
But to me, it's in Snake Eyes that Madonna achieves real acting perfection.
But to me, it's in Snake Eyes that Madonna achieves real acting perfection.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment