This story fictionalizes what *could* have happened in the last year of the life of the great soprano Maria Callas. By 1977, the time of this movie, Callas' voice had realized its best days and she is seen sitting around listening to some of her early recordings and pining over her lost glory. Her former manager and friend, Larry Kelly (Jeremy Irons) is concerned about Maria and wants to bring her out of hiding by having her lip-sync a performance of "Carmen" to a recording she had made, but never performed. In fact, one of the few facts in this film as far as I can tell, Callas did record a complete "Carmen" but never performed it. At first Callas demurs, but then takes a fancy to Kelly's idea.The highlights of "Callas Forever" are the enactments of scenes from "Carmen" with Fanny Ardant lip-syncing to Callas' recording. These are lavishly done and, rather than make this movie, I wish that director Zeffirelli had done a complete "Carmen" in the style of the enactments. I think that would have been a lasting tribute to Callas and provided us with what a Callas performance might have been like. It was hard for me to understand the fictional Callas' final abandonment of the project, after it had been completed, on the basis that it would have been dishonest. Some famous operas with top-notch performers, like the 1975 film production of "The Marriage of Figaro," (with Kiri Te Kanawa no less) had performers lip-syncing (often poorly so) to a recording they had made. Maybe the idea was that Callas would think it a fraud to perform to a recording she had made over a decade earlier? Or was she afraid she might be too old to play the part at the age of 53? They can do great things with makeup, yes?. But then I am speculating on a speculation.The story never gelled for me. The side story that has Larry involved in a gay relationship with a young man seemed like just a diversion. Or was it inserted to indicate that Larry had no romantic interest in Callas? I think that loosely basing a fictionalized story on a real person is a bit dangerous. We are left with not knowing quite what is real and what is fantasy. What are we going to have next, a computerized Marlon Brando losing 200 pounds to come back in his latter years to play "King Lear?"Anyway, on the positive side there is an ample sampling of Callas' recordings for us to appreciate why she is considered one of the best sopranos of the twentieth century.

What is the meaning of writing all of those imaginary events to ascribe them to the legendary singer's last stage ?, did they want to say how the artist's life is just a truth in illusionary frame ? Or that any artiest has only one timed opportunity to be creative and after its end there will be no more ingenuity ??!!, or that love can destroy an artiest utterly (her love story with Onassis) ?, or that any attempt to ruminate the lost youth is impossible (the relationship between the agent and the painter, Callas and the young actor) ? Is it about how sincere (Callas) was when she refused to complete the hoax and demanded to terminate the movie within the movie ? So being that sincere to reality why rather they didn't terminate (Callas Forever) itself already ??? Well.. The real question which buzzes in my head all the time and maybe I'll sleep better if I find its answer is WHY did they make this whole absurd movie in the first place ???, what kind of possible concept could be expressed through this story which never happened ?! I have no idea ! All what I'm having is just tons of confusion and even more tons of disgust not only because of me being that ignorant, but also because of me being that patient to stand all of this antipathetic movie till it ended !! I didn't hate it because it's not understandable...I hate it because it doesn't want to be understandable, and I've always thought that when you finish watching a movie then give it a lot of thinking to discover totally nothing about its own meaning or its special message, so this is the definition of a "Bad" movie ! long story short : I'm sorry to whom reads right now because you'll find nothing more than questions, and I'm sorry that you've watched it too as it's not Callas Forever it's Silliness Forever !

Fanny Ardant plays the great diva Maria Callas in "Callas Forever," a 2002 film directed and co-written by her friend, Franco Zeffirelli. In the film, the "Zeffirelli" character, Larry Kelly (Jeremy Irons) has an idea for adding to Callas' body of work. He wants to film her in the various opera roles she played, only instead of using her present voice, which seems ruined, he will dub her with her old recordings. The first opera is to be "Carmen." Now to convince Callas, who has isolated herself in her apartment since a disastrous concert tour and the death of Aristotle Onassis and will see no one. But Larry persists and finally gets her to agree.This is not a biography or a character study but more a fantasy - the first fantasy being that Callas would have admitted anyone into her apartment in the first place. "Callas Forever" is more a "what might have been" if, at the end of her life, Callas had been able to come out of herself and explore her great artistry once again. The movie is beautifully produced and filled with Callas' most glorious singing, as well as a re-enactment of the scene where Tosca kills Scarpia in "Tosca." Fanny Ardant does a fantastic job as Callas. Her features are softer, but she has the mannerisms, the personality and the clothes that would make anyone who just saw a photo of her realize she was playing Callas. Ardant plays her as the sad, still temperamental diva who, completely alone, is asking herself what her life was all about, and were any of her goals worth it. She is a woman who felt, in fact, older than her years as she grieved for the man he loved and his betrayal of her.Though the story Zeffirelli tells is not a true one, some of the emotions are certainly correct. Callas was completely devastated when Onassis left her - and he left her with nothing, not even friendship. Having the emotional maturity of a 12-year old due to her mother favoring her sister, growing up fat, etc., she allowed Aristotle to call all the shots and use her, breaking her both emotionally and spiritually. When he realized he had made a mistake by marrying Jackie, he came back to Maria - and she took him back. (They used to call Jackie "the widow.") She once poured out her heart to writer John Ardoin on tape, and it is probably the most pathetic transcript ever. To compensate, she tried to sing again, but she'd lost both her nerve and her voice. It's doubtful that her voice was gone. Callas had always had vocal problems, and as singers age, they lose some of their top notes. If she had been able to trust someone to realign her voice, she could have done well in a different repertoire such as Carmen and Eboli, even if she had just recorded them.Maria Callas was a beautiful, gifted woman who thought that a career would give her the love she never received as a child - and it didn't. If you've ever seen the photo of her taking her bow as Norma and looking over at Aristotle in the box, she's absolutely radiant, she's on top of the world. She's in love and enjoying her life for the first time. It breaks your heart because that time in her life, like "Callas Forever," was only a fantasy.

This is an odd movie, fairly opulent looking, yet barely released. A gay rock music promoter named Larry Kelly (I wonder if the REAL Larry Kelly, who started the Dallas Opera and worked with Callas, is still alive) is also a friend of recluse Maria Callas. He talks Callas into starring in a movie of Carmen, using her 13 year old recording as a soundtrack. She is difficult, but superb. The Carmen movie is a big success, but Maria feels uncomfortable with the concept and asks Larry to withdraw the film.Fanny Ardant is pretty good, but too variable. She swings from crotchety to alluring in a matter of seconds. You don't see much behind that beautiful mask. Anne Bancroft or Audrey Hepburn might have been better if the project had been done earlier and written better... Jeremy Irons is wince inducing: it is always unpleasant to watch an actor trying to make something out of nothing - the character of Larry is simply one-dimensional. Joan Plowright brings commonsense - a rare commodity in this film - to her few scenes.A few moments linger: Ardant, as Callas-Carmen, smoking a thin cigar before throwing her flower at José. Callas starting to seduce a hunky tenor, but thinking better of it after a little kiss.It is all very bizarre: outrageous Chanel product placement, saccharine gay subplot ( awww, the young boyfriend got a hearing aid so that he could hear Callas LPs), hideous punk rock music under the credits... and as others have remarked, the characters live in 1977, but the look is 2000.Basically yet another example of Zeffirellian effects without causes.