Film

Pretty Vacant

The world of The Duchess should have been one of fiery tumult, but little of that foment makes it into this film’s garden party landscape.


The Duchess

Director: Saul Dibb
Cast: Keira Knightley, Ralph Fiennes, Hayley Atwell, Charlotte Rampling, Dominic Cooper, Aidan McArdle, Emily Jewell
MPAA rating: PG-13
Studio: Paramount Vantage
First date: 2008
UK Release Date: 2008-09-05 (General release)
US Release Date: 2008-09-19 (Limited release)
Website

It says something about a film when the most compelling character is the villain; and even he’s not that interesting. The latest luscious period piece to try for the high-end bodice-ripper market, The Duchess makes a honorable stab at convincing audiences that the Duchess of Devonshire, Georgina Spencer, was a woman ahead of her time, a sparkling wit, and an icon to the people of England. While the historical record seems to prove that she was indeed all of those things, Saul Dibb’s over-glossed film treatment turns her story into another tale of a woman pressured into an unhappy marriage at an early age who then suffers, with little but an exquisite wardrobe and an estate the size of Denmark to soothe her.

The film begins in luxurious royal splendor, with a rosebud-young Georgina (Keira Knightley in full cheeky bloom) gamboling on the lawn with friends and some cute aristocratic boys in wigs and leggings, while her mother the Lady Spencer (Charlotte Rampling) watches, witch-like, from a window and plots an arranged marriage to the Duke of Devonshire (Ralph Fiennes). Although Georgina is currently crushing on the dashing Charles Grey (Dominic Cooper), when informed of her impending betrothal, she is giddy with delight. While Georgina is supposed to have been a pretty bright bulb, it’s hard not to judge her for failing to be suspicious of any plan cooked up in a darkened room by the likes of Rampling and Fiennes, neither of whom should ever be taken at face value.

In due course, Georgina is married to the Duke and discovers that not only is he a cold fish, but his lack of interest in anything about her besides her ability to produce a male heir is downright creepy. Complaints about his lack of tenderness and humanity are related in due course to the Lady Spencer, who in essence tells her to lie back and think of England, providing cold comfort in the hope that once she sires a boy the Duke will lose interest.

That the Duke barely speaks to anybody but his dogs, degrades her for giving birth to only girls, and also entertains other women in his bedchamber but tells Georgina this is of no concern to her, turns her life into something worse than a bad marriage. By the time the Duke has brazenly seduced/blackmailed Georgina’s best friend Lady Elizabeth Foster (Hayley Atwell), provoking Georgina to spark up an affair with budding politician Grey, the whole affair would be like something out of a bad novel, were it not for the most part true.

Spencer is commonly referred to as the Princess Diana of her day, and in fact Diana would be her great-great-great-grandniece. There are some interesting parallels between the two women’s lives, particularly in their unfulfilling marriages, love of fashion, and high popularity among the commoners. Where the parallels end, though, was in Georgina’s determined involvement in the political rows of her day and her unflinching engagement in the bawdy men’s world of drinking and gambling.

Dibb’s film is perfectly willing to engage in the Diana-like aspects of Georgina’s life (except for her celebrity, which is strangely only glancingly referred to), but less so in those aspects that marked Georgina as a woman ahead of her time. So does a film that could have been a bold feminist statement become fodder for those who just loved The Other Boleyn Girl.

The world of The Duchess should have been one of fiery tumult, set as it is during the revolutionary upheavals of the 1780s and ‘90s, but little of that foment makes it into this film’s garden party landscape. One could absolve it from such responsibility were it a mere period royalty romance. But when the script makes such a point of Georgina’s wit that it has her trading quips with the likes of playwright Richard Sheridan—whose School for Scandal was supposedly inspired by the Spencers’ rather open ménage a trios, and which we see performed in the film—to then so pointedly ignore her (by all accounts) deep involvement in the politics of the time is inexcusable.

What we are left with instead is the portrait of a pretty and sad young woman with remarkable pluck who tried to make the best of a bad situation and was condemned for it.

This would have been less of a problem had the filmmakers made any serious effort to flesh out their characters, instead of fussing with the (admittedly gorgeous) costumes. Knightley is, as ever, cute as a button here, but also quite engaging, turning in a better than necessary performance when all she is really being called upon to do is look pretty while trying to hold back tears. Next to Knightley, Atwell barely registers when she should be tearing up the screen as the fulcrum of the Spencers’ terminally unhappy relationship, coming off just as flat here as she did in last year’s lamentable Cassandra’s Dream.

Against this backdrop, Fiennes stands out like a flare on a dark highway. For all its mistakes, the script at least pays lip service to presenting its characters as flawed humans instead of caricatures, and Fiennes benefits the most from this. Although on paper the Duke is something lower than detestable, as filtered through Fiennes’ tight-lipped performance, he seems a more fully developed person than just about anybody else on screen.

When Georgina lambastes the Duke for not treating her with a shred of decency, there’s a flicker in Fiennes’ eyes that reads more quizzical than remorseful; he just doesn’t understand what this woman is talking about. Unfortunately for the audience, by the time the credits roll, neither do we.

So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less
6

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less
Theatre

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less
10

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less
7

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
8
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 Popmatters.com. All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.

rating-image