At 01:26 09/05/2006, you wrote:
I just saw 2 films on DVD that were big costume films, both of which we've
discussed here. Both have great costumes but one film is pretty good, and one
is just...well...dumb.
The good one is "The Affair of the Necklace". A yummy yarn with some very
good portrayals. I love Marie Antoinette...the way she was portrayed
was very
believable. And Hillary Swank was also fine. Naturally, Jonathan
Price puts in
a good performance.
I liked the clothes. But Milena Canonero always comes up with interesting
looks. From "A Clockwork Orange" to "Dick Tracy" to "Titus" to
this....you have
to admit she gives you something interesting to look at....that enhances the
film itself. I just saw again something "modern" she did....what was it? Oh
yeah..."The Hunger". And she's responsible for "Marie Antoinette" too. [I
wonder if she's sick of that period?]
Here's her filmography:
_http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0134382/_ (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0134382/)
Quite a list...full of memorable looks.
And I noticed yardages. Remember our discussion of skimpy yardages? They
work in "The Affair...." They don't seem skimpy because she's going
for delicacy
and the light fabrics, trimmings and modest underpinnings are balanced
perfectly by less than sweeping skirts. An excellent study in restraint with
elegance. Makes the gaudy, clunky necklace stand out even more.
I must complain though about the anorexic court of Louis XVI. Everybody, and
I mean everybody, is skinny as hell! And even though the story is quite
good, the telling of it is lacking. Like so many films these days,
the script
needs another rewrite! If it's her story, flashbacked from her
trial, why is it
told by someone else? Why is the narrator the guy who figures out the plot?
The detective so to speak. And if he's narrating, why isn't he telling HIS
story...how he figured out everything and caught the culprits? That
sounds like
a good story. It's completely left out! And that music! It's just poorly
thought out, IMHO....and you all know I'm a big critic.
I hated "The Affair". thought the frocks were dire, and the acting
appalling! But then it takes all sorts!!
Which brings me to "Stage Beauty". Beautiful costumes! I loved the look. But
what a dumb movie. That's the only word I can think of to describe it: DUMB.
All that Stanislovsky Method in the 1660s? I don't think so...... They must
think we're dumb! But turn the sound down, and just gaze at the beautiful
clothes and art direction! Wonderful!
"Stage Beauty" however was wonderful, although I had my doubts about
some of the frocks. The theatre in England was being revived after
the Commonwealth had virtually caused all public entertainment to be
banned, and "acting" was able to change. There really was a change of
style in the 1660's, led by the fact that girls/women were allowed to
act on stage officially for the first time. I saw a brilliantly
performed play starring Michael Gambon on this very subject, and
watched him do "Elizabethan" style acting, full of gestures and body
positions that would be recognisable to any theatre goer of the time.
He then showed what was going to happen, and although it took many
more years till truly natural acting became fashionable (mid to late
Victorian - an actor/manager called Tom something - see "Trelawney of
the Wells", by Pinero), it was natural by comparison.
I also saw a lecture/demonstration by a member of the "Shakespeare
Globe" team on the same subject, and he said pretty much what I had
noted from the play. So your comment "All that Stanislavsky Method in
the 1660s? I don't think so......", while accurate in some ways,
doesn't take into account the facts of theatre in England.
Sorry, stepping down of soap box now.
Suzi
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
