Not an embarrassment for Madge but a lot of it has the look and feel of a Chanel No. 5 commercial. Some sequences are good, though. Cinematography is spectacular, as is the production design. Didn''t like the frocks for the most part, nothing stood out for me.%0D\
Andrea Riseborough as Wallis is sensational-she could definitely be up for awards next year as Best Actress. Abbie Cornish is just not an interesting actress to watch and at times her resemblance to Lauren Graham is distracting. It''s never explained to us as to why she''s obsessed with Edward and Mrs. Simpson in the first place. Oscar Isaac is hot as a Russian security guard at Sotheby''s. Edward looks too much like both a fashion model. and also a Nazi. Speaking of which the movie makes it clear that they WEREN''T actually Nazi sympathizers-they chalk it down to rumor and hearsay.%0D\
Not sure what the critics will say whenn this opens late this year. Madge might get something of a pass. Low expectations will certainly benefit her in this case.
How could I forget the music? For the most part, it sucked. There''s a pretty "love theme" that the Oscar Isaac character plays on the piano for Abbie Cornish''s character but the rest of it is wall-to-wall and really intrusive at times. And Madge had to throw in an anachronistic pop/rock track in the middle of a 1930''s party to show us that Wallis really knew how to cut a rug.
"Wall-to-wall" music is usually there when a film doesn''t stand on its own; emotions need to be pumped in. It''s also a sing of insecurity on the part of the director who doesn''t trust her/his own scenes.
Also forgot to mention that Lola appears in a scene as a Welsh peasant girl. I''m not making this shit up. Let''s just say this-she doesn''t look Welsh. And she''s back in a montage at the end of the movie.
"Andrea Riseborough as Wallis is sensational-she could definitely be up for awards next year as Best Actress."\
This alone (an Oscar nomination in one of the major categories) would be considered a triumph for Madonna, I''d think.
True, R5. That thought crossed my mind this morning.%0D\
On further reflection I have to say the movie seems to be way too preoccupied by props and set decoration-martini shakers, glasses, snifters, desks, furnishings of all kinds-but then again that''s a significant part of what the movie is about which is the auctioning off of Edward and Mrs. Simpson''s material wealth.
So basically the director of photography did all the work.
[quote]So basically the director of photography did all the work.\
It happens a lot with first time directors.
Conrad L. Hall - DoP on American Beauty
What the hell is a research screening? Do you mean test screening? Was Madonna there? Did you fill out cards afterward or have a discussion?
How''s the script?
Was Wallis wearing a cone bra throughout the movie?
[quote]And Madge had to throw in an anachronistic pop/rock track in the middle of a 1930''s party to show us that Wallis really knew how to cut a rug.\
Did they vogue?
R9, that's what they refer to it as, a research screening, not a test screening. Yes, we filled out cards. There wasn't a discussion group afterward, I bet they're afraid Madge's head would explode having to listen to the "common man's" opinion of HER precious movie.
R12, it did sorta look like vogue-ing. In the party everybody gets hepped up on spiked drinks. Wallis is shimmying with an extremely tall, thin African woman. It's all terribly chic and utterly sexless.
The script is so-so. A big point the movie seems to make is that Wallis gave up shit, too, to be with her man. Like what? It hints that she wanted to be a mother, lost a baby when her first husband kicked her in the stomach and Edward shot blanks. In the modern day story Wally is desperately trying to have a kid and we are led to suspect her husband is shooting blanks. It's clear from the get-go that Wallis was as aggressive towards landing the Prince as we always figured she was. What did she sacrifice then? Privacy? Puh-leeze.
There are real story-related flaws in this thing but Riseborough and the cinematography are so powerful I might actually pay money to see it when it opens.
[quote][R9], that''s what they refer to it as, a research screening, not a test screening. Yes, we filled out cards. There wasn''t a discussion group afterward, I bet they''re afraid Madge''s head would explode having to listen to the "common man''s" opinion of HER precious movie.\
Madge finished the film and showed it at some festivals. The fact that Weinstein is testing it with audiences can mean only one thing: re-editing. He is notorious for doing that: buying a film, then changing it as he pleases. Even Madge won''t be able to do anything about it.
Not only first timers, r8
Emmanuel Lubezki, Wally Pfister, etc.
[quote]It hints that she wanted to be a mother, lost a baby when her first husband kicked her in the stomach and Edward shot blanks. %0D\
Wallis had an abortion after an Italian fascist Count Galeazzo Ciano (Mussolini''s son-in-law) got her pregnant. As with many illegal abortions of the time, it rendered her infertile. The film clearly whitwashes this bitch''s life.
Didn''t know that, R17. It''s certainly not in the movie. I think Madge tries to connect the two characters by their shared desire for a child. Although in Wallis'' case it''s not spelled out very well.\
R15, it was announced that last night''s screening was the first public screening of W.E anywhere. Do you mean that it''s had screenings for competition at Toronto, Venice and NY?
Thankfully, it doesn''t sound like she did a Sofia Coppola and added pop music to the mix.
Sounds like a mess.
She did, R19, for a party sequence midway through the movie. Absolutely not necessary. If it somehow was a bridge over to the modern day sequences than it might have been OK. %0D\
Another issue I take with her direction is that most of the time when we see newspaper covers and newsreels it''s the actors as Edward and Mrs. Simpson but occasionally in TV clips and magazine covers it''s the real couple. C''mon, Madge, be consistent.
After this movie flops (which it will), will Vadge FINALLY accept that she will never have a career in movies? At almost 53 years old it''s time for her to come to terms with that.
W.E.? What the fuck? Are we supposed to know what that means?
Madge is too self conscious to act or direct a film.
W.E stands for Wallis and Edward and also for Wally and Evgeny, the couple in the modern day storyline.
Evgeny? That''s a person named Evgeny?
Yep, it''s the Oscar Isaac character.
I''ms struggling to see how a modern day couple would relate, or even want to relate, to Wallis and Edward. Their ''fairytale'' romance has been pretty much demolished by history and they are now seen as a pair of vacuous, selfish ninnies who inflicted a lot of pain and damage on those around them. %0D\
Well, I admit I can see why Madge would find them attractive.
Only the modern day wife is obsessed by Wallis and Edward and it''s never explained. Big flaw of the movie.
Shouldn''t the title be Wally and Wallis?
Julie and Julia (Madonna original as always...)
The Nazi aspect would have given depth to the story. It would have shown how England dodged a bullet when Edward gave up the throne. He was a revolting individual, weak willed and an egomaniac. Simpson was a good match for him.%0D\
Madonna is a sound businesswoman but she does not possess a natural intelligence. Anyone with half a brain would know that using this couple as a romantic device would be an epic failure.
[quote]Andrea Riseborough as Wallis is sensational-she could definitely be up for awards next year as Best Actress.\
Please get serious. Riseborough is a fine actress, but no one appearing in this tripe will be nominated for anything except a Razzie.
[quote]A big point the movie seems to make is that Wallis gave up shit, too, to be with her man. Like what?\
The husband she had when she began dating the prince, and possibly the German ambassador to Great Britain who she was also fucking around with when she hooked up with the prince.
"W" for "Whore"
What a pity Charlie''s Duke of Windsor cruising-for-sailor-cock stories couldn''t be included. They would have improved this piece of tripe immensely!\
And remember the poster here who once described being chased around a hotel suite by HRH after he dropped off some flowers. THAT''S the kind of royal love story I want to see.
"the movie makes it clear that they WEREN''T actually Nazi sympathizers-they chalk it down to rumor and hearsay."\
Well if Madonna says so then we may as well disregard all the historical evidence that says otherwise, huh?
[quote]Another issue I take with her direction is that most of the time when we see newspaper covers and newsreels it''s the actors as Edward and Mrs. Simpson but occasionally in TV clips and magazine covers it''s the real couple. C''mon, Madge, be consistent.\
That''s a fairly comment cinematic construct. I would need to see the movie before making a decision, but in other cases, it has proved to be perfectly valid cinematic choice.\
I think I''ve decided that I''m rooting for Madonna on this one. She needs to find a platform that will allow her to age gracefully. I used to love her and now she makes me so uncomfortable.\
If she becomes a successful director, I don''t have to be ashamed of her anymore.
Madge for Best Director 2011
You haven''t seen the movie, R32. I have. Riseborough wwill be up for the Golden Globe, the Oscar and the BAFTA. She won''t win but she will probably be nominated.%0D\
R33, it''s made clear she happily gave up her husband for Edward. And there''s actually a scene where Simpson "gives up" Wallis to Edward. He refuses to shake Edward''s hand, though. Nice touch.
And, R36, it''s not a common cinematic construct for films to mix actual images of the real participants with those of the actors. At the conclusion of MILK, for example, it was only at the very end that we saw the real participants, which made it all the more effective.
"Only the modern day wife is obsessed by Wallis and Edward and it''s never explained. "%0D\
So? Why does everything have to be explained in movies today? So it''s a fact in the movie that she''s obsessed with Wallis and Edward - why can''t that just be enough?
People want to understand the motives behind the actions of characters. Someone who is obsessed with these people would raise serious flags in real life if I knew them.
I hate to break it to you, but critics who actually attended the screening are raving about how good it is. Harvey Weinstein bought this for a reason. OP is in the minority it seems. Madonna may have a hit a on her veiny, boney, hands.
[italic]Wallis had an abortion after an Italian fascist Count Galeazzo Ciano (Mussolini''s son-in-law) got her pregnant. As with many illegal abortions of the time, it rendered her infertile. The film clearly whitwashes this bitch''s life.[/italic]\
Where are you getting all this rubbish from, and why are you degrading her because she had an abortion? You sound like a typical fundie nut!
The script leaked a few days ago. I haven''t read it yet.
from the Marion Cotillard for best actress troll
R41, I actually rated the movie "very good" and checked the box that said I''d "definitely recommend it to my friends." I''m hardly a detractor of it. I do think it''s really flawed and will not get raves even if it''s "fixed up" some. If I''d raved about it you''d call me a PR shill, though, wouldn''t you?%0D\
Harvey Winstein was at the screening, looking foul. The creep who did the pre-movie announcement had a speck of brown on his nose, probably from recent contact with Winstein''s sphincter.
And, uhhh, I hate to break it to you, R41, but you''re lying about critics having seen this. It was a research screening-there weren''t any critics there, I heard someone ask about that and she was told they won''t be coming to see it for several months.
Doing a Google search, hon/OP. The feedback was enormously positive. Get your facts straight before running your mouth.
what are you searching r47. I put Madonna W.E. into google but don''t see anything. Are you on IMDB?
R43 you said the script leaked several days ago where can I find it?
"People want to understand the motives behind the actions of characters. "%0D\
No, people need to be told what to think. You really can''t speculate a reason on your own? There really has to be dreaded flashback where all is explained and we find out that it''s all because her poor sainted mother died too young choking on tea while reading a book about Wallis and Edward?
It''s lazy film-making, R51. It''s up to the filmmakers to tell a believable story. If they can''t provide a basis for a character''s motivation then they''re not doing their job.
Robert Altman provides almost no motivation for his characters in his best work, e.g., "Nashville. " You''re far too interested in the storytelling aspect of the movie and are willing to make assumptions that aren''t in the script. Art is shorthand.%0D\
But when a viewer stops and asks questions, then the filmmaker isn''t doing her job.
Sorry Madonna but this is a whitewashing, and the only reason for the story to be made into a movie once more is to tell the truth about these disgusting people.
Nashville, a panoramic look at dozens of characters, is a very different kind of movie than one telling the story of just a few people, let alone one focusing on one or two romances.\
Moreover, I find it difficult to understand why anyone would find the motivations of the characters in Nashville, all very clearly played by a huge and almost uniformly expert cast, puzzling. Especially since most of them resonate with one objective: to "keep a goin''"
Beautiful answer, R55. Thanks.
posted on the Nashville thread
You only have to read their dreadful letters to each other to understand that she was stupid and he was both stupid and utterly infantile. \
The best royal biographer who ever lived, James Pope-Hennessey, who had the gimlet eye of a perceptive gay man, wrote a funny and perceptive essay about spending a weekend with them. It''s in the book of his posthumous works that was published after he was bashed to death by rough trade, A Lonely Business.
I wonder how much monet she propped up the Weinstein''s with for them to distribute it? They can''t even get their star director Quentin Tarantino''s next project going without another studio coming in. And Harvey LOVES to tinker with films....so much so that they end up on a shelf eventually.
Whoa, the Daily (Hate) Mail used this DL thread as a source for this article about W.E. Check out the link below. OP, aka "Lynn Stairmaster", is quoted but is just referred to as a source.
I did a thread search just to post that from the DM. It sounded familiar and too well-writtn for the SM. This isn''t the first time the Mail has plagiarized content from forums. They also did it to a Chelsea Football Club website. It cracked me up.
OP is obviously the rabid ''I Hate Madonna'' troll.%0D\
I don''t get it. Is OP British? Madonna is sort of not even relevant enough to incite such hate, but OP posts thread after thread, post after post.%0D\
OP, what''s your damage? Why are you obsessed with a billionaire 80s pop star who wants to dabble in movies in her middle age? Christ, you need therapy.
I posted a comment on their website: "You forgot to mention that "your source" (and pretty much half of your "report") is an anonymous poster from a public forum."\
Oh and I signed it Cheryl.\
Of course I don''t expect it to ever show up.
R,61, you''re the one who needs therapy.%0D\
I merely reported what I had seen at a screening. %0D\
I actually didn''t think it was a terrible movie. But too much of it DOES look like a Chanel No. 5 commercial. And, by the way, Chanel No. 5 gets significant product placement in one particular scene.
Wow, just read the Daily Mail article with my direct quotes. Jesus. Shitheads.
I think a DL field trip is in order.
lynne - i am a DL regular and passed on your quotes to the journalist at the mail mainly because i thought they were brilliant and v insightful. i would have been very happy to quote you and the website but how would you guys have felt if the address www.datalounge.com was published in a website like the DM online? it would have increased traffic here certainly but i suspect not in a good way. if i ever like something again, am happy to quote DL in future if you prefer. truly
Another report on the movie, from Roger Friedman via Lainey:
***Madonna%E2%80%99s movie might be good
Did you hear about this? I%E2%80%99ve not had time to address it until now. But W.E., Madonna%E2%80%99s directorial effort about Wallis Simpson, was acquired by the Weinsteins. And, gulp, word is it might not suck.
The source is a good one. A very reliable one. Not someone who gets pushed around by publicists and studios. He was actually fired from a job for pissing a studio off. Harvey Weinstein can be pretty intimidating to even the most noble journalists but by and large, Roger Friedman is pretty legit. And according to Friedman, who did not have kind words to say about W.E. initially, which is another indication that this report is pretty solid, W.E. is %E2%80%9Creally, really good%E2%80%9D.
I%E2%80%99m reeling too.
According to Friedman%E2%80%99s source, the film is %E2%80%9Csmart and thoughtful and incredibly stylish. A performance by Andrea Riseborough that%E2%80%99s Oscar worthy. I don%E2%80%99t know how the f%E2%80%94 she [Madonna] did it. It%E2%80%99s an art picture, there%E2%80%99s no question about it. It%E2%80%99s a picture for women. Bob and Harvey really loved it. This is a lot like Tom Ford%E2%80%99s directing of A Single Man. We were impressed with her. Everyone%E2%80%99s been talking about her in house for two weeks. She%E2%80%99s gotten it all up there on the screen. It%E2%80%99s hard to tell a good story. She managed to do it.%E2%80%9D
As for whether or not she glorifies Wallis Simpson and buries the real sh-t %E2%80%93 the Nazi sympathising, the irresponsible spending, the mistreatment of staff, the racism %E2%80%93 apparently %E2%80%9Cit%E2%80%99s at least mentioned%E2%80%9D. Hm.
Can you imagine? Madonna?!!!
And if this is true, how f-cking smug she can be up in GOOP%E2%80%99s face?
Oh but you know what it means, right? If Madonna can direct, she%E2%80%99ll think she can ACT. Mother help us all.***
I'm intrigued that Roger Friedman has good words to say about W.E. He rarely has anything good to say about Madonna and over the years seemed to enjoy fanning the flames of the Madonna vs Mariah fan wars (he was Team Mariah).
Yeah, whoever it is gets "feature ideas" from here all the time. I noticed a lot recently. I might just pen an email to the editor of the daily fail. \
Better idea. Will also write to private-eye.co.uk who hate the daily fail and might write about it. It must be the same troll who is always linking to their stories to drive traffic.
Gee. It looks like someone actually agreed with me.
Daily Hate Mail is using DL as a source?!%0D\
Has my opinion been part of a consensus? I should think so.
This thread just shows you how people actually know little about cinema.
If this was a test screening it''s entirely possible that what you heard was not the actual soundtrack. It''s quite routine for films to be screened with a temporary soundtrack while the movie is still being scored.
I find it so disgusting and yet so perfect that Madge identifies with Wallis Simpson - a vapid, amoral Nazi sympathizer and dilettante. Madge didn''t care that Wallis was those things, because excepting the Nazi part she''s all of them herself. She sees herself in Wallis - the public just doesn''t UNDERSTAND her genius. The self-love and martyrdom projected onto such a vile person is vomit-inducing.
Movie apparently got CREAMED by the critics in Venice. Called it vapid. Not the way I imagined things were going but guess I should''ve known better.%0D\
Still, leave it to Harvey to put his spin and give it an Oscar push. "The Reader" wasn''t so beloved either but he still bullied it to a Best Picture nod. So will be interesting to see.
Thanks, OP! I have been wondering about this film - now I think I would like to see it just for the visuals.
I think Madonna is a creative genius in the sense that she was her own creation as a pop star, completely unique and a leader in fashion and style. But I don''t think that translates into having the right skill set to be an auteur director. Even the most visually oriented filmmakers have some sort of head for content, and she just doesn''t. She''s all image.
[quote]"The Reader" wasn''t so beloved either but he still bullied it to a Best Picture nod.\
I agree The Reader was shit and so was Winslet but how much does it cost him to get BP nods?
The Lynn Stairmaster thing and the Daily Mail tells you all you need to about TDM and journalism in general.
"Truly awful films are an art form Madonna can only aspire to..."
How funny that the Weinstein Company, having promoted the idea that E. and W. were Nazi sympathizers in last year''s oscar winning best pic, now try to debunk it in this movie.\
It''s fine - theoretically - for them to have it both ways and present both sides of the story, of course. But it is curious.\
But beyond the theoretical, isn''t there a lot more than mere rumor and innuendo to support the position that Edward and Wallis were not only freeloaders, snobs, and frivolous bitches, but also Nazis?\
None of which is to deny the fact that the heir apparent to a throne, even if he is an asshole, should have been able to choose his own wife, even if she is a shithead.
"Madonna''s jaw-dropping take on the story of Wallis Simpson is a primped and simpering folly, preening and fatally mishandled"
[quote]How could I forget the music? For the most part, it sucked. There's a pretty "love theme" that the Oscar Isaac character plays on the piano for Abbie Cornish's character but the rest of it is wall-to-wall and really intrusive at times.
Yes. The score was very intrusive, one of only a couple of times I've encountered that so noticeably in a film and there's nothing more annoying.
It was a confused mess. Critic Mark Kermode called it one of the worst films he's ever seen.