Favorite Enemies
- A Little Sisterly Advice
- Cheeky Reads
- DRD aka Donna's Blog
- Gunner Marnee's Blog
- J.K. Coi: Living with Immortals
- Just Janga
- Killer Fiction
- Kimberly Killion
- Maggie Robinson
- Maureen O. Betita
- Megan Kelly
- Pam Clare
- Renee Lynn Scott
- Romance Bandits
- Romance Dish
- Scapegoat's Blogspot
- Smartass Romance
- Terri Osburn Writes Romance
- Tessa Dare
- Vauxhall Vixens
Blog Archive
The Duchess: A Sort of Whining Review and Discussion of Likable Characters
I went to see The Duchess, the new period piece costume drama with Keira Knightly. I’ve been itching to see it for a year. I’ve talked about it incessantly to even people who hate period dramas, so much so that when I bring it up, they say, “Oh, that one about the duchess?” Finally, finally it came to my town. I paid full price, opening night…and I bought popcorn. My friend and I repeatedly made reverent cooing about how much we were going to love this movie. We sat, the movie came up…and it was okay.
Oh-kay? I bought popcorn, people! It should have been brilliant! It should have been the best movie I saw all year! But on the contrary, we were decidedly underwhelmed by it.
The costumes were gorgeous; and I’d say everyone acted their parts believably, but there was no emotion. I never felt a part of the movie. And that’s the best part of movies, you know: being a part of them. It’s the best part of any story; it’s what makes stories real.
It’s the Rooting for the Home Team vibe.
At no point was I rooting for this woman.
What’s funny is that the story is based on real people. I imagine the sex between the husband and wife was very real. *laughs* I’d say you’d have to see it, but I don’t want you paying to see this movie. Let’s just say this guy’s idea of foreplay was: “Go lie on the bed.” Literally. You’d think I’d feel a bit more for the girl because I’ve had that kind of sex. You don’t want it documented. It’s best to forget it as soon as possible.
And I’d say the unhappiness all throughout the movie was real. It had very real elements, but I felt as engaged as if I were watching a football game. Actually I probably would have felt more emotion watching a football game. Loathing, at the very least. But watching this, I felt indifference. I didn’t care about these characters. I wanted to check the time to see how much longer the movie would be. We’ve all been to a movie we’ve been excited about…and then been decidedly disappointed when we saw it, right? So what was wrong with the movie? It lacked believability. It lacked realness. It lacked a reason to be told. I didn’t care if anyone won; and in the end, nobody did.
With this movie being about real people, you may point out, maybe that was the problem. Believe me, they had plenty of errors. There always is when you’re making History by Hollywood. Let me list the movies I’ve bought into that’s littered (littered) with historical errors: Braveheart; Dangerous Beauty; King Arthur; Kingdom of Heaven; Casanova; Immortal Beloved; Elizabeth; Shakespeare in Love (it could’ve happened!); Stage Beauty; The Libertine (Johnny’s right; I don’t like him); Amazing Grace; Rob Roy; The Scarlet Letter; Last of the Mohicans; The Patriot; Quills; Becoming Jane. Most of these based on real people with unhappy endings. So why didn’t The Duchess work for me? Was it because Mel Gibson didn’t fly out of one of the bedrooms, arranging his kilt, waving his sword, and screaming “Freedom!”?
I’m thinking, unlikely.
Was it the historical stuff? No, I don’t think The Duchess was any more historically accurate than Braveheart was; and I could spend five or six blogs outlining the historical inaccuracies in that beloved movie. I love Mel in a kilt, but I hope nobody is getting his 13th century history knowledge from that film.
Was it the director? The screenwriter? I didn’t think it was the actors themselves; I liked them.
No. There was just no reason to care. It didn’t seem to start with a point; it didn’t seem to end with a point. What was the theme? What was the reason for this movie? I remembered all the references in the movie reviews that this woman was the great-something-or-other of Princess Diana, who also married a higher up who didn’t love her, a guy who treated pets better and also slept with everyone else, even though she was the prettiest girl in the world. The Duke of Devonshire is the only man in London not in love with his wife. But who cares if this woman is like Princess Diana? Why should we care about her? It’s like assembling your home team and saying, “Root for them because they’re a lot like the Bengals.” What? No. You should be liked for yourself; not for any other reason.
I don’t know. I don’t know how to tell you to make your character likable. I just know you better be careful about assembling a cast of characters who aren’t really likable, who really don’t have a point, who are easily forgettable if it weren’t for the fact you paid full price for your ticket and for popcorn too. So I turn this to you guys: What makes a character likable or unlikable? Name a movie or book you were excited about, but disappointed you? Why did it disappoint you? Was it the characters or the style itself? Oh, and what is the most glaring historical inaccuracy you’ve ever seen in a costume drama?
Books by the Crew
49 comments:
I had a feeling this movie was going to be terrible. And let me take a moment to defend Immortal Beloved.
With that movie, you know you were getting a theory based on his letters addressed to Beethoven's Immortal Beloved. When I read about the Duchess, it sounded like they'd just said, F*ck history, and the fact that you have this aristocratic couple that lived 'openly' as a threesome and who can you actually say, who's your really mama little duke! I'm afraid, since I do know a little about Georgiana already, that I'll just be MAD, plain MAD that hollywood changed history. Now, back to immortal beloved... The movie is a theory on whom those letters were written to. There was a lot of very historically correct things about the story, like his music, his volatile temperament toward people, his family; his support for Napoleon; the nephew he took from his sister in law... all that was hard fact. Therefore the characters were likable, because they were based on reality and at least a smidgen of truth. Not fantasy :)
And I didn't like Johnny in the Libertine either :) They did a terrible portrayal of the actual man. I'm gonna be thinking what historical inaccuracies I've seen in costume drama's all day!
I've liked most the "bad" movies you've liked. I confess I'm not a stickler for complete historical accuracy in movies. When they are, the indoor scenes are so damn dim and dark I can't see them. I enjoyed PBS' Cranford quite a lot, what I could see of it.Becky Sharp became very likable because Reese Witherspoon played her in Vanity Fair. I loved that movie. Purefoy!
I go to the movies so rarely now, and I'm usually most disappointed with comedies. You've already seen the funniest stuff in the trailer.
I liked most of the inaccurate movies too. :) Elizabeth, Shakespeare in Love *sigh*. I liked Vanity Fair as well. What a long, drawn-out book though....
I think what makes characters likeable and real is the ability to relate with them, to feel sympathetic to them. Even a villain can be likeable if he/she does something that causes a relation.
I'm not a stickler for accuracy in period pieces. I've heard others (you) say things like, "Those costumes were off by at least 30 years." I'd never know that. I mean, if it's blatent, I'd know, but usually it wouldn't matter.
I've been disappointed by two of the last three movies I've seen in the theaters. I was excited about Mamma Mia and thought it was awful. I adore Meryl Streep but that was the worst acting I've ever seen. I was also disappointed by the latest Indiana Jones movie which I just went to see a couple weeks ago. I liked the previous ones, but this one was so over the top, I felt like they were insulting my intelligence by the halfway point.
But I did love Igor which I thought would be the let down. That movie has some of the best one-liners. I highly recommend it.
I'm guessing the trick to sympathetic characters is making them relatable. How many can relate to a spoiled Duchess who finds herself swept up in the heights of society a couple (or more) hundred years ago? I haven't seen the film and would still like to, but I'm guessing the relatability is what was missing.
Tiff: I don't mind *some* historical inaccuracies if they add to the story. (Though I just learned that the Scots didn't really start wearing kilts as we know them until about the 15, 1600s. Before they were wearing leines and brats. Which is not kilts. Totally shaking up my love of Julie Garwood's Scottish historicals because then, technically speaking, they wouldn't have the kilts she keeps referring to. Ack!
I didn't like The Libertine because it was historically inaccurate, but because they made him so damned unlikable. They emphasized his a**holishness and basically when he died at the end, you were at the point of, "Well, he deserved it." I don't think that's true.
Marnee: *sighs* I love Shakespeare in Love! *swoons* I watched that again over the weekend. I would have loved to have written a screenplay like that....
Maggie: I loved Cranford! That was hysterical! OMG, the cat scene! *ROTFLMAO* And I did love Vanity Fair too, because of Reese, though I haven't really been able to watch it much since because I think Becky Sharp is a moron for letting James Purefoy slip through her fingers like that. *LOL* Come on!
Terri (and Marnee): Yeah, maybe it's the "can we relate" quality. EMPATHY. I wasn't feeling very empathetic to her plight. She was young; had the controlling mother; thought the guy was in love with her...and then it all went to hell from there.
There was only one moment in the movie where I felt for her--right at the end--and I felt for her. Though I don't know if I could have done what she did. I've clearly read too many novels. *grins* I really wanted her to "do the novel thing"--which if you ever see the movie, you'll know what I mean. *LOL* And she doesn't. I think I just lost respect for her as a person, a woman, by doing what she did. Then again, they played the "CHILDREN" card, and since I don't have any, I don't empathize quite as heavily as someone with kids might.
Uh oh... the Children card, huh? I am a sucker for the children card.
I don't mind the hollywoodization of movies in most cases. What does bother me iwhen the director and writers swear everything is historically accurate-seriously I watched a movie where during the WHOLE commentary they were slapping themsemselves on the back for staying so true to the time period.
But usually I take the inaccuracies with a grain of salt.
I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that the thing that the movies most need is the ability to empathize with the characters.
Also, the Children card? I always fall for that.'
Great blog!
Now see, I need to know what she did when the CHILDREN card was played. Because I'm pretty black and white on that kind of thing.
I'm wondering do you think part of the problem is the over-saturation (IMO) of Keira Knightly playing all these period roles? Would you have been able to connect with the character more if it was an unknown or lesser known actress playing the role? I think it's hard to watch and not keep thinking, "That's Keira Knightly." It's like all the times you've watched her muddle up the new experience and the character is lost.
Personally, I'm a sucker for historical accuracy. I love finding anachronisms and pointing them out to EVERYONE.
Like on one episode of Cold Case where the case was from 1919, but everyone was wearing clothes from 1909. That's kind of a big change from the late 19th century type dress to the almost-flapper era. Plus I'd just written a novella set in 1920, so I was intimately familiar with what the Sears catalogue offered then.
But yeah, I've read lots of books where I don't empathize with or even like the characters. The first example that springs to mind is Summer by Edith Wharton. I'd read and loved probably half a dozen of her works before I read that and it was like watching an alien discover a strange planet. Never at any moment did I understand why that character behaved the way she did. So I feel ya.
I haven't seen Duchess and probably won't until I can get it from Blockbuster, so I can't comment on it. I have, however, read Amanda Foreman's biography upon which the movie is based. I found the book eminently readable and was fascinated by the detailed view it gave of the social and political scene of the period. But I would not describe Georgiana and her circle as "likeable" even in the book, which I am sure provided a fuller picture than does the movie.
As for other period movies, I generally prefer those based on novels to those based on history. I loved Cranford, Room with a View, and The Age of Innocence and liked the movie Vanity Fair much better than the book. On the other hand, Amazing Grace is one of my all-time favorite movies, as is Shakespeare in Love. The latter benefits from superb acting and an intelligent, funny, romantic script (How often do you find that combination?), but the audience knows from the beginning that it is a delicious bit of what-if, not serious biography. I liked Becoming Jane so long as I was caught up in its story. When my mind took over, I hated its distortions, and the fact that it fails to do justice to Jon Spence's truly excellent book Becoming Jane Austen.
Damnit! I can't believe it wasn't worth the price of the ticket! Argh! And I was really looking forward to The Dutchess too.
I love period pieces. I loved The Other Boleyn Girl and Vanity Fair, and Ever After, and Tristan and Isolde. Becoming Jane. Dangerous Liasons. I'm not too much of a stickler when it comes to my history. I watch movies to be entertained, to be moved.
I'm so disappointed in The Dutchess. I can't believe there was no depth of emotion. WTH!
And Shakespere in Love. And Stage Beauty.
Sorry it took me so long to get over here this morning. We took the holiday off yesterday and this place is a freakin' mad house.
I also forgot that I absolutely adored Pride and Prejudice on both occasions (BBC version and the movie version). And Sense and Sensability.
Is Stage Beauty the one with Clair Danes and Billy Cruddup (or however you spell that)?
I couldn't watch Tristan & Isolde because of the accents. Even if they were true to the time, they annoyed me within minutes and I couldn't watch. And I was looking forward to that one too. Dang it.
Jordan - that's serious detailed knowledge right there. LOL! I'm usually so oblivious, I just go along for the ride. Though I tried to watch a very old B&W version of Little Women once and it was so far off the mark, I couldn't do it. So the really obvious costume stuff, I can figure out.
Yup. That's the one with Clare Danes and Billy Crudup. I thought it was really good. Clare is really great in it.
This is going to sound weird, but I never notice an accent unless it's really good and dreamy. LOL
OOH, and I loved Little Women.
I would be more upset about the lack of emotion/empathy the characters evoke than the lack of historical accuracy. When I go to a movie I want to be entertained not educated. If I want that I can watch a documentary. I'm also pretty much a cynic about all of those "based on a true story" films, so I take the accuracy with a grain of salt anyway.
And if I want to be really honest, these days I go to the movies to get away from home for a couple of hours and have popcorn someone else made. I'm pretty easy to please lately! LOL
It's pretty pathetic when you can't even find an excuse to go sit in a theater and eat popcorn, though. This is the first movie in ages that I would be remotely interested in seeing at the theaters. I still haven't seen it and if yours is the popular opinion, Hellion, I may not get my chance before it's out on DVD. That doesn't even bother me anymore - one of the DH's latest toys was a full screen with projector, so I can still get the big screen feel. It's the popcorn I tell ya, I'm craving that stuff like mad!!!
I have to get out my pen and paper and write down all these suggestions. I've seen most of them but I've never heard of Cranford. Is it a series? I also think I'd like to get A Room With A View again. It's been ages since I watched that and I can't remember a whole lot about it.
Ter, I heard Tristan and Isolde was depressing so I steered clear. I'm such a wuss.
It was uber depressing.
I forgot to say I watched Cranford too. It was on Masterpiece Theater. I know they've dropped the theater bit but I still use it. LOL! I loved it, but then it's Judi Dench. Who doesn't like Judi Dench!?
It's a series, Irish, but you should be able to rent it on DVD.
That should be mini-series. Sorry.
Hmmmm... Unpleasant people acting unpleasantly. But in a beautiful setting and dressed divinely... Doubt I'll go see it. Has to tell a story that takes me out of the here and now. And I want someone to cheer for!
Husband drives me crazy watching anything when he harps on about accuracy. Not that it is meaningless, but if the story and characters are there...don't disrupt the flow by grouching about how "they wouldn't really do that." I don't care.
I got to go see Igor before it leaves the theater!
Awesome, Ter! I've got a list of BBC/PBS mini-series I've been working through gradually. I've seen some good ones so far, the last being North & South with Richard Armitage. I've had to give it some time for that one to wear off. He's a hard act to follow! :)
2nd - I took my kiddo to Igor and expected to doze off while she watched. But I loved it. The voices were great and the dialogue was so funny. Plus, it has a couple of great lessons, one of which is the old "never judge a book by its cover" one.
Steve Buscemi as the immortal rabbit with a death wish steels every scene he's in. LOL!
The same author who wrote North & South, wrote Cranford. Granted, there is no Richard to really make it worthwhile, but it's GOOD. It's great to watch.
I'm both sides of the fence about "accuracy" and not ruining it for others. I mean, I don't want it ruined for me--and if I don't notice it and am having fun, don't pee in my Cheerios. HOWEVER, being someone who enjoys being right and pissed off when others are being so blatantly WRONG, I can empathize with those individuals who willingly pee in my Cheerios. Though I will probably club them to death with something anyway. I'm sorta violent.
I really enjoyed Stage Beauty (even though it's got a couple, uh, disturbing scenes)--but it was really good.
I can't believe anyone actually got off for Columbus Day! Sin! I swear you guys just make up holidays...okay, then again, you don't get any time off otherwise, but still...it's not fair. *LOL*
Jordan: yes, I notice when I study a period, it does stand out what is glaringly inaccurate in movies. *LOL* Watching Braveheart, then reading the history behind it to do a history paper. (Let's just say it would have been a shorter paper if I wrote the paper as: Historical ACCURACIES in Braveheart.)
Janga, Irish, everyone--if you plan to see it, wanted to see it, don't let me disuade you. I just suggest going for a matinee. Getting a coupon for the popcorn if they have those. It wasn't wholly unwatchable...I just didn't empathize with any of the characters. *shrugs* But with most critics, that could have been my expectations going in; my mood that day; anything....
I think Talladega Nights is HYSTERICAL. Terri would rather be set on fire than watch it.
True about TN. Couldn't pay me to watch it. LOL!
I was off for Columbus Day. Just sayin'.
I've only seen parts of Stage Beauty. Mostly because I never seem to catch it from the beginning and I hate watching movies from the middle somewhere. I have to watch from the beginning or not at all. Usually. I watched Iron Jawed Angels from some point in last night, but it was really good so I didn't mind.
@Hellion—LOL.
What bugs me is that I assume people (filmmakers) just assume, "Oh, close enough. Fifty years? Four hundred years? Pish posh." If you can be bothered to research something close enough, why not research something that IS right?
Yeah, sometimes you can find a REALLY good reason for using something inaccurate, but even better is finding something accurate and making it work. Perhaps I've just been lucky, but virtually every time I find myself using an anachronism (does something set in the 1970s count as a period piece?), I eventually find something true to the period that is even better for my story.
Not to say I don't enjoy the shows themselves. I just take them with an extra portion of eye-rolling.
Lords, Talledega Nights is so blasted silly, it is hysterical. My more serious NASCAR loving sister found it insulting. LOL! I live for the day a driver brings a controversial significant other to the race track...hee, hee.
Innaccuracy seems to be part of the creative process. If you're a stickler...how many women, alone in the house, would investigate a strange sound in the cellar...when the bulb is broken? Creative license sends common sense and accuracy out the door!
Terrio - I will see about watching Igor today, promise. An immortal rabbit? How can I resist! I loved the turtle in Kung Fu Panda, Ogway? "Now is a gift, that's why it's called the present..."? I cried!
I have no kids and go to all the annimated movies anyway. I'm brave that way. (OK, not all of them, but a huge chunk of them. ;)
2nd Chance: I go to animated films and have no kids. Growing older is not optional; becoming mature is.
I have to argue about the women not investigating dangerous things. I work with a published mystery/horror writer, a woman, who when she heard something go bump in the night, got up and opened the door without checking. It was some vandals with guns, I do believe, standing outside--and what does she do? She hits the panic button on her car (her keys were in her hand), and the alarms go off and scare off the vandals. Not me, Jack. My ass would have been on the phone with 911.
Oh, I'd investigate...with a cop. Dial that 9-1-1. Let them check it out. Hell, I'd want my husband to do the same, honestly. If it's a kitten that got in thru an open window...nice for the cop. What a great story for the precinct!
Love annimated movies. Though, drat! Igor isn't playing anywhere near me. I'll be in a bigger city on Thursday and will search it out there.
We take Federal holidays off in my office. Not because we're Fed based or anything
*looking around*
*whistling*
Anyhoos, it was nice to have a day off, but then I come in and it looks like a atomic bomb went off is not fun and it's pretty much not worth taking a day off, IMHO.
My next day off extra will be Thursday. Gotta go attend some International Spy thingy at the capital...
*grin*
But just like some people don't mind historical inaccuracies and others do, there's a healthy proportion of readers who will throw a book against the wall if the hero(ine) is "too stupid to live." Unless s/he dies. Then they'll probably throw the book anyway.
I once had a reader tell me that a period-accurate historical detail actually took her out of the story.
Um, deal.
Well, Jordan, wouldn't that depend on the period-accurate detail? I don't know if I want too much detail about how long it is they actually go between baths....
I admit it, if you're going to name every piece of clothing and use the correct period terms and I've never seen the words so have to figure it out, I'm going to get annoyed and say screw it. Sometimes it's just easier to use a word I'll freaking recognize already. I'm not stupid and I don't mind learning something new, but come on. It's *entertainment*.
That makes me think of the kilt issue again. What about Scottish historicals that take place before kilts were really in use. I don't know about you, but the reason I'm reading the book is because they're wearing a kilt. If they're wearing a leine and brat (as is traditional) prior to the kilt, then they're wearing a really big shirt and a blanket over their shoulders. It doesn't scream the same sort of sexy for me.
So do we go for sexy or accurate in this case?
If it's a book, I say go with whatever they really wore and I'll go along. I'm there for the story, not the kilt. Though that's just me. :)
If it's a movie, my guess would be that enough people assume they always wore the kilt and, therefore, would complain that the movie wasn't right if they weren't wearing them.
"If it’s a movie, my guess would be that enough people assume they always wore the kilt and, therefore, would complain that the movie wasn’t right if they weren’t wearing them."
Oh, but that is so sad! What does that say about society and the ease at which historical accuracy is corrupted? Granted, the survivors write the history books...but that just hurt to read! And I'm not a historically accurate reader/watcher nit picker.
Say it long enough, show it long enough, and it becomes real. Oh, feel ill...
Sorry - that was directed at 2nd Chance. Gah! It's been a long day. LOL!
But Jordan, that goes back to Hellion's point. How often do we portray our characters in Historicals as taking daily baths? And we don't write about all the STDs or other disease that were everywhere.
Think of it as creative editing. LOL!
There's historical accuracy about WHAT HAPPENED and then there is historical accuracy about clothing, general belief systems, what contributing factors created the situation (which is rarely touched on in stories)...
There is never going to be an unbiased history...you're going to slant to the ideal you wish to perpetuate. Everyone thinks they're right. They always will. So it's not the SLANT of the history that bothers me. It's the "WHY are they eating chocolate in 1306 England when chocolate wasn't even brought to Europe until the 1500s?"--that's the trivia that bothers me.
My guess would be few people know when chocolate was first introduced. I wouldn't know if I didn't know you. :)
For me, I'd be bothered if some movie had a line like, "My brother fought at Waterloo in 1799." That's when I would notice.
I don't know the exact date of Waterloo...so apparently that's your Chocolate Trivia.
How can you not know that about chocolate? The natives shared hot cocoa with the Spanish explorers (and it wasn't sweetened with sugar, so I bet it tasted like crap). The explorers brought it back to Spain...and voila...now being that COLUMBUS, you know, the guy you took off a day for, sailed the ocean blue in 1492...chocolate couldn't have gotten back around Europe until the 1500s.
http://www.fieldmuseum.org/Chocolate/history_intro2.html
From my point of view, as long as people know it isn't 'real' history, cool. It's when they take the fiction and confuse it with 'real' that it gets frustrating. It's called fiction for a reason...
But in a perfect world...chocolate would have been there always and always and always.
Though you make me wonder. Angelique had a chocolate shop in France...wonder if that was accurate? I might have to pony up for the books and read them again...
Don't ya love a time travel historical where the heroine discovers the truth about bathing, bedbugs and...well, maybe not STDs...
Post a Comment