Valmont vs. Dangerous Liaisons

For the final project in my costume design class, we're doing Midsummer Night's Dream. I'm setting mine inside an 18th century painting. What I'm actually doing for the costumes is another post, but I like watching movies while I'm drawing the costumes. Since I'm doing 18c, I've been watching a lot of period movies. Today, I really wanted to watch Dangerous Liaisons, but I can't find my DVD (grrr....) and it isn't on Netflix instant streaming. So I'm watching Valmont on instant streaming instead.

I'm about halfway through now and incredibly disappointed. Let me sum it up for you: Annette Benning is about forty gajillion times sweeter than Glenn Close, making the whole thing with Cecile's mother being all "you're such a good influence, spend more time with my daughter!!" a lot more believable, but also makes the whole calculating manipulative female version of a player incredibly unbelievable.

It's the same problem with Colin Firth. I haven't gotten to the bit where Cecile sleeps with him, but I can't see him seducing her the way John Malkovich does. It just isn't plausible. On the other hand, in Dangerous Liaisons I spend the whole time trying to figure out what Michelle Pfeiffer actually sees in Malkovich.

The rest of the characters honestly seem pretty much the same between the two. I like Michelle Pfeiffer better than the no name playing Madame de Tourvel and this Cecile manages to be innocent without annoying me, but otherwise they're pretty evenly matched.

But then there's the costumes.

See, at first glance, some of them are 18c and some are just 18c inspired. But then there's a scene where you Cecile changing clothes. They unlace her back (ok, that's believable. She's 15 wearing one of those transition gowns where it closes in the back but looks like it's front opening), and that's when you realize that her gown is actually separate petticoat and bodice, and I'm fairly certain the sleeves were separate from the bodice... And she has one petticoat. And the paniers are part of the petticoat.

Anyway, so once she's taken off this monstrosity (which was only sort of a monstrosity before you realized how it was made) you realize that she's wearing some kind of weird tank top with shorts with lace on the cuffs. This is also when you realize that her stays were part of her bodice.

And don't get me started on the thing she puts on. This is a scene that has no equivalent in Dangerous Liaisons. Basically the Marquise is trying to get Cecile and Chavalier to hook up, so she arranges for them to meet in a brothel. When Cecile gets there, a woman helps her change into this... thing.... It's multiple pieces, same as what she took off, only the pannier-petticoat-thing is only as long as panniers... Like if you made panniers out of your fashion fabric. Ish. And there's all this veily stuff hanging around everywhere. It was bizarre.

So far, that's been the only pathetic foray into undergarment land.

The gowns themselves vary. They're all clearly wearing stays (or their bodices are stayed...), and somehow they all have full skirts, even if it's only one petticoat. It does move like it's multiple. The trim, cut, and sleeves are the problem.

But that's before I start complaining about the fabric. I know about this much *holds up fingers barely a millimeter apart* about prints and even I know some of these prints are atrocious. My favorite so far I think is the coat Colin Firth is wearing when you first meet him. It's this white floral print (and looks practically identical to the print Cecile is wearing in the same scene... Which entertained me immensely...). I'm not saying you can't have a print on a man's coat. I'm just saying if you want to put one on a man's coat, you'd better go ask someone who knows more than me 'cause my instinct is no way, jose. I'm not sure I've ever seen that... And the print itself strikes me as very much not right. It's very... open, I guess is the right word. Very white. With very pink flowery stuff. It just looks funny, especially on the coat...

And then there are the wigs. The women's hair is all over the place and I have complaints about every single style in every single scene. The men are all wearing those wigs where the hair is less than two inches long all around the head and just kind of tries to lie flat until it gets to the ponytail. They look so stupid....

Ok. That's my rant. I'm going back to my drawing (and really lousy movie) now.

A letter to Lieutenant Joe Cable

Dear Joe,

You've got a great voice. Really, it's lovely. I've got one problem with it though.

The young romantic lead is supposed to be a tenor. Not a baritone. Not a bass. A tenor. When there's multiple male leads, you should be able to tell them apart by their range. Look at virtually every show on the planet, the romantic lead is a tenor. When there's more than one romantic lead, like you and Emil in South Pacific, the young one is a tenor and the old one is a baritone or bass. When there's multiple leads and some are romantic and some aren't, the romantic one is the tenor. Don't ask me why. It's just true. Look at Phantom of the Opera, multiple romantic male leads, like South Pacific. Raoul, the young guy, is a tenor. The Phantom, the old (well, older) guy is a baritone (ok, not so great example 'cause a lot of guys can play both. But the parts are written so Raoul pretty much always sings a bit higher....). Look at Les Mis. Three male leads, Marius, the romantic guy, is a tenor. Javert and Valjean are a) older and b) not romantic, they've got epically awesome baritone-y bass-y parts (since I've never actually had to worry about the difference between a bass and a baritone, being neither, I'm not really clear on what defines the two.... I just know a baritone doesn't go as low... I'm inclined to think it's like the difference between a mezzo and a soprano, but I have no idea....).

You're a young romantic dude. That means you don't get to sing low. I'm sorry. I know it's disappointing. But it's true. I know lower is cooler. Don't get me wrong, you sound awesome. You're the only young romantic male lead I've ever even remotely crushed on (I tend to be indifferent to tenors.... That is when I don't actively dislike them... I'm a sucker for a bass. I mean, Some Enchanted Evening? I'm in heaven. Virtually everything Javert sings? Awesome. But I totally zone out during everything Marius sings....). But you have no business singing so low. I used to never be able to remember if you or Emil sings Younger Than Springtime 'cause you sing it so damn low!!!!

Unfortunately, South Pacific is one of the shows that I've never seen on stage and I don't think I've ever even heard the recording of the stage version (apparently the whole world likes Mitzi Gaynor better than Mary Martin...), so I have no idea if this is your fault or Rodgers and Hammerstein's. I have a sneaking suspicion that it's either their fault or the idiot people casting in the '50s when all the R&H were filmed, since I seem to recall Lunta in the King and I being epically low as well (and also being pretty epic sounding in his lowness...). On the other hand, the Sound of Music gets it right. The Captain is on the lower end and whats-his-face (the one who winds up being a Nazi and has the hots for Liesel. Or is it Liesl?) being annoyingly high in that tenor-like way.

So I'm thinking it's the fault of whoever made the R&H movies about Asians, or at least who ever dealt with who sang what.

Or R&H just randomly decided in two of their shows they'd make the guys who really OUGHT to be tenors be baritones/basses.

Alright. I'm sorry. It was unfair of me to blame you. But you are an easy target. Remember, I'd totally avoid you if you sang higher..........

Sincerely, Wendy