| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 09/10/2008 : 13:23:40
The Duchess looks great. Rest grates.
More later now.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: lives have no dramatic structure. So filmmakers have first and foremost to impose one on any biopic, otherwise the film is going to feel like a fatty taking off a girdle. Redundant flesh is going to escape in all the wrong places.
The most important thing about dramatizing the life of the oh-so-privilged 17th century Duchess of Devonshire is to sculpt her story so that it represents "the way we were," and not merely "the way they were." With this kind of tale extrapolation rules.
Of course if the chosen life is one of significant accomplishment, whether benign or nasty, the filmic adaptation is more straightforward. Achieving goals despite adversity of some kind, even when we're familiar with the history, carries built-in drama.
But a wealthy, attractive aristocrat whose reputation is based on being a wife and mother and alcoholic signify nothing that qualifies as worthy of respect in any but the most general terms.
To immortalize such a life on film is to appeal in some fundamental way to a prurient sensibility in the audience and a promise of box office bucks as every last ounce is squeezed of the Duchess's several parallels with her 20th century ancestor, Diana Princess of Wales.
But all the pr interviews with Keira Knightley who plays Georgiana flatly deny any conscious connections. Indeed if one had no idea that Diana was related to the Duchess, nothing inherent in the film would spill those beans.
So we're left with a passle of relationships from which we're kept at more than arms' length. There is no screen chemistry between anyone who's supposedly in love or lust with anyone else.
Knightley is okay until she's really challenged as an actress in one or two scenes. Otherwise there are endless insufferable shots of her walking ... many shot on her back.
Fiennes as the Duke is fine, with hints of the man behind the wig. Sadly the script gives him no chance to sustain any kind of dimensional character, so we get snippets.
This is true, alas, of the whole film. A series of snippets. And that is no substitute for structure.
However, it looks sumptuous and deserves at least a nomination for Best Production Values, Costumes, Wigs, whatever.
|
| 10 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Salopian |
Posted - 10/03/2008 : 10:26:20
N.B. I noticed this too but didn't mention it. Just saying so because people often state that I correct that sort of thing when in fact I usually don't.  |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 10/03/2008 : 05:35:06
quote:
Originally posted by Conan The Westy
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
To immortalize such a life on film is to appeal in some fundamental way to a prurient sensibility in the audience and a promise of box office bucks as every last ounce is squeezed of the Duchess's several parallels with her 20th century ancestor, Diana Princess of Wales.
Sorry to be pedantic but I also noticed this slip on our local cinemas website.
Diana is her descendant not her ancestor.
descendant (plural descendants)
1. One who is the progeny of someone at any distance of time; e.g. a child; a grandchild, etc.
My head is hung in shame 
|
| Conan The Westy |
Posted - 10/02/2008 : 22:59:59
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
To immortalize such a life on film is to appeal in some fundamental way to a prurient sensibility in the audience and a promise of box office bucks as every last ounce is squeezed of the Duchess's several parallels with her 20th century ancestor, Diana Princess of Wales.
Sorry to be pedantic but I also noticed this slip on our local cinemas website.
Diana is her descendant not her ancestor.
descendant (plural descendants)
1. One who is the progeny of someone at any distance of time; e.g. a child; a grandchild, etc.
|
| Salopian |
Posted - 09/25/2008 : 12:19:19
However, I'm sure you're looking forward to seeing her in the not-at-all-pointless remake of My Fair Lady? |
| demonic |
Posted - 09/23/2008 : 13:20:16
I like the use of the word "it". |
| Salopian |
Posted - 09/23/2008 : 05:54:55
Honestly, I don't remember seeing her that much outside magazines/tabloids. Perhaps I've shut it out unconsciously. |
| demonic |
Posted - 09/23/2008 : 05:03:30
Come off it. Keira is far more pervasive than OK and Hello unless you live under a rock. It would be a tall order to avoid all billboards and bus shelters, cinema trailers and television adverts, newspapers and magazines of all kinds. Her cold dead expression is ubiquitous. |
| Salopian |
Posted - 09/23/2008 : 04:32:23
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I'd sooner remove my eyes with a spoon than watch the vacuum of Keira Knightley in a starring role. I wish more people felt the same way then we wouldn't have to endure her.
Well, if you don't watch her, you don't have to endure her, do you?! Or are you committed to reading Heat and O.K.? |
| demonic |
Posted - 09/22/2008 : 13:10:25
I'd sooner remove my eyes with a spoon than watch the vacuum of Keira Knightley in a starring role. I wish more people felt the same way then we wouldn't have to endure her. |
| Salopian |
Posted - 09/22/2008 : 03:54:46
Yes, the amount of back shots was odd -- perhaps to hide her weird being-tickled-under-the-nose-with-a-feather grimace.
I read in the Guardian recently about the decline of biography, and that books about figures like this (but especially this one in particular) are filling the void as all the significant people have been done, often repeatedly. The same goes for films, I suppose. As a sort of halfway measure, I'd like to see a biopic of the Mitfords. I read a biography of them a couple of years ago and their story/-ies is/are really very interesting. And there were so many of them that there would be no need for filler. |
