Medea (1988)

A nicely staged, highly competent rendering. However , the sound and vision - at least on my copy- are badly out of synch and need repeated tweaking every 5 minutes to restore the synchronization. Great pity.

The sets are al based on the same platform which is modified from time to time with extra layers or backdrops, not very inspiring but this is really all about the singing.The opening chorus set the mood with white dresses stained with dirt or dried blood, but5 endowed with good voices.We learn that Jason has abandoned Medea for Glauce abd Medea has two children fathered by Jason.The story is how Medea gets her revenge.The costumes are period with a strong hint of greek mainly white for the nice people , red for Medea and something in between Neris, Medeas maid is in between.The three leading ladies are excellent, Elizabetta Scano as Glauce a golden voiced soprano..Chiara Chualli is Neris a fine rich mezzo and last but certainy not least Denia Mazzola Gavazzini, a powerful and expressive soprano, and does she work hard on this exacting role with mood swings.Cherubini writes melidy sometime romantic and very expressive to reflect Medea. It often fits the action so well that it hardly noticeable.This is not the sweetest storyline with Medea slowly plotting her revenge on Jason , not by hurting him physically but by attacking what he lovesThe leaflet is dire with only a bit of history about how the opera was conceived. The cast list is on the back sleeveand that is all except for a few other credite..

Lars von Trier is one of the film makers I like. As I know that Von Trier is a fan of Carl Theodor Dreyer, I was interested by this film. The original script was written by Dreyer.For me, it's not the best film Von Trier has made, but it fits his total work. One scene is hard and beautiful, one is plain harsh (horse).

terrible tale of the revenge wreaked by a wronged woman ,originally by Euripides. Those ancient Greeks had more of a sense of tragedy then any Hollywood movie could dream up

First of all - this is very far from classic greek mythology though all the characters are taken from there.It is set in scandinavian landscape, images are blurred and strangely colored, story looks terribly realistic and as this all could be. I would probably stress on coloring. Von Trier made it as a surrealist painter, with purple, violet, grey, gold washed images. Fantastic! Genuine findings everywhere. But mind the subject: this is probably not the movie you would watch again and again. Very tragic.

but you need to love cinema

During his "Europa Trilogy", Lars von Trier adapted a script the late director Carl Theodor Dreyer, one of Lars's major movie influences, wrote but never filmed. Euripides's "Medea". The story of the witch betrayed by her lover Jason. Witch who in revenge commits a terrible crime that will psychologically destroy her former lover.Tragic and dramatic, Lars's adaptation allows him to profess an homage to his idol, but also dives where Dreyer himself would not have gone to; like nudity, sensuality, eroticism, and a more troubling revenge than what Dreyer had planned.Here and there, this movie, in a timeless environment closer to the world of Vikings than the Greeks, offers gorgeous Jutland's landscapes, memorable quotes, and strong camera effects. Like in the prologue, which forewarned what Lars would do with Charlotte Gainsbourg in "Antichrist", "Medea"'s dialogue with her maid while her children are asleep, and the final encounter with her husband by the beach. I also have to say that the movie's distorted colors is wonderful as it reinforces the timeless effect of the story. As if we were viewing an an archaeological document. Ruins of an artifact a great writer wrote, that survived time, and which is left to us in shambles. In ruined condition that strengthen the story's relic power.Of the main actors, Udo Kier and Kirsten Olesen offer wonderful performances and the presence of Dreyer's former collaborators, Baard Owe ("Gertrud") and Preben Lerdorff-Rye ("Day of Wrath" and "Ordet"), pays tribute to the late director. The dynamics and energy between the actors working together are great and Olsen allows her text to stay in the viewer's mind after the story ends. Also the script's length is great. Not too long, not too short, we have enough time to understand the story and what occurred before. Seventy-five minutes, which I think has to do with this movie being a work for television rather than a movie theater. But then again, I think if Lars could have shot a five hour work like he did with Nymphomaniac, then he would have done it.Now I know that Lars was ambivalent about "Medea", even said to an interviewer that he didn't like his movie to which the reporter and fan apologized for saying that he had liked the movie. But personally, I don't think Lars did a bad movie there. Unlike "Element of Crime", Lars allowed the characters to connect themselves with us. Their words and their emotions hit us, don't leave us indifferent, succeeding where his first movie had failed for me. In connecting us to the story. But I also think his criticism regarding "Medea" has more to do with him being uncomfortable with doing adaptations. Indeed this movie is the sole script adaptation Lars ever did. And as Lars did original scripts afterwards, I think Medea made him realize that he was more comfortable with doing a project whose bases came from him rather than someone else's; which can happen for some directors.Anyway, I still think "Medea" is a wonderful gem that forewarned what Lars would do in his upcoming films. Stories with strong female characters, fable like universes, strong emotions, and Udo Kier's presence in several of Lars's movies. Especially as a bad guy.Will we ever have a remastered HD release one day with special features? Let's hope so because I think more people should see this movie.