BYT Empire

Brightest Young Things


The story of the great, sweeping love affair between Prince Edward and Wallis Simpson, a Baltimore born divorcee, that resulted in him giving up the English throne for love is a story that was meant to be made into a movie. It has everything you'd want in a great, compelling film: glamor, drama, political intrigue, shattering of moral convention, strong characters. The works, really. The fact that it is a true story is just a cherry on top. So it is a shame that when it DID get its two hours on the silver screen, it ended up being helmed by an overly ambitious, novice director (Madonna) who, while obviously passionate about the story, would have done better if she understood her limits and stuck to, say, a producing credit. But Madonna's never been one to know her own limits, and so we're now stuck with a movie that is as torturous to follow AS IT IS BEAUTIFUL TO LOOK AT.

Megalomania in full swing, and her flair for drama as ambitious as ever Madonna (who also c0-scripted this one), decided to stretch this story across time and space:  it is bout Wallis & Edward (W.E.) , and also about Wally, named after and obsessed with Wallis, unhappily married and in search of her own E in modern Manhattan. This is not a new concept, as anyone that's seen "Julie & Julia", "Possession" or "The Hours" can attest, but it does require a level of  storytelling skill and strong casting to be properly pulled off. Sadly, unlike those movies, "W.E." finds itself lacking in both.

The retro tale is what Madonna should have stuck with. Andrea Risenborough is TRANSFIXING as Wallis ("Attractive is just a word people use to say you're doing the best you can with what you've been given"), a perfect combination of feistiness and vulnerability, with the most wonderful outfits on her pale, frail frame ("All I could do with my looks was to just try dress better than anyone else"). As the blonde, tall Edward, James D'Arcy projects the right aura of tortured feyness, so that when Wallis' husband calls him Peter Pan, you cannot help but nod.

Back in New York, Abbie Cornish, a lovely girl I'm sure, is stuck with the ungrateful role of a kept housewife. Stuck in a gilded Park Avenue cage, she cannot help but fade away into the background, even when she is all that's on the screen and faced with Risenborough's built-in regal-ness. Trimming her portion of the story would have made the movie move more effectively and helped us further build the bond with the original W.E., which, after all, should be the purpose here. For a movie that blatantly wants to tell Wallis' point of the story, too, it spends way too much time having other people speak for her. In second rate allegories, no less.

On top of that, even though I will not waste too much time barking up the "ineptness of directorial work" tree, as it almost feels like a cheap shot, the camera work is inconsistent. Odd filters and cinematography treatments are placed on things for no realistic reason; certain moments feel like simply over-extended music and/or fashion video shoots. Which brings me to my final point: "W.E." is a GREAT movie to look at, if not a GOOD movie to watch. In an ideal scenario, you'd walk into the movie theater with a mind-set that you're about to leaf through the thickest, glossiest copy of Vogue in recent history. If those are your expectations, then all will be well. If you expect a movie that will do justice to what truly IS one of the greatest love stories of the 20th century, then, sadly, you're in the wrong place.

Is it too late to ask for a remake? Same actors, same sets, same costumes, and just someone else at the helm? I'd buy that ticket tomorrow.

Previously in Movies:

God loves a cheerful giver.

COMMENTS (0)

  • So Sweet
  • Report

Add a comment

Comment