No names, no pack drill, but some actors are typecast as posh, others are only good in working class roles. Nicol Williamson is as believable as upper middle class Sir Edward More as he was as a violent, self-destructive Irishman in The Bofors Gun. Not that this would have been beyond the talents of Anthony Hopkins or the originally cast Sir Edward, Richard Burton, to name but two. Though would Burton's often worldly-wise screen persona have been quite right here?
Criticism from other reviewers and external commentators concern the liberties taken with Nabokov's novel, which I happily admit not to have read. Steven Puchalski (Shock Cinema, 2017) cavils that while the original Margo was only 16, "the film stars are only separated by four years". Well up to a point Lord Copper. In 1969 Williamson was 33 and Anna Karina 29, but he LOOKS an unfashionable 50, she LOOKS like a 20 year old gold digger. Is this not what acting is all about? An adolescent Margo would have made it too much like Lolita, making sympathy for Sir Edward more difficult.
Some also disapprove of the updating to a contemporary 1960's setting. Leaving it in 1930's Germany would probably have meant the intrusion of politics, a time consuming distraction from what is essentially an individual tragedy. And Anna Karina wouldn't have looked so good in 1930's garb as she does in bikinis and miniskirts. So what's not to like?
Review of Laughter in the Dark
