"The Happy Prince" by Rupert Everett (2018)

Because of my nomadic lifestyle, there were always many interesting things that completely slipped my attention as I sailed around the world - luckily, good friends insisted I should check this out and finally last night I decided to watch it, though recently I have neglected reading, writing or movies completely as I was so focused on finding my feet on a dry land and getting a fresh start. It just occurred to me that I am incredibly lucky to have a new start, because Oscar Wilde didn't have one.

The biopic of famous dandy, wit, poet and playwright could have been made from many different angles - Rupert Everett followed his artistic muse and focused solely on Wilde's long twilight, after he was publicly tarred & feathered for his open flaunting of relationship with Lord Alfred Douglas. It seems this was a long-awaited project that Everett poured his whole energy into (besides directing and starring in it, he also wrote the script) and my head is still buzzing from the impressions - it is a beautifully made movie with some sensational acting and visually we are in for a treat but its also a deeply depressing and utterly heartbreaking story about the man who refused to go against himself. Had he chosen differently, Wilde could meekly return to his family (he was married, with two children) and spend the rest of his days in a pleasant anonymity, far away from public eye - instead, he continued to flaunt his flamboyant ways on the continent, where he slowly descended into poverty, alcoholism and illness, just to die at the age of 46.

It is not a pleasant watching - I squirmed with horror many times as overweight and depressed Everett/Wilde followed his self-destructive impulse, enjoying himself amongst the Parisian underworld while sinking deeper and deeper into darkness. There were many instances where flashbacks contrasted his previous fame with later downfall - elegant theatre audiences applauding his witticisms and street passersby spitting at him at the train station. The mob mentality and cruelty towards someone so well known and notorious was hard to swallow and Everett don't shy away from the horror of it and how it must have affected Wilde who lived privileged life up to that point - interestingly, I believe that downfall itself was not so much because of his sexuality (many of aristocrats enjoyed double lives) but because he made a wrong decision to put it openly on display in 19th century, probably expecting that his fame and status will protect him. They didn't - he clashed in a court with Scottish nobleman Marquess of Queensberry (enraged father of his lover), got a prison sentence like a common criminal and never recovered from a trauma. It's clear that Everett feels a strong connection with Wilde because he gives a deeply moving performance with psychological insight that goes way beyond usual craft - the snarling lips, the pain in the eyes and the unexpected witty remarks are probably closest we can get to Wilde in our present time. It is a very painful movie to watch but unforgettable one. I also must mention supporting roles of Emily Watson (as his wife), Colin Firth and Edwin Thomas (as his supporters) and Colin Morgan (as Alfred Douglas) who were all excellent.

"The Favourite" by Yorgos Lanthimos (2018)

Currently there are two new movies dealing with tragic queens playing in the cinema - for some reason it looks as "The Favourite" gets much more attention and praise than "Mary Queen of Scots" and this maybe has to do with the fact that story about Scottish queen has been re-told countless times in the books and on the screen, while 18th century queen Anne is largely forgotten and obscure historical character, remembered only as being completely wrong person for that position. However, like so many people in the power, she seems to have had soft spot for her favourites and this where scriptwriters had a field day by heavily inventing juicy story for modern cinema audiences. This is very much "All about Eve" kind of movie, with lots of cattiness, backstabbing and intrigues but done in a way that Joseph L. Mankiewicz could never get away with back in 1950 - for one thing, there is quite a lot reference to sex one way or the other, where old Hollywood behaved like these things don't exist and lighting two cigarettes with one match was as far as they would dare to go. 

What we know about Queen Anne is that she was bloated and unattractive woman surrounded by intriguing court and had two powerful ladies fighting for her protection and influence - out of this interesting little forgotten gossip, scriptwriters created powerful drama where three women stand right in the centre of the movie, while men are bewigged and powdered creatures in the background (turning old rules upside down). The whole court tiptoes around obviously unhinged Queen who is either too sick with gout or too drunk or too indisposed to focus on government so basically everything is left to forceful duchess Sarah Churchill who behaves like some royal Mrs. Danvers, bossing everybody around, giving orders, bestowing favours and enjoying her life very much. We don't hear anything about queen's husband (she is widowed by than) and duke himself is at the front line in a war so women enjoy glorious freedom, dances, shootings and whatnot - this nice arrangement suddenly gets shaken with arrival of certain Abigail Hill who in real life was impoverished cousin of the duchess and somehow she wiggles her way into royal favour. What probably happened is that at some point queen had enough of the duchess who became too self confident for her own good and was known to disrespect absolutely everybody, so ultimately queen kicked her out of the court and replaced with softer and nicer cousin Abigail (who knew her place) - what scriptwriters created out of this is a lesbian bitch fest full of intrigues and jealousy. 

It works surprisingly well on the screen - mainly because acting is so spectacular. Costumes, camera and all the technical details are fine (though I found a bit bizarre how director updated the court dance into something completely weird but fun - not sure is this just creative freedom or pandering to modern audiences) but the movie basically stands on the shoulders of Olivia Colman who deserves all the awards and praises thrown at her, because she actually stands in the centre of the royal whirlwind and everybody fights for her attention. What Colman does is quite an achievement because at first she appears as a loony, a lose cannon with too much power on her hands - she is unattractive, overweight, spoiled and obviously too pampered, not unlike fictional Queen of Hearts from "Alice in Wonderland" - than, slowly, trough the movie we get to have a closer look at her and to actually feel sympathy for her - I won't go into too much details here right now because I don't want to spoil the surprises but eventually queen herself emerges human while her two court ladies are shameless power-hungry she-wolves who would tear her apart if they only could. The intriguing ladies Rachel Weisz and Emma Stone are fine, though I can easily imagine anybody in their roles - only Colman could play this role. Excellent and quite subversive movie. 

"Colette" by Wash Westmoreland (2018)

Its mind-boggling that we have to wait so long for biopic of such fascinating historical personality as famous French writer Colette (there was also another 1991. movie largely unknown outside of France) but in a way perhaps the subject just had to wait for the present climate - the avalanche of #metoo phenomenon unearthed long-suffering and victimised women who were previously denied the voice so someone like Colette is just a perfect pioneer to celebrate. Colette was mainly known as one of the most scandalous public persons in turn-of-the-century France where she not only published titillating novels "Claudine" but also started a whole Colette fashion with short hair, etc - she was so popular that market was saturated with all sorts of product with her name, including soaps, face creams and whatnot. Later in life she also wrote "Gigi" that became spectacularly successful Hollywood musical, so her fame is well and truly deserved. However, for the purpose of this movie, script sticks to her formative years when she was dependant to her cunning husband and how she eventually escaped his grasp, making the name for herself. 

Contrary to 90% of audience in cinema tonight, I am actually familiar with Colette since I have trilogy of her first few "Claudine" novels (translated to English as "Claudine at School", "Claudine in Paris" and "Claudine Married"). I also have curious oddity, a recording of UK musical about her as composed by John Dankworth for his wife Cleo Laine who apparently idolised French writer as a young girl and never saw anything scandalous in lesbian overtones that novels were so famous for. It might be in the eye of beholder, because myself I never found "Claudine" remotely erotic, its all very mild and wrapped in a pretty language so unless one is really looking for it, it might completely escape your attention. But it was surely scandalous in 1900 and all that talk about girls in a school hugging and kissing each other & being obsessed with a teacher were obviously very exciting for the readers back than. I mean, today we have "50 Shades of Grey" which is fairly explicit so high school girls kissing each other in the mouth is by far very quaint but it might I do understand it was very risqué back in the day. 

This particular movie focuses on Colette's earliest beginnings - frankly, this is just a first chapter of a very interesting and eventful life so they can easily make trilogy out of her - at the start she is shy provincial girl who get married to a slick city businessman enthralled by her virginity and freshness. Soon we discover that "Willy" publishes ghost written novels under his own name and has quite a reputation in a nightlife, out of necessity he somehow discovers that his young wife has literary talent and uses her the same way he uses his ghost writers (except he don't pay her) - "Claudine" is a series of idealised reminiscences of Colette's own childhood and days in a small village school, but spiced up by Willy who encouraged Colette to throw in occasional lesbian/bisexual warmth that made novels such runaway bestseller. Before you know it, Colette actually starts experimenting with her own sex, has lady lovers and slowly builds the confidence to become her own person, divorces Willy and eventually gets recognition as the person who wrote "Claudine"  herself. It is quite an ice-breaking life, to be honest, just consider how scandalous was to cut her hair short into fashionable bob (later imitated trough the whole Paris) not to mention her affairs with famous lesbians and wearing of men's clothes. One thing that the movie don't explain at all is how did it came that Colette suddenly became theatre celebrity - being a ghost writer is one thing (and in a protective shadow of a husband anyway) but for a early 1900 married woman to suddenly perform on a stage is another thing - it wasn't until I came home and did some research that I discovered that it came out of financial necessity after her divorce from Willy, where Colette performed parts of "Claudine" on a stage. Well, movie doesn't really explain how and why, we just see Colette sitting pretty in a salon one day and the next day she is on a stage. And backstage in a dressing room her socks are breaking so we get the message she needs new socks and might be in financial difficulties. 

It turns out director Wash Westmoreland is a gay man, who brings his own sensitivity to a project and movie feels like a labour of love - many little details that bring the feeling of right period, like costumes, furniture, novelty of electric light switch seen for the first time, etc. My main doubt was the actress Keira Knightley whom I never took seriously since she mostly played decorative roles in "Pirates of the Caribbean"  and was mainly wriggling her nose in a manner of someone who smelled something distasteful - lady of the nostrils in each single movie - however, this is really a great role and it feels like beautiful present to Knightley who shows far more than I gave her credit for, including several quite direct lesbian scenes. Perhaps she was just waiting for the right character to play and Colette was certainly someone larger than life who inspires with her bravery and fierceness. Afterwards I found out that this was not the end of the story because Colette got married twice more and had much more fire (and scandals) still left in her so that is why I said this could easily be made into a trilogy.