1 review
The Eighteenth Century Woman (1982 TV Movie) was co-written and co- directed by Suzanne Bauman and Jim Burroughs.
The film stars Met Director Philippe de Montebello, Marisa Berenson, and Diana Vreeland. In 1982, the Met displayed a major exhibition of aristocratic clothing from the 18th Century. This movie was made to bring people to the exhibit.
Montebello, Berenson, and Vreeland are so very glamorous, so very knowledgeable, and so very sophisticated that it must have been difficult for them to speak down to the less learned audience who would view the film.
Of course, the title is ridiculous. The costumes displayed belonged to aristocrats and the very rich. The women who owned them could afford to wear a new gown every day, to hold intellectual salons, and to influence governmental affairs. Like the very rich in 2020 they paid little if any taxes. The money for their gowns came from the heavily taxed farmers and laborers.
Believe it or not, the movie ends with the gala opening reception, where very rich women wear spectacularly fashionable gowns. Did the Metropolitan really want to shove the income gap into our faces?
In 1789, the French people overthrew the aristocrats. There's no suggestion that we in the U.S. would ever do that. We go about our lives watching the income gap get wider and wider. If we still have a civilization in 200 years, a museum can offer an exhibition of today's gowns. On opening night, the rich can display their costly and elegant costumes. Maybe they'll make a movie about the 21st Century woman. Maybe someone will give it a rating of 5.
The film stars Met Director Philippe de Montebello, Marisa Berenson, and Diana Vreeland. In 1982, the Met displayed a major exhibition of aristocratic clothing from the 18th Century. This movie was made to bring people to the exhibit.
Montebello, Berenson, and Vreeland are so very glamorous, so very knowledgeable, and so very sophisticated that it must have been difficult for them to speak down to the less learned audience who would view the film.
Of course, the title is ridiculous. The costumes displayed belonged to aristocrats and the very rich. The women who owned them could afford to wear a new gown every day, to hold intellectual salons, and to influence governmental affairs. Like the very rich in 2020 they paid little if any taxes. The money for their gowns came from the heavily taxed farmers and laborers.
Believe it or not, the movie ends with the gala opening reception, where very rich women wear spectacularly fashionable gowns. Did the Metropolitan really want to shove the income gap into our faces?
In 1789, the French people overthrew the aristocrats. There's no suggestion that we in the U.S. would ever do that. We go about our lives watching the income gap get wider and wider. If we still have a civilization in 200 years, a museum can offer an exhibition of today's gowns. On opening night, the rich can display their costly and elegant costumes. Maybe they'll make a movie about the 21st Century woman. Maybe someone will give it a rating of 5.