Waiter, my pie has too much Keira Knightley in it...

[This is a review disguised as a mathematical dissection. It may also contain some spoilers.]

I was lying in bed last night wondering: if Keira Knightley's new film The Duchess were a pie, what would it's main ingredients be? So I decided to figure it out.

(click to enbiggen)

40%... Keira Knightley. Despite what the (hilarious) title of this entry may suggest, Miss Knightley is actually very good in this film. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it's her best performance yet. It has more weight than her (still lovely) turn in Pride and Prejudice, and there's none of that stilted British accent shit from Atonement. This is- since she is the titular character- "her" film, so to speak, especially since director Saul Dibb seems remarkably insistent on sticking the camera square-on to her face. She handles it very well. She makes a believable transition from naive new bride to increasingly disillusioned woman, as the Duchess (of Devonshire) hides her private turmoils behind her fashions and her sprightly public persona. She's charming, but not aggressively so, putting as much emphasis on her character's foibles as her strengths and letting the situations we see her in speak for themselves.

15%... Children. Alright. So the children themselves aren't physically in this film a great deal. But in the end the film shows itself to be all about them. The Duchess' mother has clearly put all her efforts into getting her daughter into the best position possible, but the Duchess' own generation is also all about sacrificing themselves for their children. The movie even overplays this a bit, as Lady "Bess" Elizabeth (Hayley Atwell) spells this out for both us and the Duchess as she tries to explain her dalliance with the Duchess' husband. And the Duchess, ultimately, does the same (again, the script overplays this, and sacrifices another aspect of the film for it, sadly, but we'll get to that). What the film, thankfully, doesn't spell out is how this is, obviously, destined to be a never-ending chain- children sacrifice themselves for their children, who sacrifice themselves for their children, creating a never-ending legacy of unhappiness. It makes me never want to have children, because I'd probably be a horrible parent.

12%... The ambiguous morality of Ralph Fiennes. I hope y'all pronounced his name correctly. One of the cleverest aspects of the script is how it lets Fiennes' character unfold in the same way for us as he does for the Duchess- character identification, you see? He's initially a cold, unreachable figure, who becomes a dangerous, volatile, selfish one, and it's only in the latter part that he gets the chance to speak his part, and you feel he only does so because, at least as far as he's concerned, the Duchess has finally become adult enough to understand what he's trying to tell her. What he does is inexcusable, but the film leaves you unsettled about how hateable the man can really be.

10%... Extra-marital sex. What would an eighteenth-century historical biopic be without some juicy affairs? Nothing, that's what. And here, you almost get three for the price of one! The openly accepted one (naturally, since he's a rich man) between the Duke and Bess is all played out between them and the Duchess at the dinner table, their sexual dalliances left to the Duchess' POV as she stumbles on servants listening to their first encounter. But this menage-a-trois isn't just between the two- I was surprised when their was a brief female moment, which I didn't think would happen even as it did- simply because I'd heard nothing about it! Which is a good thing, really, because it shouldn't be anything to get excited about (and it is quite brief).

But what's best here is the affair between the Duchess and eventual Prime Minister Charles Grey (Dominic Cooper, hooray). This may be me at my most basic level, but the lengthy lead-up to them even kissing really did it for me. It probably helps that they're both so attractive. And unlike the other affairs, there is considerable action that goes on here. Can I say yum?

Okay. I'm done being shallow now.

8%... Politics. A film consisting of even this much politics may scare some people off, but it just wasn't enough. I knew that the Duchess of Devonshire was a big political campaigner, and we just didn't get enough of it. I suppose I could credit the film with treating its audience with intelligence by not explaining the political positions of the Whig Party, but I fear it's more a case of that being construed as "boring". I wanted to understand what the Duchess was standing for, what she was (briefly) standing up in support of, but the film only seems to go there to further the relationship between her and Grey. And this is what I referred to earlier- in the Duchess' decision between Grey and the Duke, it's only and always her children, never the threat of what it would do to Grey's political career- which could, I assume, have been greatly important in furthering the country's development.

7%... Feet. I think Saul Dibb is a foot fetishist. He certainly goes for the classic 'stepping out of a carriage' shot. I think the only part of the body we saw as much of as people's feet was the back of Keira's head (identification, you see?). Indeed, Dibb does show his limits as a director here- the other classic period shot you may find yourself rolling your eyes at is the wide angle of the dinner table, as the Duke and Duchess sit about a mile away from each other. Wonder what that signifies?

5%... Big hats. The Duchess- as she herself spells out early on- expresses herself through her fashion. And she certainly does have some extraordinary headgear in this film. Sadly, I can't find a picture of my favourite one (it's the one with the enormous feather), so you'll have to settle for this one instead.
2%... Charlotte Rampling. I did really like The Duchess, but doesn't every movie's awesomeness factor go up by about 40% every time Charlotte Rampling turns up? Here, she's scarce but very brilliant as the Duchess' concerned but critical mother.

1%... Burning hair. Yes. The most hilarious moment of the film comes in a tritely-filmed sequence where a drunk Duchess stumbles backwards into a candelabra and ends up having her wig put out by a servant pouring wine on it. Sadly- or perhaps even more brilliantly- it has actually been removed from her head at this point. Revealing how little hair she really has. (Still, it's better than the greasy hair that Ralph keeps under his wig.)

And that, good people, is what ingredients go into making a competent, enjoyable if flawed historical biopic. I give it a B, and I wouldn't mind eating it again.

Showdown: British Young Thing Period Piece

The Young Victoria and The Duchess are currently scheduled to be released on the same day- the 29th of August 2008- here in the UK. Surely this will lead to some kind of horrific implosion? Two young British actresses starring in period biopics of upper class people. So what else is there to do but examine which is most likely to succeed? Yes, it's the British Young Thing Period Piece Showdown, 2008. Let's have a look at our contenders.

THE YOUNG VICTORIA
Who's it about?
Queen Victoria, the Queen of England from 1837 to 1901 (yes, I knew that without looking). As the title intimates, this covers the "turbulent first years" of her rule, according to IMDb.
Who's the British Young Thing starring in it?
Emily Blunt, who was generally considered the also-ran in 2006's Best Supporting Actress race at the Oscars for her comic turn as Meryl Streep's assistant in bitch-com The Devil Wears Prada. Her breakthrough came a couple of years earlier with her joint-lead turn alongside Nathalie Press in My Summer of Love.
Who's playing that classic older, controlling woman role?
Miranda Richardson plays Victoria's domineering mother, The Duchess of Kent, who was relegated to separate accomodations on Victoria's becoming Queen but later welcomed back, upon the Queen's first child being born.
And the love interest?
Rupert Friend plays Victoria's eventual husband Prince Albert. The film focuses on their relationship.
Who's directing?
Jean-Marc Vallee, the Quebecois director thus far most famous for his 2005 Quebec feature C.R.A.Z.Y., which was slightly off-the-wall but showed great promise, especially with regards to handling performers. [See my review, and read my praise of C.R.A.Z.Y.'s lead actor Marc-Andre Grondin.]
Who wrote the screenplay?
Julian Fellowes, actor and writer who won the Oscar for his screenplay for Robert Altman's Gosford Park back in 2001. He was also part of the team who scribed Mira Nair's adaptation of Vanity Fair, and wrote and directed his own feature, Separate Lies, in 2005.
Any other big names involved?
Martin Scorsese and Sarah Ferguson (that's Fergie, Duchess of York, to you and me) are both producing. Paul Bettany is playing Lord Melbourne, who was a close friend and father-figure to the Queen. Jim Broadbent is playing Victoria's uncle, King William IV, and Thomas Krestchmann (of The Pianist) is another uncle King Leopald of Belgium. And Sandy Powell (The Aviator, Far From Heaven, Shakespeare in Love, Velvet Goldmine) is costume designer.
Where has it been filmed?
Lincoln Cathedral has stood in for Westminster Abbey, although scenes have also been filmed at the Abbey itself; while Blenheim Palace, Arundel Castle and Belvoir Castle have also been used. Wilton House, used in recent period pieces Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice and Mrs. Brown, is also featured. [full IMDb list here.]
Yes, but when does it open in America?
It's currently scheduled for release just a week later than the UK, on September 3rd. However, the film is currently without a distributor in both countries, so changes are highly likely.
And is there a trailer?
Not as yet, probably because of the lack of distributor. So judgments are purely speculative.

THE DUCHESS
Who's it about?
18th Century aristocrat Georgiana Cavenish, Duchess of Devonshire, a scandalous socialite and political campaigner who lived from 1757 to 1806.
Who's the British Young Thing starring in it?
Keira Knightley, everyone's favourite pirate, more noted in cinematic circles for her two period collaborations with Joe Wright, Pride and Prejudice (which got her an Oscar nom) and Atonement (which didn't). Her breakthrough was also in a low-key British film, the football comedy Bend It Like Beckham.
Who's playing that classic, controlling older woman role?
Well, who knows if she's controlling, but The Duchess has Charlotte Rampling playing a Lady Spencer, who I believe is the Duchess's mother. She does have a little moment in the trailer (see below), but whether she's domineering or simply concerned remains to be seen.
And the love interest?
Ralph Fiennes plays her husband, William Cavenish, although the sex-factor will likely be provided by Dominic Cooper (The History Boys), as Charles Grey, the 2nd Earl Grey (and it is this Earl Grey whom the tea was named after), with whom her affair almost caused the Duchess' husband to divorce her. And Hayley Atwell, who starred in Woody Allen's Cassandra's Dream and is also appearing in Brideshead Revisited this year, is playing the Duchess's confidante Bess Foster, who was the Duke's mistress for many years and became his second wife.
Who's directing?
Saul Dibb, who wrote and directed British gangster film Bullet Boy (which recieved mediocre notices) in 2004, and directed the mini-series adaptation of Alan Hollingsworth look at 1980s gay London The Line of Beauty for television in 2006 (which, from the bits I saw, was quite good).
Who wrote the screenplay?
Jeffrey Hatcher (who co-wrote Lasse Hallestrom's reviled Casanova, and adapted his own play for the dull Stage Beauty) and the Danish writer-director Anders Thomas Jensen, who won an Oscar for his short film Valgaften, and worked with Susanne Bier on Open Hearts, Brothers and After the Wedding, have adapted Amanda Foreman's biography.
Any other big names involved?
Nope.
Where has it been filmed?
Locations include Chatsworth House, Kedleston Hall, and Somerset House.
Yes, but when does it open in America?
IMDb has the American release date as September 12th.
And is there a trailer?
Since Pathe (UK and France) and Paramount Vantage (US and Australia) are on board for distribution, we have been given a trailer, which you can watch at youtube.

So...?
Well, it's hard to really make any firm judgments at this point, especially since The Young Victoria is without a trailer and it's impossible to get any feel for what it will be like. But it does seem to have more pedigree- (ex-)royals on board (Princess Beatrice also has a cameo), reliable British stalwarts like Broadbent and Richardson in the background- than The Duchess, and besides, the latter's trailer is decidedly discomfiting. Keira does NOT look comfortable wearing that tall wig, and, if the trailer is representative of the film as a whole (which is isn't necessarily, granted), it seems to be going majorly for the sex factor. I get the feeling that The Duchess is playing the raunchy card, while The Young Victoria will go more for the cerebral, intelligent, low-key route. And isn't it just more exciting to think of Emily Blunt finally getting her due rather than Keira Knightley stealing the limelight yet again?

Feel free to correct me on any incorrect details. I'm not an historical expert, so I may well have got some details wrong.

Victim's Gold Stars: Holding Up The Set

This is the final post today, and I thought it was quite fitting that it ended with the first of the acting categories, which, as my favourite categories, are the real meat of these awards (along with the top ten, naturally). For the four acting categories I will, as with my top ten, be providing a short commentary as to why the particular choice has been made.

So, here are the Gold Stars for Best Supporting Actor.

The cast of The History Boys, taken wholesale from the ensemble that performed Alan Bennett's hit play on-stage, are overall rather dampened on the screen, it seems, with about half of the eight titular boys having virtually nothing to do as the others dominate the rather iffy plot strands which entwine with their teachers. Cooper is, indeed, one of these dominators, and he's so good at dominating that he just about eclipses the rest of the cast into nothingness. Magnetic, cocksure and irrepressibly arrogant, Cooper's Dakin is perfectly wise to the effect he has on fellow student Posner (Samuel Barnett) and his new teacher (Stephen Campbell Moore), and Cooper is superb at carrying off his character's freewheeling attitude towards them. Cooper is given an alarmingly direct speech towards the end of the film, which nevertheless fits congruously within the smooth limits Cooper has given to his character. Dakin evidently undergoes a large mental shift through the film, but Cooper is smart enough to almost ignore this- Dakin could be dying inside, but you'd never know it for all his smarts. Cooper is one The History Boys' few actors whose presence is still felt with the move to film, and I can't wait to see his next move.

[Warning: spoilers] Dano may be young like Cooper, but his character is markedly different- Dwayne is a self-imposed mute for much of the movie, and though that's certainly a hook we've seen before, Dano has fun with his sullen facial expressions and manages the clever balance between amusement and exasperation as his family exude their unique craziness around him. However, it's in the second half of the film that the film allows Dano to truly make an impact. When Dwayne's dreams come crashing unexpectedly down around his head, Dano turns a rather stodgy moment in the script into a truly devastating emotional head- at first, his silence so normal to him now, he wordlessly freaks out in the back of the minivan, face bleeding with upset, body jangling like nobody's business. The impact Dano manages to inject into his profane breaking of his silence is not simply loud, but hurtful: this is a boy so undone he can't will himself to exist anymore; he needs to break himself apart. As the movie makes its way to an ending, the focus moves to Dwayne's little sister Olive (Abigail Breslin), but Dano does superb stuff in the background too: quietly healing his new wounds, Dano shows how Dwayne finds solace in the people he had previously been spurning: his family.

12 and Holding was a truly surprising movie to me when I finally saw it just a few weeks ago: intelligent, mature, unpredictable, truthful. And this is a movie that's primarily concerned with children. After the opening tragedy the film pretty much divides itself between the three closest children to the boy who died: his brother, and two friends, one a portly male whose loss of smell leads to surprising events, and the other a young pre-teen girl (Zoe Weizenbaum) with a psychiatrist mother. It is in this latter thread that Jeremy Renner comes into play. As the troubled patient of Weizenbaum's mother, Renner's character could easily be played using the usual dolorous expressions and mumbling speech patterns, but, to his immense credit, Renner eschews that. His physicality is perfectly normal, yet underlined by a weighty sadness- you constantly get the sense that Renner is a man on a precipe, ready and even willing to fall. The plot entails Weizenbaum getting a crush on Renner and enters some potentially creepy territory, but director Michael Cuesta, while making it clear that Weizenbaum is not really understanding the world around her, doesn't give in to anything predictable. And neither does Renner: it would be easy to give his character extreme reactions to the situations he's in, but Renner is superb at underplaying his character while slowly chipping away his depression. Gus Maitland is a man lost; Jeremy Renner is a man to be found.

The Departed's cast is so rich that there's quality to see everywhere you look, and yet, every time I've seen it, it's the dynamic combination of Martin Sheen and Mark Wahlberg's unexpected partnership that stands out to me. These two actors are remarkably different in acting style and indeed character, and yet, as is surely intended, they compliment each other strikingly well. Wahlberg has a ball with his character's angry, foul-mouthed and arrogant attitude, yet ultimately embues it with real damaged and committed depth; Sheen, meanwhile, patiently sighs at Wahlberg's profane rants and then gets on with his job. He reluctantly yet welcomingly becomes a helping hand to Leonardo DiCaprio's Billy Costigan (which he'll live- or not- to regret), and Sheen plays the experienced boss with an unexpected warmth and alertness. The Departed's unravelling plot ensures that this team don't actually spend much screentime together, but both are a treat whether together or apart, and I think that's the mark of a great actor.

Apologies to: Rob Brydon, Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story; Danny Glover, Manderlay; Chazz Palminteri, A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints