![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
to round out what appears to be a jonathan rhys-meyers jag, i watched The Governess (starring minnie driver and tom wilkinson). this movie has a fantastic premise: young, spoiled jewish woman is forced to take a governess job to support her family after the death of her father (who was apparently murdered for his debts). it's the 1840s and anti-semitism is running high. so the trick is: she has to pretend she's a Christian. the set up is great and her entry into the "gentile" world is wonderful. of course she falls in love with the father of the household (wilkinson) who is consumed by her in turn (he's a photographer looking for a way to "fix" images to paper. to complicate matters, his son (rhys-meyers) falls obsessed with her and finds out she's jewish.
all of this sounds great, doesn't it? passion, intrigue, etc.
well unfortunately the movie comes crashing down. the love affair is badly developed (in fact, both are), leading to an almost non-sensical conclusion and the fact of her deception (as a Christian) is pretty much forgotten through the film and the discovery of her lie really amounts to nothing. the writer/director also seems to have mostly forgotten about her family (to whom she's been sending money) until the very end.
it strikes me as a "grudge" film. the embittered rebuked lover is supposed to gain our sympathy and triumph a strong woman? i dunno man, she was an idiot who brought it on herself with her fantasies and then refused to accept responsibility. it's hard to like anyone in this film.
and then there's the technical aspects: horrific costumes (minnie driver looks like she's dressed in pleather the whole film), shameless bad camera effects (like the "snapping" and "flash" of photography to make transitions between cuts ~ even though cameras neither snapped or flashed in 1840) ~ and get this ~ (this is my favorite all-time bad foley moment) ~ driver seduced wilkinson and in the midst of their passionate consummation and there's a distinct "zipping" sound to make the indicator that wilkinson is taking off his trousers. okay, not only have zippers not been invented (and won't be for another 50+ years), but it's practically a comical moment (like we need the zipper sound so we can go: oh! he's removed his pants!). i had to rewind the disc ~ i just couldn't believe it.
the director clearly either understands nothing about early photography or just didn't care. the images concocted in the film look like modern studio photos and not only are they not backwards (as they should be ~ apparently no attempt whatsoever was made to mimic the actual process), but the most "infamous" image of the film (a full-frontal nude of wilkinson) is shown shot in one position and then appears in an entirely different one in the print. ridiculous.
that and a gratuitous rhys-meyers full frontal nudity on the beach just made this film an act of self-indulgent voyerism ~ for the director maybe. blech.
the more i think of it, the more turkey this movie was. bad as a romantic film, bad as a feminist tract, bad as a period drama ~ just bad. i really like all of the actors in this. they were totally wasted on a bad script, badly made.
minnie driver models the latest pleather fashions of the 1840s
all of this sounds great, doesn't it? passion, intrigue, etc.
well unfortunately the movie comes crashing down. the love affair is badly developed (in fact, both are), leading to an almost non-sensical conclusion and the fact of her deception (as a Christian) is pretty much forgotten through the film and the discovery of her lie really amounts to nothing. the writer/director also seems to have mostly forgotten about her family (to whom she's been sending money) until the very end.
it strikes me as a "grudge" film. the embittered rebuked lover is supposed to gain our sympathy and triumph a strong woman? i dunno man, she was an idiot who brought it on herself with her fantasies and then refused to accept responsibility. it's hard to like anyone in this film.
and then there's the technical aspects: horrific costumes (minnie driver looks like she's dressed in pleather the whole film), shameless bad camera effects (like the "snapping" and "flash" of photography to make transitions between cuts ~ even though cameras neither snapped or flashed in 1840) ~ and get this ~ (this is my favorite all-time bad foley moment) ~ driver seduced wilkinson and in the midst of their passionate consummation and there's a distinct "zipping" sound to make the indicator that wilkinson is taking off his trousers. okay, not only have zippers not been invented (and won't be for another 50+ years), but it's practically a comical moment (like we need the zipper sound so we can go: oh! he's removed his pants!). i had to rewind the disc ~ i just couldn't believe it.
the director clearly either understands nothing about early photography or just didn't care. the images concocted in the film look like modern studio photos and not only are they not backwards (as they should be ~ apparently no attempt whatsoever was made to mimic the actual process), but the most "infamous" image of the film (a full-frontal nude of wilkinson) is shown shot in one position and then appears in an entirely different one in the print. ridiculous.
that and a gratuitous rhys-meyers full frontal nudity on the beach just made this film an act of self-indulgent voyerism ~ for the director maybe. blech.
the more i think of it, the more turkey this movie was. bad as a romantic film, bad as a feminist tract, bad as a period drama ~ just bad. i really like all of the actors in this. they were totally wasted on a bad script, badly made.
minnie driver models the latest pleather fashions of the 1840s
Tags:
From:
no subject
From:
no subject