papeetepatrick Posted July 20, 2009 Share Posted July 20, 2009 I just saw this today and thoroughly loved it, the best film I've seen in years in some ways, insofar as it is one of those films that 'they just don't make like they used to'--just lovely. Plus, as a huge Michelle Pfeiffer fan, I am so pleased. This is the role she really needed right now, and is one of her crowning roles--really good luck for her for a change, as she has not had that many good roles over the last 15 years. And she can still use her beauty in its fullness here. It's a delightful film, with Rupert Friend as Cheri and Kathy Bates as his mother. 'Divine decadence', as Sally Bowles would say. First time I've been to a movie house in two years, I usually think dvd is just fine. Last time was 'Hairspray', in which I thought Michelle stole the show even as the wicked one. Go figure, as they say. It's not perfect, but it's very good. Hope to hear other reactions to this film. Link to comment
cubanmiamiboy Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Great news Patrick!. Another Pfeiffer's fan here... Link to comment
dirac Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Thank you for the post. It ran here for a week or two and then vanished. Pfeiffer is past forty and around that age roles become much fewer and farther between for female stars. Lea would be a good role for her, I'd think. She's probably a little too American (as she was in Dangerous Liaisons for the same director, Stephen Frears - but her performance was affecting and she was surrounded by Americans so it didn't matter too much). Technically she's the right age for Lea but probably the age difference won't seem quite as pronounced as it ought to do for the good of the story, given that Pfeiffer doesn't look anywhere near fifty. Link to comment
papeetepatrick Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 Technically she's the right age for Lea but probably the age difference won't seem quite as pronounced as it ought to do for the good of the story, given that Pfeiffer doesn't look anywhere near fifty. I thought it worked, although want to hear others comment. Not surprised it vanished, almost unnoticed. A friend and I were one of THREE people at the Angelika here yesterday afternoon, and it's only been around for a few weeks. She looks ravishing at exactly 50 (just looked in IMDb, she was 50 on April 28 of this year.) But I think just incredible good fortune at getting this one final chance to use that beauty before having to start in with the more obviously 'aging-actress' roles. My friend with me is a painter and has done several beautiful portraits from photos of Bette Davis and I have his most beautiful one of Garbo, and I kept saying 'You've got to paint that face!' Kathy Bates is very funny, as will come as little surprise. Rupert Friend is a pretty boy, but I liked it that he wasn't quite 'too pretty' so that Michelle could be the beauty here. Link to comment
Quiggin Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 http://images.chapitre.com/ima3/big1/955/6789955.jpg Here's an image of another Lea, Marcelle Chantal, though it's too bad it wasn't Simone Signoret--& Gerard Philipe?. Signoret would have the appropriate body for the role. I remember the part of the second book--it's the only part I remember--where Lea finally lets her weight and appearance go, and Cheri doesn't recognize her. It seemed nicely liberating. Link to comment
Mashinka Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I gave this a miss because of the very negative reviews here in the UK. Cheri (and The Last of Cheri) are in my opinion Collette's best works and for women the books strike a powerful chord as they are about relinquishing youth and in particular the pleasures of the flesh. I learnt by reading Collette that the only good thing for women to look forward to as they age is that as the skin loses its firmness perfume lasts longer on it. For me this wasn't a book with sympathetic characters but fascinating ones none the less, rather like Lawrence Durrell's Alexandria Quartet, the books were terrific but the people in them weren't. What came across most strongly was how the first world war changed European society and how the lotus eating world collapsed and was forced to face a new reality, one that Cheri, despite his wartime heroism, can't get to grips with. Here is a review of the film that was posted as a blog on The Guardian's web site. It convinced me that I would do well not to go. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...s-cheri-bidisha I've always thought Cheri and Last of Cheri would make a tremendous ballet. In my mind's eye I can see Fonteyn and Nureyev dancing it; sadly some things are never to be. Link to comment
papeetepatrick Posted July 22, 2009 Author Share Posted July 22, 2009 Thanks for posting, Mashinka. I didn't read any reviews at all before going to see this and still haven't, although I may read the one you linked to later. I'm not really at all concerned with film critics, and definitely agree with Joan Didion's assessment of them--'petit point on kleenex'. The film is extremely funny, with crisp and outrageous dialogue throughout. For once, the part is so roroco, that Michelle's voice does not seem to be that of the 'lesser actress'. and she knows how to turn all of her racy talk to good advantage. Link to comment
Quiggin Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Thanks, too, Mashinka, for the review by Bidisha at the Guardian--which was a good discussion of the book and brought back many of its great virtues to mind, though I never found the characters unsympathetic. An neighbor of mine in LA ran into Colette once in San Tropez, at a lending library over a fisherman's store. Colette said she wished all her fans were as pretty as L and her friend were--they were teenagers and liked the Cheri books then, the Vagabond later. Colette, according to L, was "a huge thing by then," but what she noticed more was Colette's thick burgundian accent, with its heavy stock of rolling r-r-r-s. Link to comment
dirac Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 http://images.chapitre.com/ima3/big1/955/6789955.jpgHere's an image of another Lea, Marcelle Chantal, though it's too bad it wasn't Simone Signoret--& Gerard Philipe?. Signoret would have the appropriate body for the role. I remember the part of the second book--it's the only part I remember--where Lea finally lets her weight and appearance go, and Cheri doesn't recognize her. It seemed nicely liberating. Thanks, Quiggin. That's not Philipe, I'm pretty sure. I'll do some digging when I have a chance and perhaps we can find out. Signoret would have the appropriate body for the role. I remember the part of the second book--it's the only part I remember--where Lea finally lets her weight and appearance go, and Cheri doesn't recognize her. It seemed nicely liberating. It would take Signoret. Maybe Moreau if she had come to the role when she was younger. That was a good link, Mashinka, thanks. Link to comment
dirac Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I looked it up and it's Jean Desailly as Cheri in Quiggin's photo. I thought he looked familiar but I only saw him in middle age. Link to comment
bart Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 dirac, we were looking at the same time. Here's a link to the 1950 film. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0155626 Mashinka raises the possibility of a ballet. I discovered that there has been at least one ballet. Here (stolen shamelessly from Wikipedia) is a brief reference: The ballet of Chéri premiered at the Edinburgh Festival in September 1980. The ballet was choreographed by Peter Darrell, while the music was composed by David Earl. The ballet was danced by the Scottish Ballet with the lead roles of Lea and Chéri danced by Patrick Bissell and Galina Samsova. The set was designed by Philip Prowse. This ballet was revived by the Hong Kong Ballet in 1989. Here's a photo of that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bissell_and_Samsova.jpg Who MIGHT be cast today in the main roles (Cheri, Lea), if this or a new work were produced by ABT, the Royal, Paris, other other companies? For ABT, based on what I've read recently and the little I've been able to see: Cheri/ Gomes Lea/ Part I don't know if the Edmee character figures much in this ballet - but I'd go for Murphy. Link to comment
dirac Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 though I never found the characters unsympathetic. I don't really think so, either, although they're not perhaps the most admirable people. I take your point, Mashinka, about the wreckage left behind by WWI, but if anything surely the lotus eating intensified (Waugh brings this out very well in Brideshead Revisited, where you can see that the self indulgence and craziness comes from a shattered society not yet recovered from the loss of so many of its best and brightest.) Link to comment
Jane Simpson Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Roland Petit also made a Cheri ballet, in 1996 as a sixtieth birthday present for Carla Fracci, with Massimo Murru (described somewhere by Petit as 'the greatest ballet dancer in the world'). There's a review of it here. Link to comment
Mashinka Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 On reflection I'd nominate Edmée as a sympathetic character in Cheri. I think I must have read just about all of Waugh; my favourite book of his being Decline and Fall which I've read over and over again. It took the British ruling classes longer to discover that times were changing than the rest of the world, probably until the 1950's when tugging the forelock was finally consigned to history. Things are different now of course when even the wackiest of the aristos such as Lord Bath have to engage with the real world to survive. I have fond memories of a TV programme from a couple of years ago when people were challenged to live with those they most despised and a self styled 'class warrior' was sent to stay at the estate of an hereditary peer in Scotland. The result was hilarious with the man of the people unable to keep up with the Lord who rose before dawn striding across muddy fields, erected fences, drove tractors and looked after the animals whilst the class warrior wittered on about inequality despite clearly never having done a day’s manual work in his life. You couldn't make it up. How I missed a Petit version of Cheri I don't know, but I suppose it is something to do with giving up on reading ballet magazines at about that time, mainly because I can't bring myself to bin them after reading and was running out of room to store them. Link to comment
dirac Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 I did finally see this and sorry to say, it wasn't very good. Pfeiffer isn't bad but she's not right for Lea, starting with her figure, which is twenty first century gaunt rather than belle epoque lush, and she doesn't convey much of Lea's sophistication and dignity. I like Rupert Friend but he's not my idea of the gorgeous Cheri (or "Sherry" as Pfeiffer called him occasionally) and more crucially, there is no sexual heat between him and Pfeiffer. Hampton's script tries a little too hard for deviltry at times. The British voiceover is jarring and there's a particularly bad patch at the end where they decided to wrap up the events of "The Last of Cheri" in a paragraph. I'm not suggesting they needed to make the film four hours long but Colette provided a perfectly solid ending to the first novel for them to end with. Pretty costumes, though. On reflection I'd nominate Edmée as a sympathetic character in Cheri. It's hard not to sympathize with a teenaged wife in Edmee's situation. Link to comment
Bonnette Posted September 19, 2010 Share Posted September 19, 2010 I did finally see this and sorry to say, it wasn't very good. Pfeiffer isn't bad but she's not right for Lea, starting with her figure, which is twenty first century gaunt rather than belle epoque lush, and she doesn't convey much of Lea's sophistication and dignity. I like Rupert Friend but he's not my idea of the gorgeous Cheri (or "Sherry" as Pfeiffer called him occasionally) and more crucially, there is no sexual heat between him and Pfeiffer. Hampton's script tries a little too hard for deviltry at times. The British voiceover is jarring and there's a particularly bad patch at the end where they decided to wrap up the events of "The Last of Cheri" in a paragraph. I'm not suggesting they needed to make the film four hours long but Colette provided a perfectly solid ending to the first novel for them to end with. Pretty costumes, though. I couldn't agree more. What a disappointment this film was to me, almost from beginning to end! Even the credits were stiff and unwieldy. But yes, the costumes were fine! Link to comment
dirac Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 Mashinka writes: I gave this a miss because of the very negative reviews here in the UK. Cheri (and The Last of Cheri) are in my opinion Collette's best works and for women the books strike a powerful chord as they are about relinquishing youth and in particular the pleasures of the flesh. I learnt by reading Collette that the only good thing for women to look forward to as they age is that as the skin loses its firmness perfume lasts longer on it. Her concentration on bodies and physicality is notable. Even the tiny lines developing around poor Cheri's eyes at 25 don't escape her notice. But it's worse for the women. The 25 year age difference between Lea and Cheri is enough to destroy any chance of permanence for the affair. If the ages were reversed it would be no matter, but because the woman is older it's an insurmountable obstacle. Link to comment
Mashinka Posted September 23, 2010 Share Posted September 23, 2010 The 25 year age difference between Lea and Cheri is enough to destroy any chance of permanence for the affair. If the ages were reversed it would be no matter, but because the woman is older it's an insurmountable obstacle. Back then it was a problem, but would it be considered one today? Somehow I think not and that society looks unfavourably at those relationships where the man is older now, something that wasn't the case in the past. In Last of Cheri, Cheri visits the older Lea who has 'let herself go'; she is fat and grey and preoccupied with food whereas a modern version of Lea would most likely diet, go to the gym and dye her hair, she might also resort to the knife. In her own life Colette got fat but also married a much younger man, probably the happiest of her three marriages too. Since my comments earlier on this thread I have read 'Secrets of the Flesh: a Life of Colette' by Judith Thurman and thoroughly recommend it, Colette was a fascinating woman who led an event packed life. Link to comment
papeetepatrick Posted September 23, 2010 Author Share Posted September 23, 2010 The 25 year age difference between Lea and Cheri is enough to destroy any chance of permanence for the affair. If the ages were reversed it would be no matter, but because the woman is older it's an insurmountable obstacle. Back then it was a problem, but would it be considered one today? Somehow I think not and that society looks unfavourably at those relationships where the man is older now, something that wasn't the case in the past. It's not a problem now whether or not the man or woman is older, just because a few opinions on a very provincial (if urbane and sophisticated) level have changed--meaning that when we talk about mores, we don't include the other 95% of the world (Susan Sontag's 'breathtaking provincialism' about the people who don't have online access is along these lines: And there are people with 'too much internet' who think the lives of those without don't even matter, as if those who 'live on the internet' were living...in 1995, there was even PONI, or 'persons of no importance', which internet nerds used to refer to people without internet; that included me at the time*). For one thing, it doesn't matter if the relationship is permananent, if you go ahead and move it up to the present time. Because if you do, you'll get all those things, the dieting, the different body-image, and so forth, so it's not comparable. So people are very often not even aiming for permanence in relationships (or at least not in nearly all of them, and they're more relaxed with the 'different sorts of relationships' they have). Yes, a modern-day courtesan would look more like Michelle Pfeiffer, incredibly pretty and 'well-preserved', not too buxom and well-padded, as has often been the mode (anorexia has been discussed on some boards I've read recently, and that's almost always a symptom of privileged classes, as opposed to obesity, which is never a desired goal like thinness). So you probably couldn't get much of an authentic film of the Colette, although I still think this is a very good, though not great, film, the chief problem is that Rupert Friend is simply not gorgeous enough. There's an always-unemployed and not very talented actor who lives a few blocks down from me who would be perfect for the part, and who even lives it, albeit permanentely, with his psychiatrist-wife who is 20 years older than he is. One of his few B'way appearances was as 'Beautiful Young Man'. Once the wife started talking to me, a total stranger, at the supermarket, coming out with things like 'My husband isn't making enough money...' I couldn't even believe it. I guess that's a modern-day version of it; although I never see him any more, I did see her recently--maybe it wasn't permanent after all. He used to dress up in very artful clothes that were somewhat Belle Epoch, and they always promenaded with their Samoyads, one of which was named 'Chauncey'. OTOH, there really is no reason to make a film of this sort anymore, which is why I'm surprised it was even as good as it is, and there's lots of charm in it for me. I doubt that these kinds of romances have been well-made since Garbo's versions of older-woman/younger-man films. It reminds me a bit of 'The Europeans', which was not very good IMO with Lee Remick (here is an American who spent too much time in Paris, etc., and comes back, as I recall, but it's been a long time since I saw it), and then there is the Wharton 'House of Mirth', which has some similarities, even though not set in Paris. Proustian courtesans have appeared on film as in 'Swann in Love', which is better than any of these, I'd say, although it was poorly-received. As for older men marrying younger women, yes, talk against that goes on more than it used to, but it's still within the small 'cutting-edge' of PLU, we of the urbanity and we of the readerships and high thoughts. I don't think it's had much effect on what actually happens, esp. when money is involved--rich men get young women all the time as wives. After having read scores of new Auchincloss stories and novels since Dirac first linked that article back in the winter, one thing is always constant: in Old New York, 'fallen women' went to Paris. And that didn't mean they'd always be accepted there, but sometimes they would be. There are now courtesans of the Lea sort in New York and other big cities (although with a distinctly American flavour, more hard-as-nails and less romantic than the French counterparts), and it's not quite as limited to class, although it's pretty rare outside metropolitan areas. The old 40s singer Margaret Whiting, is still alive, in her 80s, and she married some 20 years ago the porno star Jack Wrangler, who died last year. He was 20 years younger than she was, and they were oddly suited for each other, and charming and pleasant to be around, both of 'good Beverly Hills stock'. *Edited to add: http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/movies/24nyffsocial.html?hp I suppose this is what can make a good film, it's not archaic, but depressing enough just reading about it. In this, those 'private things' as in 'Cheri' and many other places, are shows to be by now a kind of dream. Link to comment
dirac Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 I'm sorry I didn't like the movie more. papeetepatrick. I expected to like it and wanted to. I really don't think Friend is the central problem although casting is an issue. The whole tone is off, right from the opening credits as Bonnette notes. Stephen Frears, Christopher Hampton, and Pfeiffer are all alumni of "Dangerous Liaisons" but lightning didn't strike twice. I suspect that graduating Pfeiffer from naif to woman of the world may be part of the problem. Not that Lea is as nasty as Merteuil but they are similar in certain respects. Back then it was a problem, but would it be considered one today? Somehow I think not and that society looks unfavourably at those relationships where the man is older now, something that wasn't the case in the past. Yes and no, I'd say, Mashinka. 25 years is still a very serious obstacle in romantic relationships when the older lover is the woman, less so in reverse. Link to comment
papeetepatrick Posted September 24, 2010 Author Share Posted September 24, 2010 Yes and no, I'd say, Mashinka. 25 years is still a very serious obstacle in romantic relationships when the older lover is the woman, less so in reverse. I definitely agree, having had 5 years experience with 18 years difference myself. If I didn't look back and think it was a worthy endeavour (after all, that's where I got my introduction to how to appreciate ABT when you were basically a NYCB type), I would think having thought she was 10 years younger is by far the most serious error I've ever made, except then I thought 'isn't that interesting?' which many would find even stupider. All these differences with an older woman, 18-25, I've put here, are a real generational difference, and they always have to do with some obvious superficials that you overlook reality for. Mainly, in a real-life version of this, you start arguing about time scheduling all the time, and the younger wants the older to quit going into bourgeois mode when she feels like it. And that's like Didion's old piece on the musicians at her Franklin House party: The musicians would never look at matters of time in a strict enough way. This amused me, because I usually feel kindred about nearly everything I read of and by her; but here, I was like those musicians that didn't want to go home 'on time'--that's too prosaic, we think. The whole tone is off, right from the opening credits as Bonnette notes. That's probably the main thing we don't agree with, and it might have to do with knowing Colette's work better than I do. I like all that luxuriant decadence, all the sense of a confection and lots of fripperies (aided and abetted by Ms. Bates). When I think of it, I believe I've taken out 'Cheri' and 'Gigi' several times, and never read past the first couple of pages. I'm not sure why, because I like the whole idea of COLETTE. It's not like anybody else has ever BEEN Colette! Okay, I think I ought to read it, that's what this has convinced me of. Link to comment
Bonnette Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 I really don't think Friend is the central problem although casting is an issue. The whole tone is off, right from the opening credits as Bonnette notes. Stephen Frears, Christopher Hampton, and Pfeiffer are all alumni of "Dangerous Liaisons" but lightning didn't strike twice. I suspect that graduating Pfeiffer from naif to woman of the world may be part of the problem. Not that Lea is as nasty as Merteuil but they are similar in certain respects. This film has been on cable all month and I've watched it several times because I love the era and its ambience. Each time I see it, I am more dismayed by Frears' wooden and unnuanced direction, and its (to me) really awful casting. Michelle Pfeiffer, in particular, is so miscast that I almost think Kathy Bates would have made a better Lea. All of the actors are wonderful in roles that suit them, but here I feel as if I'm watching an elegantly mounted high school drama club production. Pfeiffer substitutes a winking kitschiness for sensuality, and to show heartache she fidgets, fusses and purses her lips; Friend is locked into a projection of sullen entitlement so rigid that the audience is given no reason to care what actually happens to him - or what, indeed, Lea sees in him. And he would have looked a lot better without that dyed black mop (a wig?) and matching eyebrows. But worst of all - as Dirac has said - there is no chemistry whatsoever between Pfeiffer and Friend, whose love scenes vacillate between slap-and-giggle and perfunctory. In place of sensitive characterization, believable dialogue and a flowing storyline, we are given a voiceover. Courtesans of that era didn't have to be beautiful, but they did have to be interesting. Pfeiffer doesn't pull it off. One wishes that Catherine Deneuve had been young enough to play Lea, as she could have wrested something wonderful, even from Frears' dreary direction. I so wanted - and expected - to like this film, especially in view of the participants' work in other projects. Link to comment
Helene Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 Michelle Pfeiffer, in particular, is so miscast that I almost think Kathy Bates would have made a better Lea. Reading this thread I was trying to imagine which native English-speaking actress would be right for Lea, and Kathy Bates was the first actress who came to my mind. I think she could have done the role justice, but it's a hard sell for film audiences to accept any woman with flesh and lines as a romantic heroine, regardless of how much charm or intelligence she can convey. Link to comment
papeetepatrick Posted September 24, 2010 Author Share Posted September 24, 2010 more dismayed by Frears' wooden and unnuanced direction, and its (to me) really awful casting. Michelle Pfeiffer, in particular, is so miscast that I almost think Kathy Bates would have made a better Lea. Oh please, even if she's not perfect, it shows the direction she needs to go in. She's one of the few beautiful women in modern Hollywood, and we need more films about courtesans--no matter what I said yesterday: They have to finally get it right! All of the actors are wonderful in roles that suit them, but here I feel as if I'm watching an elegantly mounted high school drama club production. Pfeiffer substitutes a winking kitschiness for sensuality, and to show heartache she fidgets, fusses and purses her lips I actually don't think she's all that impressive in many things, which is why I was glad to see her finally get a decent part after so many years. Great in 'The Fabulous Baker Boys' and stupendous in 'Scarface', but she usually has gotten pretty silly things. Friend is locked into a projection of sullen entitlement so rigid that the audience is given no reason to care what actually happens to him - or what, indeed, Lea sees in him. It's the 'sullen entitlement' that is necessary, and that he cannot pull off. He looks like somebody auditioning for a Versace spot (or whatever kind.) And he would have looked a lot better without that dyed black mop (a wig?) and matching eyebrows. Oh my god, yes, that was truly awful, all of it. But worst of all - as Dirac has said - there is no chemistry whatsoever between Pfeiffer and Friend, whose love scenes vacillate between slap-and-giggle and perfunctory. In place of sensitive characterization, believable dialogue and a flowing storyline, we are given a voiceover. She did the best she could, given that she really goes for a more butch-macho type, so that's where it really went south to high-school. One wishes that Catherine Deneuve had been young enough to play Lea, as she could have wrested something wonderful, even from Frears' dreary direction. Of course, she would have been perfect in this, and knows all about how it's supposed to be done, better than Jeanne Moreau even would have been if younger. And dirac compares this to 'Les Liaisons Dangereuses', with Lea and Merteuil, but Deneuve is a much greater Merteuil in the 2003 miniseries from France than Glenn Close is in the Frears, and she just knows how to be impassive, no matter what kind of full-blown French cocotte she's doing (meaning either the pleasant type like Lea, or the evil one like Merteuil). I've recommended that miniseries over and over (also has Rupert Everett and Natassia Kinski and yes, DANIELLE DARRIEUX in it). Pfeiffer more of a natural in the ingenue roles, but she's over 50 now, and trash like 'One Fine Day' with George Clooney is going to go to the last youthful years of Ms. Jolie, I guess. Reading this thread I was trying to imagine which native English-speaking actress would be right for Lea, and Kathy Bates was the first actress who came to my mind. I think she could have done the role justice, but it's a hard sell for film audiences to accept any woman with flesh and lines as a romantic heroine, regardless of how much charm or intelligence she can convey. Helene, you have proved to me that I am in some basic ways not a serious person in any way. Your envisioned casting is nearly inadmissible! Yes, I want a 'film courtesan' to be beautiful. Otherwise, they should have made this with maybe Giulietta Massina or Ana Magnani. I am a victim of capitalist commodity fetishism theory, I guess, and I don't want one like they used to look back then. Wouldn't the sky be the limit? You could even cast Galina Mezentseva in the part... Thanks for the comments, all. I enjoyed all of them. Link to comment
dirac Posted September 24, 2010 Share Posted September 24, 2010 I think she could have done the role justice, but it's a hard sell for film audiences to accept any woman with flesh and lines as a romantic heroine, regardless of how much charm or intelligence she can convey. I thought Bates was miscast. Her performance was too broad, which isn't always the actor's fault. She wouldn't be right for Lea for some of the same reasons she wasn't quite right here. It has less to do with weight or lines than type. Lea's beauty is fading somewhat, but she is still a gorgeous, sexy woman. Bates has little sex appeal and she's a shade too common. She certainly has charm, but it's not Lea's. One wishes that Catherine Deneuve had been young enough to play Lea, as she could have wrested something wonderful, even from Frears' dreary direction. Bonnette, Deneuve is certainly the only actress currently active who comes close. I should note, since I've been hard on Pfeiffer, that Patrick is right - she's not a bad choice for Lea given our current options. It was good to see her again, too. Link to comment
Recommended Posts