Easy Virtue - Surprisingly Bad

I was hanging out on facebook the other night when a friend posted: "need a good period drama? Go watch Easy Virtue! It's on Netflix."

Well, that was certainly enough for me ... I headed over. And I did watch, and I suppose I'm not too disappointed that I did, if for no other reason, then it gives me something to write about, but unfortunately what I have to say is that Easy Virtue is surprisingly bad.

Here is a film that by rights should be perfect for me. It has it all: British actors, great houses and landscapes; period costumes, cars, and furnishings! A great time period at the cusp of the 1930s! Hell, it even has Colin Firth.

How the heck did it still manage to be such a misfire?

What this experience (coupled with the recently painful viewing of Parade's End) has taught me is that good acting -- and other sundry visual delights -- cannot save bad writing. And that story matters above all.



Having just accused this work of bad writing, I was stunned to look it up and learn that the film was based on a Noel Coward play. Obviously enough I have not read that play. I learned also, thank you Wikipedia, that the play was adapted to film before -- in 1928 -- and directed by Alfred Hitchcock. This is getting crazy. I consider myself a silent film aficionado, yet I not only had not heard of the silent film version, but hadn't even realized that Hitchcock had been a director during the silent film era.

Feeling like a bone-head right now.

Maybe you should walk away slowly from this blog :)


OK, I might be uninformed about a lot of things. But I'll tell you what I'm not wrong about: Easy Virtue (2008) is not great. In defense of my opinion I'll also share that the Wikipedia article goes on to state that "hardly any feature of the original play remains [in the 2008 adaptation] besides the main characters, and even they do not greatly resemble Coward's cast." lol.

So maybe the Coward play was itself good. No idea. But this adaption is seriously flawed.


The plot goes something like this: Larita, a beautiful and vivacious American race car driving star meets and falls in love with a classy young British dude while in France at a car racing event. They marry and then return to England to meet his family. The basic plot from this point on is "fish out of water" stuff, with the young sexy American clashing predictably with the boy's mother and sisters, but winning over the male folk such as the butler and the dad, the ever-gorgeous Colin Firth.

The actors are top notch all around. In addition to Firth as dad, we have and Kristin Scott Thomas as mom; we have Kimberley Nixon and Katherine Parkinson (who I love so much in IT Crowd, but who is wasted here) as the sisters. I even recognized Kris Marshall as Furber the butler (who'd made such an amazing addition to Love Actually as Colin Frissel the guy who goes to Wisconsin to meet hot Americans). Was there a requirement that a certain portion of cast members have names beginning with K, I wonder?

The tone of the film is supposed to be light hearted and witty I think. But it just isn't. Music tells us that we are to find some scenes funny... like the burying of a dog who is accidentally squished. We seem to be expected to find the accidental squishing funny too. But these moments aren't funny and the cast can't make them so. Everything is written in a pallid and flat manner and with ambiguous direction.

There is no great chemistry between any of the characters; the closest is the connection that develops between Larita and her new father in law. The relationships between the other characters feel mostly strained and uninteresting - such as between Larita and her husband, the young husband and his sisters, the mom and dad, Larita and the butler; the list goes on. Although the engine driving the plot is the tension between Larita and her mother-in-law, their relationship feel so time-worn I just couldn't get in to it.

In fact, this is what plagues much of the film - a feeling of having seen this all before. Husband coming home to a world he no longer knows after the war...  Average looking girls overlooked in favor of flashy blonde... Girl next door with a heart of gold...  Yappy foo foo overindulged dog.... cliche, cliche and cliche! And that's when you realize that the English countryside can only take you so far. There has to be a point. Some reason to care about these folks and their predicaments.

Jessica Biel as Larita is gorgeous and I actually want to like her. Oddly even, I probably do like her character more than almost anyone else in the film, which is really saying something. Biel manages a  performance that fits this awkward film. But she got the memo that this isn't real English drama, just a knock off to turn some quick cash -- and her flat, charming, American gumption seems to fit that ethos really well.

Kristin Scott Thompson, on the other hand, is striving for something real and meaningful. But has little to work with and, despite her best attempts, the character of the mom (mother-in-law to Larita) ends up melodramatic, or just somehow too disproportionally deep for how stupid this film is. Though she is still such a treat to gaze at - what timeless beauty and class that woman has!

Colin Firth does his best to act the slightly curmudgeonly, wasted, but still debonair, older man. But we never get much sense of his motivations though, or any real backstory that could help flesh him out and let the viewer feel as if we know him. He just flits around the edges of the story seeming equal parts bitter, detached and classy. A too-strange mix. We can't really decide whether to like a guy who has so abdicated any role in his family -- when his family clearly needs some direction (...even though he is smoldering in a washed-up way, which, truly could be -- and often is -- enough.)

The young British actors, such as Ben Barnes as the husband, his sisters, and the butler, all seem to be working in the a middle ground of earnest, uptight, but still fun young brits and at times they almost manage to make the viewer care about them. The problem is we are given little to care about because their motivations are unclear or at least uneven. I don't really know what they want.

All in all, I would say that the film isn't horrid. It does have some amazing eye-candy in the form of gowns and period details that have been lovingly recreated. The cinematography is rich and evocative. If these things are enough for you, watch. I would not recommend it directly, but there are worse ways to spend an evening.

What Men Call Each Other -- Lionel and Bertie of The King's Speech.

Everyone is of course aware of this remarkable film which is a story of many things, perhaps the most remarkable being, how a movie that represents the quiet inward struggles of a man and climaxes with the giving of a speech can be so spellbindingly interesting.

I was expecting to be entertained by this movie, being both a fan of period dramas about British royalty and of Colin Firth. But I was not expecting to be on the edge of my seat with anticipation and rapt interest.  Nor was I expecting my movie companions, both my children, nor the entire rest of this country to be as captivated as I.

It is hard to write a post on this film because, while there is a great deal to appreciate, there is little that has not already been said. (Writing on an extremely well-canvased topic is a hardship I rarely get to experience.) But I think I can dispense with a summary of the plot, point and characters and just stick with what interests me most about the film: the male bonding. Of the many things the movie encompasses in its reach (overcoming obstacles, childhood mistreatment, the traumas of war, the stress of ruling, the indentured servitude that is royalty) there is nothing better than the first-rate male bonding going on here.

Colin Firth as King George VI and Geoffrey Rush as his speech therapist Lionel Logue have a tremendous amount of chemistry.  Their exchanges are hilarious and delivered with fabulous timing.

Logue: "I believe sucking smoke into your lungs will kill you."
Bertie:  "My physicians say it relaxes the throat."
Logue: "They're idiots."
Bertie: "They've all been knighted."
Logue: "Makes it official then."

The relationship between the man who is about to be king and his therapist, who becomes his only friend, is the heart of this story and comes to a climax just after the King makes his speech.

Throughout the movie, Logue has called the King "Bertie" in a very intentional attempt to bridge the great social and power distance between the two of them and to stand as equals. Logue has spent the movie insisting on collegiality, if not quite friendship, between them. "Bertie" does not reciprocate this address, preferring instead to address the doctor as "Logue." He has spent the movie trying to distance himself from any relationship with Logue, wanting only Logue's speech treatment, none of Logue himself.

Logue is relaxed with the idea of human contact and wishes to know this man who seeks his help. Not only does he wish to know him, he believes it is necessary to know him in order to help him. In the end, he is right. But Bertie is also right -- that he, as royalty, deserves respect and some deference. Eventually each man gets what he needs. After struggling to find a relationship and a place of comfort with each other, and after that position of closeness allows the King to succeed, Logue, in a lovely scene, congratulates the King, calling him "your majesty" for the first time.  Touched, Bertie reciprocates the gesture and thanks Logue by calling him "friend."

While watching this scene, my recent thoughts on another male bonding pair, Nicholas Higgins and John Thornton of North and South, came to mind. A similar "name calling"  incident happens near the climax of that film as well, to a pair of equally improbable men: Higgins the factory worker and Thornton the boss. After a sustained labor conflict between them throughout much of the movie that mellows into a slightly hostile working relationship, grudgingly giving way to respect and finally friendship -- Nicholas calls the boss "Thornton" instead of "master." And the viewer knows, by this naming, that an important step is made. Higgins has used a title of respect "master," all along to a man he not only didn't care about but felt ill will toward. By the end, he feels deep admiration and respect for that man, but, ironically, expresses it with "well, Thornton, I bid you good day." A smile and handshake show that this is not lost on Thornton.

What men call each other can provide a poignant glimpse into the subtleties of their rank, care, interest and familiarity. I think it is why it seems to be a key piece in the puzzle that is male bonding.

Mr. Knightley is the Best Jane Austen Hero. Get Ready...Mr. Darcy isn't Even Number Two!

Very subjective, slightly off the cuff list of my Top Five Jane Austen Heroes. These are the ones I would choose for myself -- assuming I were a Regency-era heroine -- and not based on any higher motives or purposes. (Oh, and if you want to know the best Austen heroines, click here!)

1. Mr. Knightley from Emma.
2. Captain Wentworth from Persuasion.
3. Mr. Darcy from Pride and Prejudice.
4. Henry Tilney from Northanger Abbey.
5. Mr. Bennett from Pride and Prejudice.

Mr. Knightley - Kind and caring, but also very much in charge, he is the definition of gentleman - putting people around him (both high class and those of low rank) at their ease; defending his tenants and standing up for their lowly girlfriends. He believes in Emma and accepts her on her own terms but isn't blinded by her charm. He wants what is best for her but isn't controlling or overbearing in trying to change her. He is also humble about his claims on her affections. Darcy can't touch this man.


Captain Wentworth - Also a man who seems in control of himself and comfortable with his place in the world around him. A grown up man. Experienced, worldly, passionate intelligent, he worked hard for what he has and holds it dear. He values real depth of character, true love and, as we all know, is constant in his feelings for Anne. He's got a lot of cash, but not the trappings of old wealth; as a result he seems a lot free-er in his life.

Mr. Darcy - Darcy is the quintessential Austen hero for his wealth, grand estate, intelligence, forbearance and gentlemanly-ness. He is introverted and interesting in character, but harder to get to know than some of the others. However, that is rather the point. Because once he is fully and completely in love, he becomes the best of men. Time Magazine described the character, as portrayed by Colin Firth, as: "a man locked away within himself but with great personal standards and morality. It was a performance that made women of all ages swoon."


Henry Tilney - Tilney seems like the kind of guy it would be a lot of fun to hang around. He has a kind of lighthearted charm and warmth. He comes from old wealth, but finds the whole "game" distasteful. He is seeking something true and more meaningful, and he happens to have a great sister. Both are very real, understanding, intelligent, kind, and fun.

Mr. Bennett - A crazy choice, maybe, but I'm going to make a case for Mr. Bennett. No, he is not a good husband to the wife he's got. But, honestly, who could be? In the modern era he would be divorced and probably a lot happier. Yes, he is witty and acerbic, but he is not hateful. He loves where he sees goodness. He can be indulgent & kind and he feels deeply. He's just driven down by way to much "silliness" in his home. Give him some rational company and he's perfectly ready to spend his life being happy. I imagine a very comfortable life with him, just reading, talking, thinking, and hanging out in good comfort at a small country estate making goodhearted fun of the neighbors. Not a bad life at all.

What Does Spooks (MI-5) have in Common with Pride and Prejudice?

What does Spooks have in common with Pride and Prejudice? On the surface very little. OK, there's that Firth thing. Which actually sounds like more of a connection than it is, considering the two actors (Peter Firth of Spooks and Colin Firth of Pride and Prejudice) are not related.

Besides that and the fact that both take place in England, as a matter of plot and purpose, they are very different indeed.

Having always been more of a Pride & Prejudice kind of gal, I find myself constantly fascinated with the fact that I am head over heels with the TV show Spooks. It seems so strange, but when I am not watching it, I am often thinking of it.

What hold it has, is the same one that other excellent TV drama has -- a fully realized "other world". A world where I can step inside and live for a while. This world is complete, comfortable, peopled with individuals that are flawed and real, interesting and incredibly alive - despite being fictional. In both Spooks and in good period drama, I am transported.

There is nothing wrong with my regular life. I am a happy person who lives squarely in reality. In fact, so squarely in reality, that most film and TV bores me. I do not readily give up the time it takes to watch screens. Still, put something supremely transporting on the screen and I am a willing participant.

I hand over responsibility for what fills my mind during the hours I am with a show like Spooks. And the beautiful thing is, that when it's over I am not ashamed for having done so. Really good drama is like reading a really good book. When you shut the cover, the contents stay with you. When I flip off the show at the end of Spooks, it is the same.  I can readily picture the "Grid". I can remember the faces and conversations of my fictional companions there. I can remember how I feel while watching it and can almost think of it as another place I live. Just as, while watching Pride and Prejudice, can see myself as that 6th Bennett sister.

When drama is superb, its effect on my mind, my thoughts, my memory, my life can be profound. Even though it is just TV.

And, oh yeah, there's something else --- they both have Matthew MacFadyen. And, wait, now that I'm thinking of it, each features one of the best couples of all time! (Elizabeth & Darcy and Harry & Ruth). Wow, I guess there is a lot.

"What Does Spooks (MI-5) have in Common with Pride and Prejudice?" LostinBritishTV

The Best Couple of All Time: Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy.

Elizabeth Bennett and Fitzwilliam Darcy, as portrayed by Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth, are the clear winners of the "Best Couple of All Time" Award. It is not just the brilliant writing of Jane Austen that brings these characters to life so fully realized, but the stunning performances of Ehle and Firth, both separately and together, due to their wonderful chemistry, that make this the all around best relationship ever put on film.

 

It is a relationship characterized by struggle, sparring, and misunderstanding, but also charm, wit, attraction and teasing. It is an almost perfect tale of lovers at cross purposes but with the great sense and compassion to allow them to be together in the end. There are barriers to their love - but they are not absolute barriers; they are allowed to share complete unblemished happiness by the end.

I have never been as taken with a book as I was with Pride and Prejudice when I first read it. I had heard of the book of course, but for some reason didn't know it. I thought of it like Crime and Punishment or War and Peace, some deep difficult tome that I should attack some day. Lucky for me, one day while browsing in the used book store I took the time to pick up a copy and read the back cover. I found that I was utterly mistaken about the topic and bought it immediately.

Having never read a work from that era, I found the style of writing fascinating and alien. Although Austen wrote in prose that was markedly different from modern English, I found it easy on the eye and not too complicated to follow. Her language simply flowed off the page and felt effortless. While some words and phases like "chase in four" and "Michaelmas" made no sense to me at first, the book was so immediately humorous and lighthearted that I sunk in instantly. It was an intelligent read, but not laborious. I remember noticing how quickly it was going by and started to budget myself, allowing myself only 20 pages at a sitting in order to make it last. But alas it ended. At which point I probably read it again right away. 

Part of the charm of Pride and Prejudice is that which is found in all of Jane Austen's work. Her books are uniformly enjoyable for her use of language, her wit, and her keen observations on humanity. I find her prose amazing, as in this description of Mr. Collins: "The stupidity with which he was favoured by nature must guard his courtship from any charm that could make a woman wish for its continuance." Wow. If there has ever been a better sentence written in the whole of the English language, I would like to see it. Her books are all full of such gems. However, not to take anything away from her other books, I think the love story in Pride and Prejudice is probably her best. 

Lizzy is an incredible heroine, with her vivacity and intelligence, approaching the world as a puzzle but doing so in an easy, natural manner.  "It was not in her nature, however, to increase her vexations by dwelling on them. She was confident of having performed her duty, and to fret over unavoidable evils, or augment them by anxiety, was no part of her disposition." She is one of the best loved women in literature and deservedly so. She is lovely, sharp, compassionate and in almost complete control of herself. This passage, as Elizabeth prepares to meet the great Lady Catherine de Burgh at her estate Rosings Park is one of my favorites. "Elizabeth's courage did not fail her. She had heard nothing of Lady Catherine that spoke her awful from any extraordinary talent or miraculous virtue, and the mere stateliness of money and rank she thought she could witness without trepidation." I thought of these words one day as I steeled myself to visit the home of a very wealthy friend of my son for a play date. I tried hard to witness their wealth without trepidation as Lizzy would have done. But I know that, as much as I wish I were Lizzy Bennett, I am not. She is the better woman.

The exchanges between her and Mr. Darcy, which we would now call "banter," are just gorgeous and so fine. Mr. Darcy's chief quality is being smart enough to understand her and brave enough to pursue her. Truly. How unlikely is that? The fact that a man of his wealth and station in life is able to fall so fully in love with a middle class country girl by page 38! The reader learns his feelings after an exchange at a small party where Darcy has asked Elizabeth if she didn't want to dance a reel. To this she replies that he must have wanted her to say "yes" so that he would have that excuse to "despise her taste." Instead, she insists that she does not want to dance a reel and that he should "despise me if you dare!" "Indeed I do  not dare," he replies and "Elizabeth, having rather expected to affront him, was amazed at his gallantry; but there was a mixture of sweetness and archness in her manner which made it difficult for her to affront anybody, and Darcy had never been so bewitched by any woman as he was by her. He really believed that were it not for the inferiority of her connections he should be in some danger."

And even though the inferiority of her connections is extraordinary, and he is obviously concerned about it, he is willing to forget and propose 100 pages later. We, the readers/viewers, have known this was abrewin' for most of the book, but Elizabeth, taken by surprise, skewers him in a brilliantly acted scene from both actors. It is a testament to her character that she rejects him here. How many of us could have done that?! Seriously. Colin Firth's acting rends my heart. But she is a terrific heroine and she will not be gotten that easily.

The story goes on and most of the complications that have knit themselves between our lovers are slowly unraveled and they are ready to be together. This beautiful scene portrays forgiveness, longing and absolute adoration and it is all done through their eyes. These two actors both have such an astonishing ability to communicate through expression alone. I have still never been able to find out who is actually doing the singing of Mozart's Voi Che Sepate, in this scene: if it is indeed Jennifer Ehle singing? It's wonderful. The song is evocative of a mood, as is the piece Miss Darcy plays -- full of tension and then resolution. Elizabeth's deft handling of Miss Bingley makes Darcy an absolute goner. Look at that look on his face after Elizabeth rescues his sister.

I could go on. We all know how they are on the verge of total happiness when Elizabeth's sister Lydia screws everything up by running away with Wickham. That must be resolved and our hero has to be taken down a notch or two. He has to really prove that her lowly screwed up connections mean nothing to him next to his undying unfathomable passion for her. 

And Elizabeth has to have her own exorcism of relative-issues in that great scene where she puts Lady Catherine in her place. It serves the purpose of allowing her to assert passionately and publicly that she would consider and probably accept a proposal from Mr. Darcy.

Of course she does just that and the two get to be together, happily forever. A beautiful story.

"The Best Couple of All Time: Elizabeth Bennet and Fitzwilliam Darcy." LostinBritishTV