The Era In Film: Love and Friendship

 Often a film will come out and, although initially intrigued, I won't watch it until well after its release date or when it appears on streaming services. Such was the case with the late-18th century inspired film Love and Frienship starring Kate Beckinsale (at left in violet). This movie originally debuted in 2016, but is available via Amazon Prime currently. If you aren't familiar with it, that's probably because it had a very limited release, although where it was available it met with much critical acclaim. 

Based on a little-known 1794 epistolary novel by Jane Austen called Lady Susan, it follows the machinations of widowed Lady Susan Vernon who is determined to find a suitable match for herself and her daughter, while fending off the rumor-mill of society amidst her own indiscretions. The plot zips along, and it has a characteristic Austenian slant towards ironic commentary on the part of all of the characters, who seem incapable of true self-awareness. Underpinning the story, is a theme of brazen 18th century feminism. At one point the main character remarks to her friend, an American played by Chloe Sevigny, "Why ever did you marry a man too old to be managed and too young to die?" And manage the men they do. Actually, all of the women in the film do; from Lady Susan's sister-in-law who refers to her husband as "always so obliging" while influencing him to return them all to London for her own ends, and her own wilting mother who regularly hides matters from her husband to avoid his interference. 

The dialogue takes full advantage of the witty repartee allowed by the genre, and the viewer can't help but laugh throughout, as the whole misadventure wends its way towards an expected conclusion. The fun is in the journey, and the whole thing has much the same feel as a light stage comedy of the era. 

The one criticism I would offer is with the costumes. I don't know if there was a lack of funding for the costumes, or if there was a confusion of ideas, but whether we assume that the events take place in 1794 or not, there is far too wide of a spread of styles evident across the characters, and at times some odd "costumey" half measures, as if some things were purpose-made, and others pulled from the local community theatre stock. This would make more sense if the latter were solely on background characters or ones who are seen only briefly. I'm happy to overlook the use of a sheer net overskirt for one of Lady Susan's dresses as a fanciful take on the period, but it's mixed with hyper-realistic pieces on her daughter, and then we have an almost 17th century-eqsue collar on her friend, and several times it seems that characters wear the correct outer clothing without the necessary supports underneath. In short, there isn't a clear and consistent aesthetic beyond "late 18th century." That being said, the hair is well-executed and the locations and set dressing are a treat. Despite the costume confusion, I did really enjoy the overall look of the piece. 

It was a really entertaining film, and I would highly recommend it for anyone who enjoys this period and is looking for something less heavy than The Duchess with the wit of Pride and Prejudice and a dash of ironic feminism.

Triumph of Love

Adapted from the play of the same name written by Marivaux in 1732, this film, released in 2001, is one of those lesser-known gems that publicity forgot. Starring Mira Sorvino, Sir Ben Kingsley, and Fiona Shaw; it is a fast-paced romp through concealed identities, cross-dressing, lost heirs, and the always-interesting enlightened mind versus an open heart.

Mira Sorvino plays an unnamed princess who discovers that although her parents usurped the throne from the rightful King and Queen, there was a little prince, now hidden away by a philosopher and his sister (Kingsley and Shaw), who is the true heir. Determined to make things right by marrying the now-grown prince, Aegis, she goes to the philosopher's home disguised as a man, only to find that the prince hates her and despises all women and love. Hilarity ensuses as the princess uses seduction, bribery, and wit to win over all three of her foes independently of one another.

But can a foundation of lies ever lead to true happiness? In this version, somehow, everyone gets what they need, even if it is not what they want. Ben Kingsley is as amazing as ever in his role as the single-minded philosopher Hermocrates, who although he becomes ever more ridiculous is always full of pathos. Fiona Shaw delivers a performance inspired not merely a little by the enlightenment scientist Emilie du Chatelet, and well-embodies the trials of a serious woman in a man's world. Sorvino likewise acquits herself well, bouncing from petulant to joyful, uncertain to determined in a heartbeat.

The only two things to mar an otherwise stellar film is the odd breaking of the fourth wall at times, with views of an audience, plainly seen by the viewer as well as the actors, but that can be chalked up to an attempt to remind us of the origins of the piece in Marivaux's play; and the one-note performance of Jay Rodan as Aegis. He is shown taking little action on his own behalf until the last moments of the film, and whether angry or confused reacts in much the same way. One is left wondering if the kingdom wouldn't be better without his participation in its governance.

Still, it is a fun period movie filmed in the lush landscape of Tuscany, with an authentic 18th century feel to the story and language. Nothing too weighty here, this is a perfect film for rainy afternoons, background noise while sewing, or anything at all.