BEFORE: Happy Groundhog Day! Apparently Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow this morning, so that means six more weeks of romance movies. Yeah, sorry about that, but what can I do? We have to abide by the groundhog, both he and Bill Murray would have wanted it that way.
Isabella Rossellini carries over from "Roger Dodger", and thanks to yesterday's film being a day LATE from the original plan, I get to issue a Birthday SHOUT out to Gemma Arterton, one of today's stars, who was born 2/2/86. See, that's how I know we're on the right track and everything's going to be fine - with movies, at least. But talk to me again after six more weeks of romance films, I'll probably be going insane.
THE PLOT: The fascinating true story of the love affair between socialite and popular author Vita Sackville-West and literary icon Virginia Woolf.
AFTER: People today seem to think that lesbians were invented some time in the late 1960's, like it was a hippie Woodstock thing - which would make some kind of sense because, well, it was a very experimental time with drugs and sex and people were trying to get back at their parents and reject everything that the 1950's stood for. Then you see a picture of Janis Joplin from back then and sure, it tracks. But the truth is that they've been around a lot longer than that, but you know, trends come and go and being gay or lesbian probably fell in and out of fashion, along with corsets and hoop skirts, and probably some women were wearing men's cut jeans and Doc Martens under those hoop skirts, but honestly we can't be sure. But we do know that actors had to dress up as women during Shakespeare's time, because women were NOT allowed on the stage, except one got away with it and then "Saving Private Ryan" lost the Best Picture Oscar as a result.
Guys, this is not good - I'm two films into the romance chain and already I feel attacked. First off "Roger Dodger" reminds me of my time in film school and how I got screwed over by a future famous/infamous director who never crewed for me and was always hitting on ladies he didn't know. Now tonight I'm reminded of my first marriage, because I was married to someone who developed an attraction to someone in our D&D group and came out as a result. She swore to me there was not ONE specific woman she was attracted to, that it was more about identity, but that turned out to be B.S., there of course was one woman she had her eye on, so, umm, more confessions were imminent. I don't think it was a full-on affair, but the damage to our relationship was probably the same, more or less, plus the bond of trust had been broken.
So naturally I tried to shut things down, say that clearly they couldn't see each other any more, communications had to be cut off - this is not anti-gay, of course, just self-preservation. How the hell was I supposed to react? Was I supposed to say, "No, it's fine, go out and explore things with her, and if you decide it's not for you, well then I'll still be here. No, you know what, I'll be here for you either way, go be a lesbian and this changes nothing between us, because I'm a confident person and I believe our bond is still strong, even if you go sleep with a dozen women, I don't care." Well that's not the way things went down at all, over the next year we tried to put the pieces back together and had some intense break-up experiences, but no, ultimately I had to ask her to move out in addition to coming out. I did that FOR ME, I'm a selfish petty person in the end and it seemed to be the only way to improve my life in the long-term. Think of me what you will, because the chain is clearly into revealing all of my past shortcomings.
Surprisingly, that's exactly what the people in this film are all about - staying married because society dictates that they have to, but also being understanding about the fact that their wife has a girlfriend or their husband has a few boyfriends, and somehow it's all OK. There's a futility factor, perhaps, because it's 1925 and feminism is still a growing movement, like women just got the right to vote and have actual jobs a few years before - but because the Great War and the Spanish Flu and whatever other illnesses were, life expectancy wasn't what it is today, so people had to live, live, live while they could and I guess life was too short for not trying to experience everything in a short period of time. The theory now is that Virginia Woolf had some form of bipolar disorder, but also she was subject to sexual abuse from her half-brother, and she had a breakdown after mother's death. Well, this is the cauldron that produces intense authors, perhaps, but also stress, depression and suicide attempts. Reportedly the adult Virginia was so fragile that any physical or mental exertion would give her a headache, followed by anxiety, insomnia, racing thoughts and irritability. This is represented in the film by her getting excited and losing the ability to speak coherently, frequently retiring to that dark room in the basement, which was the only thing that alleviated her symptoms.
If you want to apply the psychoanalysis here, you can draw a crooked line between the sexual abuse and the death of her mother indirectly to her sexual preference to women over men, but even I know we're not supposed to try to "explain away" the gay. Still she apparently loved her husband/publisher, Leonard Woolf, who she considered to be the love of her life, and the relationships with women are still referred to as "affairs", which does seem a little bit belittling. Did she just never meet "the right woman" or did society at the time place define these relationships as something "less than" a fulfilling marriage. Either way, Woolf began a little gathering of intellectuals at Bloomsbury, where her sister Vanessa lived once they sold the family house in South Kensington. Other authors such as E.M. Forster and John Maynard Keynes gathered there, while Virginia began teaching at Morley College and working on the novel that would one day be titled "Mrs. Dalloway". They had the Friday Club to discuss fine arts, and also the Thursday Club with more progressive ideas, including open discussions of sexuality. Apparently if you didn't consider yourself at least bi-, there was no real point in showing up.
After World War I, the group got back together, though Virginia was now married to Leonard and they'd moved several times - the Thursday club was now called the Memoir Club, with a focus on self-writing. Inspired by Proust, the "Bloomsberries" gathered to discuss and debate their own work, and author Vita Sackville-West joined up in 1922. Post-war depression, open sexuality and honest reviews of each other's novels-in-progress, what could POSSIBLY go wrong? Vita and Virginia were on-and-off lovers for about a decade, but stayed friends for longer than that - and yes, of course this all gets filed under the "It's complicated" heading, because they both had husbands, and it's implied here that Vita's husband, Harold, had several boyfriends, and honestly this sounds a lot more like a 2025 relationship than a 1925 one. Right? Yet history still tells us that Leonard Woolf was the true love of Virginia - maybe not? Who are we to say?
We also learn here that Vita was supposedly the inspiration for Virginia's novel "Orlando", about an English nobleman who lives a very long time and turns into a woman at age 100, with no real explanation offered for HOW or WHY this happens, but he/she goes on to have various romantic adventures and dresses non-gender-conformingly for the rest of their life. Obviously there's a leap in logic here, with someone who dated both genders suddenly being able to change genders, but if you want to point to a watershed moment in literature, this is defintely one - Woolf wrote about it before medical science could accomplish it, and debate over trans issues is probably the most divisive issue in our society today.
A big irony here is that Vita Sackville-West was a more popular author at that time, while nowadays of course Virginia Woolf is regarded as a feminist icon and Vita is largely remembered for her gardening skills. But her status then, combined with her more aggressive, outgoing personality seems to suggest that she was in control of the relationship with Virginia Woolf. According to this film Vita decided when the relationship should start and what it should entail, then when she was ready for a new girlfriend, that meant the sexual relationship with Virginia was over. And wait, they stayed friends after that? I don't know how anybody can stay friends with the lover that broke their heart, and Ms. Woolf was already in a fragile state to begin with. Well, I guess that's any relationship really, gay or straight, one person has to drive the bus and the other one, man or woman, is kind of the passenger. Gender's just a social construct anyway, it just comes down to who has the more dominant personality, but even that can be fluid and change over time. Marriage is another social construct, obviously, and some people clearly think that they can both follow its rules and break them at the same time, but how exactly is that supposed to work? Clearly there are exceptions made for famous people, but if everyone is special, then really nobody is special.
Directed by Chanya Button
Also starring Gemma Arterton (last seen in "The King's Man"), Elizabeth Debicki (last seen in "Macbeth"), Rupert Penry-Jones (last seen in "The Four Feathers"), Peter Ferdinando (last seen in "Lost in London"), Emerald Fennell (last seen in "Barbie"), Gethin Anthony (last seen in "Into the Storm"), Rory Fleck Byrne, Karla Crome, Adam Gillen, Brenock O'Connor, Amelie Metcalfe, Darren Dixon, Sam Hardy, Jane McGrath, Nathan Stewart-Jarrett (last seen in "Dom Hemingway"), Thalia Heffernan, Bryan Murray (last seen in "The Professor and the Madman"), Evelyn Lockley
RATING: 5 out of 10 diplomatic postings abroad
No comments:
Post a Comment