• Frances Barber [Rivka Kahn]
  
• Kika Markham [Trish]
  
• Anton Lesser [Sean]
  
• Hilary Sesta [Sophie]
  
• Berna Raif [Becky Kahn]
  
• Claudia Solti [Mina Kahn]
  
• Akbar Kurtha [Samuel Kahn]
  
• Ian Bartholomew [Norton]
  
• Paul Regan [Joel]
  

Gallery

Movie pictures

(added June 2000, 13)

(added September, 24)	one of the movie posters	Esther Kahn : the book cover	Esther Kahn : script cover

Samuel, Esther, their mother, Becky and Mina Kahn	(added October 25, 2000)

	(added August 12, 2001)

On the set
		(added August 12, 2001)

Movie Review

A foreword

Now I've finally seen "Esther Kahn", and I'm especially glad because this is a confirmation of the hope that makes me follow the careers of the people I talk about here. That is, getting to discover movies I may not have seen otherwise, and find food for thought and inspiration in them.

Esther Kahn is just the demonstration of it. It may be a bit difficult to immediately enter the story, depending on the persons, because due to Esther's character it's not like any other movie, but for me it worked right away for that very reason. The movie itself is full of moments of grace, and the short story it was based on is just better - because it doesn't have the some flaws that prevent the movie to be perfect all the time.

But of course, the short story doesn't have the actors, and a lot of the movie interest comes from acting moments. Summer captures the peculiarity of her character very well, in a wide range of moods from void to passion, restrained tension to utter deliberateness. Ian Holm and all the British actors are excellent. Despite the costumes, Esther's childhood in a quite poor neighborhood (East End), and her own uniqueness that generates an inner loneliness, it's not a heavy drama. There are also funny scenes, and a suspenseful ending.

"Esther Kahn" is a great movie, about a unique character, and relating Esther's development as a human being to her evolution in the acting career is very well done. Credit has to be given to Summer Phoenix for Esther's mystery. As the director of photography Eric Gautier puts it, she had to bring out opacity and void without being shallow. She very much succeeded.

It's only when Esther starts acting that she lightens up, and that you realize that she's been restraining for all the time before. It turns on a peculiar light and smile on her face and in her eyes. She really comes to life when she walks on stage, and the difference is spellbinding. I must add, it's especially impressive when you get to see Summer off-screen and you can realize that it is a character part, not the coincidence of an actress and a character meeting. She's really there as a person, and it makes it all the more fascinating that Esther in the contrary seems to be absent in her own life - at least until she discovers theater.

The childhood

Esther grows up in the poor and dark neighborhood of East End, in London, in the late XIXth century. She works in the family sweatshop, like her sisters and brother, sewing clothes. She is a strange, silent girl. She's scared by closed shutters in the dark alleys around her house. Instead of joing the evening conversations, she uses to observe her family from a corner of the room, trying to capture their attitudes, to imitate what is not natural to her.

Her family is very tight-hold, but she seems to only feel close of her grand-mother. When she dies, just at the moment she would have needed help to convince her family to let her become an actress, she gets very confused. Her father is not very present, always working, and her mother seems to be quite angry at her for being so enigmatic, and so unlike the others. Her sisters are very different, and no one can really figure her out. And the unknown is always a bit threatening.

However, Esther is not completely left out of the family. But she is subtly always a step behind, or apart. She has her first victory after her first part in a small play, only two lines as a maiden, but her whole family is waiting for her to praise her (only her mother is still skeptical about her abilities), and suddenly she gets all the warm attention for a night. From that moment on, maybe because she has found her way and is thus less of a riddle, things smoothen for her. Her father tries to communicate with her, and give her advices. Her sister Becky encourages her when she doubts and comes in search for a judgment on her acting.

The professor

Ian Holm, as Nathan Quellen, a bad actor who reveals itself being an excellent professor, is fun and touching. In Arthur Symons' short story, it was actually Philippe Haygard, Esther's lover, who gave her acting lessons. In the movie, Philippe still teaches her how to understand what is left unsaid in the plays, and introduces her to the best London theaters, but he has lost a lot of his importance as the professor. According to director Arnaud Desplechin, he switched most of the professor's aspect to Nathan's character, because he didn't like the concept of the lover that teaches all to his young girlfriend. It seemed too paternalist to him, and too cliché. He liked better to build the romance between characters as equals.

That is probably one of his best moves in the re-writing of the story. Nathan is an actor in the more traditional way, but who can't help doing too much on stage. During his first rehearsal with Esther, their director's first comment is "Nathan, I don't mind that you're a bad actor. I knew it, and you know it too." However Nathan offers to give lessons to Esther, who has just started being a full-time actress. At first she's reluctant, thinking he only wants company, or attention, after being despised in his work.

Nathan eventually happens to have a lot to give, and only good intentions, and with him Esther learns to stay focused on her text, to turn a move into an action, to speak both the truth (she's an actress on a stage) and the lie (she's her character living the events told in the play), and all that makes acting.

At last, Nathan tells Esther that she knows all the technical aspects of acting. She is an actress. But that she will never become a great actress if she stay closed to the world, and doesn't experiment things. As expected by him, when compared to a stone Esther immediately shuts down her face and dismisses him.

The lover

But once back home, she lists the men who could become her lovers. After asking a fellow actress her opinion on them, she boldly invites Philippe Haygard, a French critic, to have a drink after the play. The whole passage is quite remarkable and fun, for Esther's seduction battle plan is everything but glamorous, or sexy, or whatever you would expect from it. It's just a deliberate, though a bit clumsy, move to get a lover, in which the only thing she cares about is not finding love, discovering sex or seducing a man who could help her career, but only the innocent expectation that sleeping with a man could improve her acting right away. A twisted and naive interpretation of Nathan's advice.

Philippe Haygard, her "victim", is for her a pleasant lover only for as long as she doesn't get to love him and become possessive, and until he finds a new mistress : Sylvia, a sensual Italian dancer who's also a model for painters, and lover of many. Then, even though the actress Esther still captivates him, he drifts apart from her as a woman or a girlfriend. She only realizes it when she starts working on a play he has translated, "Hedda Gabler", where she will play the lead for the first time in an important theater in London.

When she finds out about Sylvia, they have an argument where Philippe expresses his knowing of her intentions, maybe frustration to have been chosen out of experimentation rather than of real interest, though he seems not to feel anything more than Esther when choosing his mistresses.

Esther's painful triumph on stage

On the next rehearsal, though Esther is quite absent, her acting only gets better and more intense, but she doesn't realize it. Back at the hotel she tries to hurt herself, and when comes the day after, day of the premiere, her face is bruised. Nathan convinces her to play, but she sees Sylvia with Philippe entering the theater. For the first time in her whole life, she finds she's unable to do it, to perform on stage.

Trish (the theater owner, a strong woman), can't have Sylvia and Philippe thrown out. Esther begs for her to ask them to leave, with few hope, she can't even remember her lines and while she's left alone, she chews on a glass chips to unable herself to speak. The injuries being superficial, Trish insists that she would give it a try for a scene.

Esther comes on stage, in a mist, and plays her part. The audience is captivated as if they felt that a real tragedy is going on. When the curtain falls on the first act, Trish commands that Esther shall not be allowed to get out of stage, for fear she would refuse to come back. So the dresser changes her clothes on stage, and she keeps freaking out, because she doesn't realize if she plays well or not, if she didn't forget her lines or lost the other actors. After the second act, she receives a note from Philippe that says she's making a great actress of herself, and pleads that she would let him meet her again. She crumples it and when surveyed by the dresser, answers she doesn't feel anything anymore.

As the play goes on and finishes, Esther comments in voice-off that after having tried to feel emotions during her whole life, it all happened very strongly very fast, and eventually she liked it better before when she didn't feel a thing. She can't believe that everyone feels everything that way, because if it was true they would cry out of pain all the time.

But she has reached her goal, she became a great actress. She found the right note and responded, as she always did, faultlessly. Not that she has found the note, she will be able to play it over and over, on command. She may get back her lover or never see him ever again, it won't matter any more.

A couple of criticisms... (sorry)

All of this make it worth viewing, so it's a pity that a couple of points make it sometimes difficult to hang on to, especially near the end.

Some parts, usually swearing or crude lines, did not fit quite well with the rest of the movie. It's not that much the crudeness that is shocking (you hear worse in most movies), but the contrast with the background. I also suspect that a certain strangeness (to my ears) in the text comes from it being written by French people (except the voice-off parts taken directly from Arthur Symons' short story). And even though I usually don't mind hearing people talking french with an accent, here on the other hand the French actors' accent tended to take me off from the movie, maybe because knowing the language, I "heard" it through the English words. I would really like to know how a native English-speaking audience perceives it.

Also, maybe it's just me, but I don't like dramatization. So I was absolutely delighted with the way Arnaud Desplechin avoided all the traps of the story and didn't turn Esther into a freak or a pathetic character. But towards the end of the movie he seemed to lose that direction, to begin with the self-mutilation scenes that were a little too much (or maybe it's me who doesn't like to see people hurting theirselves). And the whole play was a bit too long - just a bit. It was just a matter of two minutes too much, because most of it is captivating and suspenseful.

Especially as Esther's rival doesn't appear as such a dreadful opponent to her pride that it would lead her to such despair. Sylvia, the Italian dancer, is meant as the opposite of Esther in many ways : she's extroverted, careless, passionate. But it would work better if she was actually a spellbinding gorgeous and sensual woman, but she is seen too shortly to really make a contrast to Esther (though I think some actresses could do a strong enough impression in a couple of seconds – name Gina Lollobridgida as Esmeralda and that is probably what Sylvia was meant to be like).

It's especially disappointing as the rest of the movie had precisely avoided the clichés and heavy effects. So it makes it look all the more exaggerated when suddenly the camera dwells on Esther hitting her own face after being dumped by Philippe Haygard - who, by the way, certainly doesn't deserve to be regretted that much. Too bad the scenes lengthen, delaying the ending's strong intensity in useless insistence.

So let's get back to what makes "Esther Kahn" great :

Esther (a character study)

To put it shortly, Esther seems to feel comfortable and alive only on stage, because there she knows the rules and her lines, while she can't really figure out her place in life. She doesn't feel what others seem to feel. She can't share their interest for everything. She only understands their reactions from outside. So few that she can hardly believe that they really think what they pretend to. As if they, too, played a part in a play.

Sometimes though, she breaks her own silence to say in neat and cruel words a truth that few would dare to acknowledge, showing that she can analyze behaviors in a very precise - even too cynical - way. For example when Nathan offers to give her lessons, she insists to pay him so she wouldn't be in debt towards him, also arguing that it would be a betrayal of friendship to pretend that he does it out of friendship for her, since he barely knows her at the time.

That is one of the contradictions which make Esther a fascinating character : at times she seems to be completely lost and indifferent, but she also perceives things that most people don't even notice or understand, or couldn't care less, like Nathan's bitterness. Sometimes she feels nothing, sometimes she feels too much.

She's one of these characters that not all viewers will react to. People who have never felt the way she does - looking at things from outside as if she was not really a part of it - will probably find it very difficult to understand her rage and to perceive what lies behind her silence - to enter her own world, actually.

It already appeared in reviews, and it's not the first time that a mysterious character gets the same mixed comments. Some people just can't feel things unless you shout it out loud and give easy explanations, and so of course they can not relate to the movie, and fail to believe in Esther's character, because she doesn't respond to classic patterns of behaviors.

There is no easy explanations to Esther being closed on herself. Her mother mocking her and calling her little monkey, her not-human daughter, when she was a child and mimicking her siblings, is not quite enough to explain it. It's the incident that made Esther deciding to keep her emotions for herself, but not the cause of Esther feeling barely any connection to her family.

At once, the Kahn kids talk about their dreams. Mina wants to be loved for her beauty, Becky for her intelligence, their brother Samuel only dreams of money. Esther keeps for herself in a murmur that she wants to be revenged.

What does she wants to be revenged of? Her sisters seem to enjoy their life, the same as hers, sewing clothes for the family small business. As Nathan puts it once, she's never suffered from more than a finger cut. Maybe there's been an incident, briefly seen, when she was hurt to the face when playing with her siblings, and kept a scar on her right eyebrow - a child's play accident or a fight? It's not a David Copperfield-like drama. But Esther doesn't want to be branded like a slave.

Esther wants to be considered as a person, not a silent family member, or a help in the business. She easily adapts herself to new circumstances, to work in the factory, but she doesn't want to - or can't - commit to any group. She doesn't care being Jewish but doesn't want to be described as one. She doesn't want to change her name to become an actress, yet she doesn't seem to miss her family when she moves to West End.

Esther is Esther, period. Throughout the movie she tries to figure why she doesn't feel what others feel, but it becomes really important only when Nathan tells her that she will not become a great actress if she doesn't live things.

Notes on the movie

Two versions

The version that is released in theaters (at least in France. I don't know yet about the other countries) is about 20 mn shorter than the version that was shown at the Cannes Film Festival.

I've been lucky enough to see both versions within two weeks (the long version was shown again in a preview), so here's a list of the differences (I hope it's complete) :

• when the girls come back from the ball, Becky asks Esther why she's told their mother that she wasn't her mother, and adds she'll be all the more unpleasant the day after.
• after asking to be revenged, Esther dreams of the sinister streets of her neighborhood, empty but for costumes floating above the ground, worn by white balloons. When one comes too close from her, she stings it with her sewing-needle and it blows out. Esther wakes up at night, her eyes closed by dried tears, and gets up. While her mother wets her eyes, Esther says "I'm afraid I'm not awake".
• Joel, who's courting Esther, goes with her to a play after the first one they see, but she insists they would not talk during the play.
• after she announced she's going to be an actress, Esther has to negotiate with her parents for the money they will lose if she doesn't work with them anymore. She seems to be as hurt by their reaction than comforted in her will to become an actress (and change of world). She calculates very coldly what it will cost if they hire someone to replace her, and how much she will repay them for the board and lodging after six months, when she will earn enough money to leave and pay them back. Her mother seems more relieved that she would go away, while her father is sorry. She ends the discussion on "A child costs 2 pounds!" (in terms of interest for the story, and brilliant acting, I think it's a pity that this scene has been cut)
• when Esther decides to have a lover, she turns for advices to Christelle, a fellow young actress. Christelle not only gives her opinion on the men they know (that is kept in the short version), but also gives her indications on how to seduce men, and how things have to happen. At first she says "I'm just knocking at their door at midnight and say 'It's me!'", and Esther nods, until Christelle adds : "Esther. I was kidding!".
• there are more of Nathan's acting lessons, and they are longer. In most, Esther works on the character of Cordelia.
• at the first meeting with Trish, the theater's owner, Philippe tells about his "holidays" in Italy, where he turned nearly crazy after thinking too much. He ended up in prison for sleeping outside, and madly trying to escape, he had his feet stamped by the policemen's bradded shoes (they're still damaged).
• the night after, Esther wakes up near to Philippe, looks at his wounded feet and kiss them, crying "You're real! Now I know you're real!" (a way to say that Esther only takes pain for real?)
• another night, Philippe wakes up and sees her washing her eyelids still stuck together.

Around the movie

"Esther Kahn" : the short story

Written by Arthur Symons and originally published in 1905, it's quite short - about 25 pages - and in a very neat and dry style. It's composed of short scenes separated/connected by a kind of character study, almost a clinical analysis of Esther's reactions and motivations.

The movie screenplay written by Arnaud Desplechin and Emmanuel Bourdieu is very close from the original story, and essentially adds character development (especially to supporting characters) and background information. The character development for Esther and Philippe Haygard includes references to Arthur Symons' own life.

The main differences compared to the short story are :
- tired to argue with her mother, Esther finds a job in a factory before she gets her first audition.
- Esther is taught about acting by Nathan Quellen, a fellow actor, not by Philippe Haygard.
- in the movie long version, Philippe Haygard tells about an accident that happened to him in Italy, that actually was taken from Arthur Symons' memories.
- Esther is so upset when she finds out that Philippe has a mistress that she refuses to play, even self-mutilating herself to be physically unable to act. In the short story, she's emotionally hurt, but focuses on her part to the point she would forget anything else, entirely being her character.

As far as I know, Arthur Symons' work is no longer published in UK. Let's hope that the movie would change that, for his characters are fascinating, as unique as his style is.

"Hedda Gabler" versus Esther Kahn

"Hedda Gabler" is the play in which Esther gets to play the leading (Hedda) part for the first time in an important theater. Esther had offered the original text to Philippe Haygard, who translated it into english so she could play it. In Arthur Symons' short story, it was in a play written by Philippe Haygard that Esther made her debut as a lead. The only thing we get to know about that play is that her character dies in the end, and that's also Hedda's fate. This change is not a random choice from the director. The two characters have in common an indifference towards their surroundings. But where Hedda is manipulative and cruel, out of boredom more than evil by the look of it, Esther is only distant and detached, until theater allows her to express herself, to connect to the world around her, and to feel emotions, at last. Hedda Gabler then appears as the shadow of what Esther might have become if she hadn't become an actress, and her tragic (for herself and the victims of her games) fate might have been hers.

"Hedda Gabler" by Henrik Ibsen

Hedda, daughter of general Gabler, is a young snobbish woman who has just married a scholar man, Jörgen Tesman. Her husband is too interested by his own studies to notice how detached his wife really is, but she seems to care only about what his status could owe her if he was indeed named professor, as they expect it. Out of boredom as much as of jealousy, she induces her former lover - and Jörgen's rival in studies as well -, Ejlert Lövborg, to fall back into debauchery, from which he had been "saved" by Thea's love, the prefect's young second wife, who is about to leave her husband for him. Hedda even destroys Ejlert's manuscript, that he has written with Thea but lost the night he fell back, then she encourages him to commit suicide. However, judge Brack, who had been hanging around waiting for her attentions, threatens to reveal that she had given Ejlert the gun he was found dead with. Faced with the perspective of either being mixed up in a scandal or spending her evenings alone with judge Brack while her husband tries to rewrite Ejlert's book from his notes with Thea, Hedda chooses the option she'd offered Ejlert, and turns her second gun against herself.

Check out my Summer Phoenix page.

If you have any comment, e-mail me at d_raven23@hotmail.com.