W.E.

Having finally opened in the UK, I've now had the opportunity to watch 'W.E.', having followed its coverage to this point with interest. I can't, in all honestly, say that this is a good movie. I'll back the common positives and reiterate that it looks amazing and Andrea Riseborough is wonderful in it. The score, while lovely, is over- powering at times - Madonna is obviously terrified of silence!

I went with the movie quite happily for the first hour. The Wallis and Edward scenes are effective (I thought the dizzying/choppy camera work worked really well contrasting with the vintage images) and reminded me quite a bit of Stephen Fry's movie "Bright Young Things". But they had absolutely zero dramatic tension. Largely, this was due to the fact that they weren't chronological, but also it was because (to my horror) they almost seemed there to serve the modern day story, rather than vice versa.

And as for those modern day parts ... well ... Firstly, I'll say that I didn't think the concept was bad and it had potential. However, they needed to be trimmed by about three quarters. Christ, did they ever go on. The dialogue was serviceable, at best, and toe-curling at worst. The character of Wally was about as engaging as a paper clip and that was largely due to Abby Cornish's lifeless performance. Honestly, I wanted to scream at the screen, "Stop whispering all the time and TALK, woman!" That said, if the movie had only cut to these scenes every so often and used them as well-timed interjections, rather than as a story worthy of screen time in their own right, it would have been more bearable.

The film really lost me in the second hour when I realised it had used up all its party tricks and it was obvious where it was going. (And, no, I don't mean the Wallis/Edward story arch, but how it was going to contrast the two tales, and what the oh-so-obvious climax was going to be.) By the end, I couldn't wait for it to finish.

There are some lovely scenes, though, and several nice touches throughout. But while the infamous 'Pretty Vacant' sequence is probably trying to say profound things about Wallis having a punk spirit, it feels rather out of place. (It's fun, though, I'll give it that.)

So, really, it's nowhere near the one star disaster many are claiming. And I, genuinely, can't see why anyone could charge it would be, other than to appear 'cool' to knock Madge. It's got too much going for it, for that.

But the reason I said 'semi-noble failure' is because, while I think it had some ambition, it's indulgent to a fault. At least twenty minutes of this movie are taken up by Abby Cornish wandering around Sothebys, exchanging in vacant platitudes with the Russian security guard, or looking blandly at something we're told should be exciting by the volume of the score. And, I guess, the blame for including such non-interesting stuff must lie with the movie's director.

The cross-cutting between 2 timelines and locations for no apparent reason was not only confusing, it was also annoying. By the time we got into the story proper, I was so ticked off I didn't care about any of the characters, quite apart from the fact that I couldn't work out what was going on. This is definitely one of those "look-at-my-filmmaking-skillz" types of films, which makes it so hard to watch and enjoy. This is the first film by Madonna I have watched and will almost certainly be my last.

The cast alone makes this film worth watching. This was the first I watched with Oscar Isaac, and he truly generates heat in every scene with Abbi Cornish. Andrea Riseborough gives a star making performance that should have been recognized when the film was originally released. Madonna, as a director, knows how to let her cast do their thing and brings a stylish eye to the set design and costumes. Of course the critics were ready with their claws out but anyone who watches the film with an objective eye will be pleasantly rewarded.

W.E. (2011)

Don't even think about who directed this. Think of it as a multi-layered, multi-era epic centering on the marriage of King Edward and his American love, Wallis Simpson. He's the English king who abdicated for love. But this is the story of the love, Wallis, the woman who gave up as much as the king did, or so the thrust of the movie suggests.

It's rather good! It mixes a bit of fantasizing with a contemporary woman, Wally, finding her obsession with the Wallis of history (1930s) is more than coincidence. The narrative flips between several parts of the royal story before WWII and the contemporary version, which includes a budding relationship with a guard at an exhibition of Wallis Simpson memorabilia.

Whether you find either story convincing doesn't matter. One of them is of course based on history, and is interesting if you don't already know the facts. The other is an echo of the same, with the woman having to become strong and independent just as her earlier namesake did.

What is most interesting is the way the two stories are inter-spliced, including some scenes where the two times zones are mixed (apparently in Wally's head, but it's very real to the audience). We start to see how often and completely women are stuck in situations they would not choose if they knew ahead of time. It's about independence, yes, but also failure to be independent and the consequences. And maybe it's about learning a little from history.

The director? Madonna. Yes, the singer from Michigan. The director of the terrible bomb "Filth and Wisdom." Here there is some real cinematic intelligence. It's a good movie. Flawed, a bit longer than it needs to be, a bit forced in the layering of stories, but well acted and conceived.

I suppose there is the germ of a good idea here, and 2011's "W.E." is not unsuccessful. As a directing effort by Madonna, it's okay. And you have to give her credit since she had to know everyone would be gunning for her.

In 1998, the estate of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor goes up for auction. One person particularly interested in it is Wally Winthrop (Abbie Cornish), who is very taken with the love story between Wallis Simpson and the Duke of Windsor, and particularly Wallis' life and other marriages. The film takes us through the courtship and marriage of the Duke and Duchess as well as Wally's disintegrating marriage to William, and then her relationship with the Soviet security guard she meets at the auction house.

Personally I've never found anything romantic or sympathetic about Wallis and David. I think Wallis was a great excuse for David to duck responsibility and heap it onto his stammering brother. And neither he nor Wallis thought about what they were going to do once they were married. And what did they do? Roamed the world, showing up at a location when it was in season, and making friends who would write books about them after they died. By the time the couple realized what they had done, it was too late. No breaking up the great romance.

Nevertheless, as many times as their story has been told, it's still fascinating, and much more interesting than the marriage of Wally Winthrop and her husband. Not to mention, there is a fantastic performance by Andrea Risborough as Wallis. As Edward, James D'Arcy is incredibly dashing and attractive. It's really the stronger story, and Madonna might have been better off just telling their tale, using a different point of view than others have in the past.

The moral seems to be to take a risk and go for happiness. It's a fine moral; I'm just not sure I would use the Duke and Duchess of Windsor as inspiration. Was theirs a great love story? I'm sure it was, and no doubt the Duke's death hit the Duchess very hard. But they were human beings who undoubtedly fought, took one another for granted, and had some misgivings. And that's the big problem with idealizing any romance - in the end, the people we idealize are too much like us.