|
|
Post by rugirl on Apr 3, 2007 23:05:32 GMT
 I just rented Blood Diamond last night with Leonardo DiCaprio and Djimon Hounsou (excellent but very disturbing movie, all the more because it's real), and I saw that Marshall Herskovitz was the producer on this movie, as well as the director of Dangerous Beauty/An Honest Courtesan. My question is this.....how can Marshall be associated with such an intellectually and emotionally stimulating movie, and yet have turned what could have been a potentially interesting movie like an Honest Courtesan into such romantic dross? I don't get it....Ru got the fuzzy end of the lollipop in that movie. HE did a great job with what he had to work with, which wasn't much. Sorry, it just makes me angry when I see talented people going to waste.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxx02 on Apr 3, 2007 23:17:36 GMT
Maybe the guy learned something.
I just heard a few people drop off their twig. I know, I know, no one in Hollywierd ever learns anything. If they did it wouldn't be Hollywierd... yeah, probably just dumb luck.
The guy was cursed with diCraprio and his ludicrous accent so he had to have something going for him.
I like Djimon Hounsou, yet another really interesting and talented actor who doesn't get nearly enough work. Chow Yun Fat. Great actor. If only the sprogs in casting-land got it. Anyone notice a pattern here???
|
|
|
|
Post by etherealtb on Apr 4, 2007 0:34:52 GMT
Huh. I guess I'm in the minority here of those who love the "romantic dross" that is Dangerous Beauty?  |
|
|
|
Post by maxx02 on Apr 4, 2007 1:16:01 GMT
Huh. I guess I'm in the minority here of those who love the "romantic dross" that is Dangerous Beauty? probably not. What I miss in Dangerous Beauty is the potential of all the things they might have focused upon about the era--why would a man like Marco actually choose to defend a woman like Veronica? In that time, why would he give up the status quo and stick by her? This is another film where the preamble is a complete waste of time in relation to the story. I don't want to see huge chunks of story devoted to how she became a courtesan. Who cares? I'm also not interested in her endless stream of lovers unless they are actually going to show us some sex. That might have been fun (and a different rating) Might have actually done something for Rufus' image too.  They've chosen a pivotal point in history and then told us nothing about it. They've given us exactly zero insight into what makes Veronica or Marco tick. So to me that makes it a wasted effort. Others may not feel the same. |
|
|
|
Post by etherealtb on Apr 4, 2007 1:42:29 GMT
What I miss in Dangerous Beauty is the potential of all the things they might have focused upon about the era--why would a man like Marco actually choose to defend a woman like Veronica? In that time, why would he give up the status quo and stick by her? But, but he LOVED her and couldn't live without her! I mean, its not logical, its a movie about Romance with a capital "R"! Okay, this hopeless romantic is signing off now. (*sigh*) |
|
|
|
Post by maxx02 on Apr 4, 2007 2:20:25 GMT
well speaking as someone that has had some small amount of experience with Italian men... uh, huh. yeah...
|
|
|
|
Post by pattirose on Apr 4, 2007 2:27:06 GMT
Maybe it would easier to justify the whys and wherefores of Marco and Veronica had they been more true to the actual events. The creators used broad artistic license with the movie to make it more understandable for the masses - hence, the name change being only one example. Although I do think it was alot deeper than just a chick flick, as Rufus once called it.
I thought her journey on becoming a courtesan and the scenes with her various clients were fun and interesting but I am rather accustomed to suspending belief for the duration of a movie. There's too much grief and sadness in real life to pay and watch 2 hours more of it on screen, I can just watch the evening news for free.
That's probably why I'm a such huge sci-fi/fantasy fan. I love to be taken away from reality.
I absolutely love the movie and it's one of my favorite Ruf movies along with Knight's Tale and TOTS.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxx02 on Apr 4, 2007 9:24:20 GMT
Oh, I think by modern standards it's very easy to justify. For me that's the problem. They spend the entire picture telling you that's not the way it works in that particular time period but they never tell you why it works that way with Marco and Veronica. Let's just lay it out there that the idea of love conquering all at that particular time is ludicrous. Well, this picture is meant to be a bit of fluff about a beautiful young man and a fiery young woman who follow their own way. And on that level it's as good if not better than most. As a history lesson about what it might have been like to be a courtesan during an era when they were held in the very highest esteem, it fails pretty fully. But as a romance novel it's extremely successful. So for a man who is such an obvious romantic--ode to a beautiful nude, a matter of life and death for heavens sake? What is all this caterwauling from Rufus about 'chick-flicks'. I understand the tedium about cravats but every thing he chooses is so laced with romance it nearly sinks under it's own weight. I don't know how to let him in on this little secret, but I don't think he's made much that isn't a 'chick flick'  John Adams may be the exception. I say may be because they could center it on the love story between John and Abigail. |
|
|
|
Post by meiju on Apr 4, 2007 11:03:58 GMT
I think DB ended up being what it is simply beacuse MH couldn't handle the epoch-aspect of it. The costums and settings were not the problem, but the way people behaved and talked. That made the cotton candy (yes, I have added the word to my vocabulary, thank's to this board) effect If I remeber right Rufus said something to that direction, that MH was really uncertain about the dialogue and there were a lot of changes.
I have no problem with the courtesan story - it could have been interesting feminist stuff, but the style was totally wrong and didn't give a chance. There are wonderful films with widely the same theme, I'm thinking of the miniseries with Helen Mirren as Queen Elisabeth I. There is also a wondereful russian film from the 1990s about emperess Catherine the Great and her lovers, but i can't remember the name.
The problem is, I suppose, to figure out how to display a woman with charisma, intelligence and ultimately power believably in the historical context and with the questions which concern men and love affairs with such a woman. It's not only simple love story, but a sociological - that is cultural, religios, power study as well. MH didn't succeed but it was a courageous attempt, to tell women's story from the feminine point of view with men in side roles that usually are for women.
Did that make any sense - difficult issues to express in english.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxx02 on Apr 4, 2007 14:31:13 GMT
while I can appreciate your opinion meiju, I don't think either Elizabeth I or Young Catherine (I assume that's the one you were talking about) are very good examples of what could be. They both suffer from perioditis. While it's important to contemporize for modern audiences to be able to hook into the story, it isn't necessary to the extent in was done in all of these pictures.
but that is another issue. I'm willing to tolerate a certain amount of that if it propels the story. My problem here is that there is no story. The story part of the story is left out in lieu of pretty gowns, handsome men and big parties. And it isn't even very good at that. It reminds me of Stanley Kubricks last effort. Though not pretending to such lofty heights, it's a tempest in a teapot. If you're making a romance, make a romance. If you aren't then tell your story. This thing never gets off the fence. If I needed to see the romance between Marco and Veronica I'd be starved to death.
|
|
|
|
Post by etherealtb on Apr 4, 2007 16:32:16 GMT
well speaking as someone that has had some small amount of experience with Italian men... uh, huh. yeah... I defer to you then......  You know, you say that like its a bad thing! ;D I was actually surprised to find out there was any truth to the story portrayed in the DB and that it was based on real people. On seeing the movie, I thought it a total flight of fancy and (as mentioned) fun piece of fluff that had been dreamed up in some writers head that I thouroughly enjoyed. Regarding historical drams like DB, while I loved the lead actors in both Elizabeth I (Helen Mirren) and Henry VIII (Ray Winstone) and while the first half of both historic dramas were pretty good, they both had very weak second halfs. Its like the writers/producers/director lost interest in the second halves of their lives and it showed. Actually, I think the best historical drama I've seen lately and that maintains its interest all the way through is Charles II. No, I'm not prejudiced, I really think its the best of the crop that has come out lately! |
|
|
|
Post by maxx02 on Apr 4, 2007 17:29:43 GMT
One of the things I like about Charles is that we see the man vs the monarch. In most of these things the characters are one-dimensional and both of these facets seem to be the same. I hadn't actually even thought about that schism until I saw Charles. It's another case of Rufus breathing amazing life into someone who might have come off as a cardboard cut out. Truly a brilliant and gifted performance.
|
|
|
|
Post by rugirl on Apr 4, 2007 17:53:34 GMT
Huh. I guess I'm in the minority here of those who love the "romantic dross" that is Dangerous Beauty? I agree with Maxx on this one. The movie could have been so much more, and could have actually been a commentary on how women were treated in that era, etc. instead of just another romantic story. That being said, I liked the movie, but think it should have been much grittier and raw than what it was. I like my romance a little rough...................  |
|
|
|
Post by GreenEyesToo on Apr 4, 2007 19:46:42 GMT
it should have been much grittier and raw than what it was. Which is probably what Rufus expected, and why he was so disappointed at how it turned out (plus I understand the change of name really p****d him off!). But, I do think this still stands up as a romance, and is one of my favourite films of his. GE2 |
|
|
|
Post by meiju on Apr 5, 2007 7:48:21 GMT
I agree with you Maxx, although for me even the love story, considering it from the storytelling point of view, was mostly a missed opportunity - I couldn't get over the teeny style of it, or the overall pointless drama about the courtesan phenomenon on those days which you decribed. or Young Catherine (I assume that's the one you were talking about) No I wasn't talking about the Julia Ormond piece. My example was a really stupid choice, because it really was a russian film, that is, made in Russia and propably not widely known at all. A wonderful film about Catherine and the Orlov brothers, but I can't find it anywhere. |
|
