2. The Favourite (2018), dir. Yorgos Lanthimos

[strange_complex]

‘Kay, so I’m on a train to London, and I’m going to try to use the time to catch up with some film reviews. We’re going back to January for this one, which I saw with glitzfrau at the Hyde Park Picture House. Anyway, I probably don’t need to say a great deal about it, given that everyone in the world has seen this one, and indeed that it has won multiple awards including an Oscar since.

Anyway, it’s great. It is a story all about women maximising the power available to them in a male-dominated world complete with explicit lesbianism, and everything about the production at every level is superbly well-executed. Olivia Colman deserved her Oscar for how well she acted having had a stroke alone. The moment we saw her, before anyone said or did anything, I recognise straight away what was supposed to have happened. The lighting was also brilliant – one of the most natural-looking depictions of candle-lit interiors I have ever seen, which are very hard to do on film. And Rachel Weisz looked so amazing in her breeches during the shooting scenes, that was worth the entrance price on its own.

As a historian, though, I think the thing I’ll appreciate it for most long-term was its overt creative anachronism, as seen in e.g. many of the clothes, the awesomely-funny dance-off, the music (Baroque Greatest Hits but with a modern twist), etc. No production is ever going to be 100% historically accurate – only actual history was ever that – and attempting to do so can ham-string a good story that would otherwise resonate strongly with its modern audience. So lampshading it by making it clear that for all the truthiness, this isn’t actually the ‘truth’ seems like a good solution. Maybe there’s a general drift in that direction in the creative industries at the moment? It’s certainly what the TV series Britannia has been doing for example. Anyway, I like it and I hope the immense success of this film will encourage more in the same vein.

Comments

[sovay]

As a historian, though, I think the thing I’ll appreciate it for most long-term was its overt creative anachronism, as seen in e.g. many of the clothes, the awesomely-funny dance-off, the music (Baroque Greatest Hits but with a modern twist), etc.

"What says she?"
"That Harley is a fop and a prat and smells like a ninety-six-year-old French whore's vajuju."
". . . I really doubt you're quoting."

[strange_complex]

Haha, yes! And some cracking dialogue. I should have mentioned that. :-D

[coyotegoth]

The director was Yorgos Lanthimos; if you like candlelit interiors, have you ever seen Barry Lyndon?

[strange_complex]

Oh, sorry, so it was. That's what comes of doing these things on a tablet on the train, and hence checking details cursorily from a Wikipedia preview. Corrected now. And no, I haven't seen Barry Lyndon, but thanks for the rec.

[thawrecka]

It was just marvellous, wasn't it? I wanted to blather on about the sound editing and the costumes and the acting for hours after I watched it.

[strange_complex]

Yes, I think it was very much that kind of film. My version was scouring through Wikipedia to get a handle on the historical background and what they'd done with it.

[lady_lugosi1313]

I absolutely loved the film - even down to the credits looking like some kind of 18th century/modern eye test hybrid.

'No production is ever going to be 100% historically accurate – only actual history was ever that' - makes me wonder if actual history exists or if it isn't just past presents...

[strange_complex]

There are certainly philosophers who argue that the entire idea of the past is an illusion to account for the difference between our experiences in the present and our state of mind.