And why not? The story of a beautiful young English woman who became very wealthy (and even more famous) around the time of the America Revolution, followed by a remake of Mr. Cukor's venerable 30s tale populated by a cast considerably less starry than that of the original: How bad can it be? Thankfully, not as terrible as many critics would have you believe -- but not all that good, either.Saul Dibb's THE DUCHESS gets high marks for the sheer jaw-dropping costumes (Michael O'Connor), production design (Michael Carlin), set decoration (Rebecca Alleway), art decoration (Karen Wakefield) and cinematography (Gyula Pados) and especially its locations. For those many who love the above accoutrements, the film is a very easy watch. Its story, too, is fascinating: how a young woman, full of life, beauty and intelligence, adapts to her quiet tyrant of a husband, with the pair evolving into a threesome (and more). The problem is that, no matter how combustible and shocking the story may be, Dibb (as director and co-writer with Jeffrey Hatcher and Anders Thomas Jensen) just can't manage to bring it to believable life. The movie rarely seems remotely "as it was," despite a cast that includes Kiera Knightley (just OK) and Ralph Fiennes and Hayley Atwell (both considerably more than that). However involving the movie manages to make things (and off and on, it's quite so) by the end it's clear that, though you might be disposed to discover more about these characters on your own (via Amanda Foreman's book, Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire), the filmmakers have clearly lost the race.
![]() |

No comments:
Post a Comment