THE GIRL FROM MONACO ***



Monaco is like a high priced candy store for adults with expensive tastes.
It has endless numbers of luxury hotels that look like palaces, magnificent gambling casinos, fabulous restaurants, colourful nightclubs, gleaming harbours and no shortage of beautiful people that are driven to immerse themselves in its golden glow.
No wonder the American film star Grace Kelly fled Hollywood and made this her permanent home. Its aristocratic glamour must have suited her admirably.
Into this exotic embarassment of riches steps BERTRAND BEAUVOIS (FABRICE LUCCHINI), who is a passive, unremarkable looking middle aged man. Bertrand is quiet, reserved and very serious. His true personality almost clashes with his soaring reputation as a powerful defence attorney.
He has travelled from his home in Paris to attend to a very important case. A wealthy French woman has been charged with the murder of her lover, who was a Russian mobster. It is up to Bertrand to ensure that she never sees the inside of a jail cell.
Despite his age and intellectual ability, Bertrand has never really understood women or male/female relationships. It’s obvious that he’s suffered some major disappointments in the romance department. As far as he’s concerned, sex ruins everything. He’d be happy to spend time with a lovely companion and to avoid physical intimacy as long as possible.
But women dig him like crazy…
Immediately after the opening credits (which include shots of the breathtaking Monaco in all its glory, along with the marvelous Nat King Cole crooning the song L-O-V-E), you see Bertrand in the beginning stages of a mild makeout session in a public square.
He dithers with the blonde woman he has been caressing. It’s best to take it slow, he tells her. They’ve just met. Knowing all these things about each other can be much too overwhelming. If she comes up to his hotel room that evening, something could happen. Then a definite bond will have formed and then where will be they be?
But his date is clearly unconcerned. She’s ready to roll.
From out of the shadows, a tall, rugged man appears. He has been listening to their conversation from a distance. Bertrand and his date are a little on edge.
Not to worry. The man informs Bertrand that he is his bodyguard.
Bertrand has not requested any assistance of this kind and has no interest in being observed. He tells CHRISTOPHE ABADI (ROSCHDY ZEM) to go. But he refuses to budge.
After being confronted with the fact that Bertrand is in a position where he may need some protection, his date disappears into the night and is never heard from again. Some things, to her mind, are clearly not worth risking your life over.
Bertrand later finds out that the son of the woman he’s defending is the source of this mysterious gift.
Despite his mild manner, he is not afraid of anyone or anything. But Christophe insists that he must do his job.
There is eventually a grudging acceptance…and an odd friendship grows between the two men over time.
Meanwhile, a client who had a brief affair with Bertrand arrives in Monaco. She has left her miserable marriage. Although she hasn’t so much as spoken to Bertrand in months, she informs him that she is here to be with him at long last.
In Bertrand’s mind, that relationship was finished long ago. He doesn’t even want to talk to her. Much less sleep with her. Christophe aids him in sending her away.
But within days of all this romantic turmoil, Bertrand suddenly becomes irresistibly smitten with yet another woman who crosses his path.
He first sees AUDREY VARELLE (LOUISE BOURGOIN) on television doing a weather forecast. When he bumps into her by chance some time later, he can hardly maintain his composure.
Audrey is the classic flamboyant blonde bombshell. She has heat rising out of every pore, voluminous hair and a sweet, flirtatious manner. She is only in her twenties and possessed of a long, lean physique. Consequently, the revealing clothes and postage stamp sized outfits she wears are actually quite flattering.
When she leans in, kisses him and whispers, “Welcome to the rock,” Bertrand is drawn mercilessly under her spell.
A hot (though entirely calculated) seduction is not far off.
Unfortunately, what Bertrand doesn’t realize until he gets much more involved with Audrey is that she is the ultimate narcissist in some highly destructive ways. Although she is a skilled manipulator, technically she is not very bright. But she is exceedingly ambitious.
Audrey is used to men making colossal fools of themselves over her. From the time that she was in grade school, she learned how to turn all of that to her advantage.
Her alluring presence makes men a little dizzy. Audrey does whatever she wants with whomever she wants…and she’s far from discriminating. The words commitment, respect and love have no resonance for her.
Concepts like sensitivity and fidelity are a complete joke, especially when she could be attending another party.
She’s as deep as the kitchen sink. The only person Audrey could ever really care for is herself.
To complicate matters, Christophe is quite the ladies man. He and Audrey were together at one point in the past. He informed Bertrand that he was the one that ended it. But as circumstances progress, it seems apparent that that was not the case.
Christophe becomes increasingly jealous – not only of Bertrand’s romance with Audrey, but with all of the attention that she’s getting from other men (whether she’s sleeping with them or not).
Christophe hides his passionate emotions behind an impenetrable facade. He has never really gotten over Audrey. He also has a great loyalty to Bertrand that almost goes over and above the ordinary cut and dried employer/worker dynamic.
A full blown disaster is looming directly over the horizon. Once the initial events are set in motion, the lives of these three people will never be the same.
ANNE FONTAINE is an exceptionally gifted director and writer. She is a force of nature well worth watching. THE GIRL FROM MONACO starts out lightly amusing and gets progressively darker, more gripping and intense.
The changes in tone are seamless, perfect and elegant. Many seasoned filmmakers couldn’t pull these gradations off. Ms. Fontaine is all ready a remarkable stylist. She is at the top of her tremendous game.
The fantastic cinematography showcases the gorgeousness of this area effectively. Even the most gracious, serene areas have their dangerous spots.
The cast is uniformly excellent. LOUISE BOURGOIN is a particular standout.
Ms. Bourgoin is a superb performer with a very bright future ahead of her. She is extremely good looking and possesses a distracting sensuality. The media is promoting her as the next BRIGITTE BARDOT. But she’s nothing like BB.
Louise does, however, greatly resemble a blonde CAMILLA BELLE – with dashes of RENEE ZELLWEGER and DREA DE MATTEO thrown in.
One of the reasons her performance is so grandly delicious is that you can tell that she understands Audrey.
COMPLETELY.
Audrey doesn’t have a substantial bone in her lithe, lanky body. But Louise’s portrayal possesses unusual depth. That’s the power of exceptional acting.
This film has a haunting, dream like quality to it that will linger for days. It’s a highly regarded French gem in a sea of cinematic fakery.
In the distant future, 2009 will probably be widely acknowledged as the year that both ANNE FONTAINE and LOUISE BOURGOIN came into their own.
Once you experience it you’ll understand why.
August 5, 2009 at 12:03 am
You probably already knew that Anne Fontaine is also behind the upcoming Coco Before Chanel.
I’m glad this one worked for you. For me it started shakily…just another romantic comedy about a middle aged shlub falling for a girl who is physically out of his league…but the darker it got, the better.
You’re right that Audrey is shallow and narcissistic and ambitious, but I also felt there was an appealing innocence to her underneath it all. Maybe it was the girlish way she had her bedroom decorated.
I think she felt like she knew how to play men who are smarter and more powerful than she, but her ultimate fate shows me that she was in over her head and I kind of sympathize with her or at least feel bad for her. Even if she was a manipulative shark, surely she got much worse than what was coming to her.
August 5, 2009 at 6:22 am
You know me like a book, Monsieur Kennedy.
THE GIRL FROM MONACO and ANYTHING FOR HER are part of my home town’s annual French film festival, which is in its third year now.
A couple of films that you really admired (SUMMER HOURS and SERAPHINE) were the first two in the series. The two that I just reviewed followed them. I believe LORNA’S SILENCE is next.
These movies haven’t been hanging around town. LA VIE EN ROSE and TELL NO ONE played for months - from the summer right through the end of the year. Rightly so, as far as I’m concerned. They’re two of the best French films I’ve ever seen.
I caught TGFM on the second to last night of its engagement at the 50s barn on the west side where the fest is being held. I’m actually developing a fondness for that place.
It is, after all, where I saw MY BLUEBERRY NIGHTS three times last summer. A lot of wonderful memories are connected with that cinema.
Plus they opened a top of the line grocery store (the theatre is in a strip mall with a bowling alley, a Chinese restaurant and a McDonald’s!!!) two doors down. They have the most gorgeous exotic food you could ever desire in your natural life. Their flowers are beautiful. Every time I go to the deli I feel like I’m right in the middle of a WOODY ALLEN movie.
So it’s an impressive neighbourhood.
I’ve been to that theatre in the summer before. But never with this intense heat. What I was completely unaware of is that that particular cinema has NO AIR CONDITIONING…and it was close to 100 degrees outside at the time of the 7:00 show.
So one of the employees came out prior to the screening and informed us of the circumstances. She said that they would keep the exit doors open for the next few minutes and all of the fans were on. She also said that they would help patrons in any way they could. You were free to spend some time in the lobby if the heat got too unbearable and they had lots of ice water to consume.
But we were advised that, if we couldn’t take it, we could only get refunds (with very few exceptions) within the first half hour.
This is not a knock on them. I thought they were terrific and they genuinely cared about our comfort and how we were feeling. That was kind of refreshing.
But this theatre converted (from a last ditch discount cinema that showed arty or avant garde double bills to an upscale joint that screened new mainstream releases) about four years ago. That’s when I began to seek out the place regularly.
I’m sure that installing a cooling system into the cinema would not be uncomplicated or inexpensive.
BUT NO AIR CONDITIONING???
I do hope that that gets sorted out at some point in time. Now that we’ve had a Cali style summer, I fully expect that more will be on the way.
Global warming and all that…
Anyway…
I knew that TGFM would not be moving over to another theatre.
You are correct, sir. I liked your review a great deal. That was a solid selling point as our tastes are generally not very far apart.
But the thing that finally made me crack was the fact that ANNE FONTAINE directed it. I know for sure that I’m going to see COCO BEFORE CHANEL if it ends up here. So I wanted to have some idea of Ms. Fontaine’s work before I attend a screening of that this fall.
I think Ms. Fontaine is fantastic. Many of the critics that were bitching about TGFM and ended up slamming it said things like, “She doesn’t know whether she wants to make a romantic comedy or a thriller. Thanks for playing.”
Well, F that.
Who says that you can’t incorporate more than one genre into a motion picture if it’s skillfully done? If the disparate elements are not introduced jarringly and they make some thematic sense (as they do here), then why the hell not???
All I can say is, if you can make a better film yourself, then do it. If not…
TGFM is clever, precise and it has a great flow to it. You don’t even sense the darkness until you’re right in the middle of it. I have never seen a film directed quite that way.
Ms. Fontaine deserves to be a filmmaker of great renown. If there is any justice in the world, she will be.
All right. Now I’m going to tackle the one big thing that turned a lot of people off.
***********SPOILERS*************
I think a lot of critics felt that Audrey’s fate smacked of outright misogyny.
I don’t think so.
For one thing, a woman directed AND cowrote this feature. For another, many motion pictures have had male protagonists that died during the course of the film (oh, there must be THOUSANDS of them…) and nobody stands on a soapbox and says that that’s discriminatory against the male gender.
COME ON…
But it’s not only that she died.
I think that many individuals felt that the two men conspired against her in some way. They had both been involved with her romantically. The bodyguard was torn. She had dumped his ass and he was still upset about that. But he seemed like a controlling prick to me.
You always have to watch the quiet ones. The less they say, the more surprising things that they can come up with. You can never tell what to expect with them.
But the bodyguard also felt an enormous loyalty to the attorney. There was never any real indication that he was sexually or romantically attracted to the lawyer. But I don’t know. Ms. Fontaine keeps the subtext deliberately murky and, at the end, you’re still not sure of the dynamics between the characters or exactly what happened.
Is it possible that he could have been jealous not only of Audrey but of Bertrand? I do wonder about that.
But sometimes it’s better if everything’s not spelled out. I think that that’s the case here.
So the bodyguard killed Audrey for a number of reasons. She banged him in the car. For some stupid reason, he seemed to feel that that would make her want to go back with him. No dice. She climbed on her scooter and laughed in his face.
She made it clear that she’s moving to Paris with Bertrand. Audrey was trading one life of luxury for another. She may marry Bertrand. But she didn’t love him. She is incapable of loving anyone except herself.
His life was just a way of insinuating herself into a different milieu where she could become successful doing SOMETHING. At the end of the day, she would’ve left Bertrand behind when he had served his purpose. Just like all of the others.
Christophe all ready knew that Bertrand wasn’t happy with that situation. But he’s weak when it comes to women. He can’t say no. If she had ended up in Paris with him, Audrey would’ve been tremendously bad news.
So that’s yet another reason to get rid of her.
In TGFM, Audrey is definitely out for herself. She doesn’t give a damn about anyone else.
Was she evil? No. Did she deserve to die? NO.
But this is a woman who had caused a lot of grief to untold men and would go on doing just that.
But, as you say, there are layers to her. You get the feeling that there is something driving her to this level of behaviour. In the overtly girlish bedroom that you just mentioned, Bertrand talked to her about her past and she said something like, “At 15, I had no reason to be happy. But I laughed and danced and played the beautiful girl…and then I was.”
So there was definitely something going on with her. But you can never really put your finger on it.
Same thing as Bertrand taking the fall for Christophe.
WHY?
I don’t get the impression that it was simply out of gratefulness.
************END SPOILERS************
I suspect that we both like this film because it’s not cut and dried. You can get an unbelievable amount out of it. There’s a lot going on beneath the surface and an amazing amount of food for thought.
CHERI would also be a great example of that.
It’s a shame that most critics misunderstood this film.
Thanks so much for stopping by, Craig.
If you have any more to add, I’ll be waiting…
August 14, 2009 at 4:37 am
i think i only want to talk about/the fat guy that got to have sex with the audrey chracter after wanting to for however how long.
stuff like that only happens in the movies.
anyway maybe it’s time to type spoiler.
anyway whenever in the film i was thinking there was gonna be an attempt om audrey’s life. but that yep she’d survive. no idea where the film would go from there or who was gonna be the person trying maybe it would have been someone we hadn’t seen before )
but i thought she’d survive and if that guy from no country had killed audrey and it wasn’t shown on screen there would have been a web revolt.
August 14, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Yeah…
But Audrey only had sex with that guy because it was his birthday, glim. She really got around. I liked her and found her sympathetic in spite of her behaviour. She really was a shallow chick and totally out for herself.
Audrey was extremely attractive and she had a distracting sensuality to her. She was also exceptionally charming.
But she really had no sexual standards. Not at all discriminating. She probably had cooties, glim.
Would the sex be worth it? That’s a pretty high price to pay.
That guy from NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN wouldn’t have killed Audrey, glim.
He couldn’t speak French.
August 15, 2009 at 1:23 am
sorry m. i’m gonna take you on about this.
since she’d known him for years (i think the guy near the door said something similiar to “he’s been waiting for this for years”.)
and if all it took was friends asking and as you feel/say she wasn’t discriminating. why would it take years???
in reality i say even if she was gonna do this/planeed to do this. but post meeting the lawyer guy she wouldn’t have. or at least not in the way it as set up/shown in the film.
she was trying to angle herself as the lawyer guy’s great love of his life. i don’t think she was gonna take the risk of having sex with some fat guy. plus having sex with the fat guy in an atmosphere where plenty of people new it was gonna happen and yep may have been inclined to tell…
so again m. i do thing audrey was discriminating/actually that’s fine/she could do what she wants and it’s cool/i’m just calling her on it.
note: m. when that guy tells the lawyer (hey it was a surprise. he wasn’t supposed to have been there. he’d be there…) words similiar to ‘it’s a not a huge deal if the big guy sleeps with her because we all have/you have too.’
well note. the other guys there had more slender body types/didin’t seem awkward around females and in comparison much easier on the eyes. and yep they all (how many guys that weren’t the lawyer were there 4?/5? whatever…) had slept with audrey.
want to bet the didn’t have to wait for years. i guessing hell no. and the lawyer didn’t have to wait for years/money/status equal no years of waiting for him.
now *who* had to wait for years??? the fat/awkward around females guy.
i think the context from which she had sex with the guy was sad and made audrey not seem like a nice person.
nope i have zero problem with audrey having sex with the guy despite having zero hormonal interest on her end but did so more from a sympathy/pity slant. nope i’d have no problem with that.
i’d even have zero problem with her doing this has dare/bet or something financial factoring in (yes i’m pathetic…) whatever. nope no problem with either.
but the only way she could have sex with the fat guy was with his friends/her friends a few feet away listening. and surely laughing. makes me think that audrey maybe isn’t that nice to know unless you’re easy on the eyes. have money…
hell no. show some respect kid/and say no.
and those friends. let’s talk about them. he should asked his friends to leave. if they were friends. they’d leave right ???
in the reality if audrey were to have sex with him it should have been with no one else around. she could mentioned knowing that the guy had noticed her for years.
and with his birthday coming up and her planning to leave Monaco soon. now if it came about something like that. even if she was asked/begged by friends and had zero real interest in it, she would have come across as nice, decent and kind hearted and maybe a bit insane but whatever.
but no she can only have sex with the guy when it’s a circus atmosphere. makes me think she isn’t someone
worth knowing at all.
bring you down/i can see how they bring you down
August 16, 2009 at 5:41 am
glim, I think we may be getting our wires crossed here. I strongly suspect we genuinely agree on the most important points of this film.
But I bet we’re misinterpreting each other to a fairly large degree.
All right. Let’s go…
Straight up. Audrey was NOT a nice person. But she is the ultimate fantasy for a lot of guys: the innocent looking but hot blonde that’s a tiger in the sack.
That was no act. Not like with some people who you assume are very sexy because of their physical exterior or what they put out there. The reality is that cultures thrive on money and sexuality. Those are prime commodities that many individuals in society are interested in.
So people (not just women…) learn how to use a lot of those qualities – if they know that they possess them – to their own advantage. They may actually not be interested in sex at all for whatever reason. Or they may not have had enough of it to be confident in their own abilities.
But they are aware that they can get people going with what they have.
Sometimes people play the sex card because they want to be liked or be popular. They may never sleep with anyone or they may finally cross that line just to get a relationship started or cemented. Or they know that they can get into certain kinds of circles where rich, influential or famous people play because of what they look like and the vibes that they give off.
Many, many people have used their looks as a lure or to manipulate others. It is totally insincere because they’re really not interested in sex at all. But they know that many people are and that they will want it with them. So it’s a cover that they cultivate to get them whatever they want.
Like I said, that’s an old game for women. But men do that too. With a lot of guys, it’s an ego thing. Our society still hasn’t gotten around to a real level of honesty. Macho men are supposed to be sexually driven, aggressive and want it all the time.
That’s total bs.
As a glamorous women who is completely sexually driven, let me tell you this little fact. Men are just like women. Some people of both sexes couldn’t care less about it. If they never got it in their entire lives, they’d be completely satisified. They just don’t care. They have other priorities.
Some people can take it or leave it. Their sexual drives will go up or down depending on who they meet or how their lives are developing. They will likely go through periods of being hot and active and slow off the mark in others.
Then there are some people who just can’t get enough. From the time their hormones kick in at adolescence, they are consumed with their sensuality. Some of these people become incredibly promiscuous. Everyone has their own reasons for that. It’s totally up to them. Others in this category may be highly sexed but they’re determined to have meaningful relationships with people that they genuinely care about.
However, they may still spend much of the time they’re not having sex thinking about what it’s going to be like when they have it again. It’s a never ending thing for them.
So this idea that ALL MEN want it, need it, crave it is a hell of a lot of nonsense – and I should know. Some guys really need it (like a garden needs rain) and some dudes don’t.
End of story…
But Audrey understands that she is perceived to be good looking and incredibly sexy by almost everyone. So she totally takes advantage of that. I have no idea if she really enjoyed sex or just used it to get her what she wanted. It seemed to me that she had her fun. But I don’t know.
Apparently she was pretty good at it. The lawyer and the bodyguard compared notes. (Indiscreet and kind of lousy. But people really do that…and not just men.) I think the lawyer couldn’t really believe his luck at first. But then all that good will turned out to be a nightmare for him.
He was a decent guy. So he automatically assumed that because Audrey slept with him that she was going to be monogamous and that it actually meant something to her.
BIG MISTAKE. Before you become sexual with ANYONE, you should at least find out what kind of person they are and what sort of general intentions they have. The way that she decided to sleep with the birthday guy was particularly heartless. The lawyer was right there. He saw the whole thing go down. She knew he was there. She didn’t even care.
And yeah, she had a horrible lack of discrimination and class, glim. Her friends (like you remarked earlier) basically said, “What’s the big deal? We’ve all slept with her and so have you.”
As far as I’m concerned, ANYBODY who has slept with more than two or three people in their social circle (and I don’t care how many people that entails or how many years it took) is a total scuzz. What it boils down to is: Audrey had been with all of those guys. That may not have been a ridiculous amount. But she certainly wasn’t confining herself to JUST her regular friendships. How many other men were getting it from her?
I don’t care whether you’re a man or a woman. That’s a whole lot different than just having various lovers over time, which is natural and understandable. Sleeping with EVERYONE that crosses your path makes you a pathetic whore. It’s disgusting reprehensible behaviour. Doesn’t matter what sex you are. Are you that insecure and f’ed up that you feel that that’s necessary?
No one that’s emotionally healthy would act like that. Audrey came off like an egomaniac. But I think she had some deep rooted insecurities underneath. I also don’t really think that her interest in sleeping with the birthday guy was a pity thing. She wanted to do that publicly so everyone would know. Then they would think that she was so desirable and very, very cool. That was more for her reputation as a seductive goddess than it was for him.
Ridiculous. But I think that she did it mostly for her ego.
As for her friends being easy on the eyes…
There wasn’t one man in the entire movie that I found attractive. I kind of liked the lawyer’s personality. But that’s it. If I had met any of those dudes, my perception might have changed.
But there wasn’t one guy in the whole movie that I thought was physically appealing. That doesn’t have anything to do with whether I liked the film or enjoyed it. I though that TGFM was deliciously good.
That’s my personal POV, glimby. But that’s just me….
August 17, 2009 at 12:15 am
wow, another legendary bit of wordage. how does she do it ???
m. i felt the others were easier on the eyes/say in comparison to the bigger guy…so that’s why i wrote it that way…
She wanted to do that publicly so everyone would know. Then they would think that she was so desirable and very, very cool.
audrey didn’t have to do this to add to her desirability factor. she already knew what sort of reaction she got from her friend circle and the general public/especially men. i mean hell she had that tv segment she did…and she knew she wouldn’t have had that gig if she didn’t have those traits many felt…
hmm…yeah, i was annoyed because the birthday present thing, which you would think had ‘pure’/'let’s do something ‘nice’ type origin, seemed to come a lot more let’s set up something we can laugh at/talk about for months/years/ridicule/get a high freak show factor from. so a supposedly nice thing has some major mean/ridicule slant factoing in. what sort of friends are those???. *arrgh*
so yeah i feel audrey and the male friends deserve to be set on fire for setting this up this way. hell, i bet they couldn’t even keep a straight face when the idea came up.
the guy didn’t seem totally horrible so i don’t think he deserved this.and i’m sure you noticed he seemed a bit intimidated/nerveous around audrey. so yeah giving him the audrey surprise with his friends at the door listening. seems like such a pure at heart thing to do.
sorry if i seem obsessed with this. but i sort of am.
who’s gonna wave the flag for losers???
guess it’s just me.
August 17, 2009 at 8:32 am
My precious lil glim…
I just realized something. This is your third comment on this thread. But I still don’t have a general sense of whether you liked the movie or not.
I’m assuming that you did. When people usually have a great passion for something it tends to stick with them – and you haven’t said that you hated it so far. So I’ll assume that you did enjoy it to some degree.
Well, I’ll stand by my original point…
If someone is incredibly insecure or an egomaniac (and quite often there can be elements of both traits in the same personality – just at different times), it’s NEVER ENOUGH.
So, even for someone like Audrey, all the men she sleeps with, all the compliments people pay her, all the attention she gets…wouldn’t be sufficient. She would always crave more.
More, more, MORE…
Take away all the dudes chasing after her, all the men making fools of themselves over her, catering to her, willing to do everything they can just to be with her (plus all the other free rides and advantages that she had just by looking like that and giving off a distractingly sensual vibe)…and she doesn’t even exist.
This is what her life was all about. If someone wasn’t noticing her or making her a luscious object of desire, then she really felt she had no purpose.
She was so used to that kind of extravagant praise that she needed it constantly for reinforcement. It was like a bottomless well.
Pretty sad.
I guess we split on that, honey.
But I do wholeheartedly agree that what she did to the birthday dude (even though it was supposed to be some favour that he’d never forget for the rest of his life) was despicable.
Far better to have some self respect than to be humiliated publicly.
But she had so much ego I imagine she thought that she was blatantly irresistible and that he should just shut up and be grateful.
You can’t go around treating people like that. Like I said previously, I had a certain amount of sympathy for this young woman in spite of her appalling behaviour. But it sure as hell came back to haunt her in the end.
Thanks for the great discussion, glimster. You’re an absolute peach…
August 19, 2009 at 4:03 am
m., the movie was ok.
i’m sure it will blend in with the barrage of movies i’ve seen this year that i didn’t really care about nor hate…and since i didn’t write anything about those i probably will remember *very little* a few weeks on.
and that’s the real and the beat goes on, ms. m.
anyway, i think if this was an american film the audrey character would have been played by someone with a uh different body type and portrayed a different persona to the ‘sensual vibe’ thing as you put it. (not saying that would have been an improvement )
there always seem to be some differences…
August 20, 2009 at 3:40 am
glim, thanks for getting back to me. You’re loyal, dependable and such a good friend.
It’s a joy playing host to you, honey…
Kind of a surprise to me, though. You generally put a lot of thought into your comments. You wrote quite a bit about TGFM in spite of the fact that you find it rather inconsequential when all is said and done.
Interesting in a very cool, fascinating way…
When you say that Audrey would have been portrayed by someone stateside with a different body type and attitude, what exactly do you mean by that?
Are you talking about a more obvious va va va voom chick like our beloved SCARLETT…?
Inquiring minds want to know…
August 21, 2009 at 5:42 pm
hell yeah maybe a scarlett type. but you programmed me/your readers to say that.
in an american film (even an american indie) i think that the female that supposedly wows/gets the attention would have a different look/approach.
i especially think this would be so if the budget got up there a bit.
hmm i have no names as to who the studios would prefer in a similar role.
just feel what the audrey chracter did was too subtle and not in yourface/blatant/obvious enough to be deemed ok for big (or maybe even little) stateside viewing.
also…
thinking a stateside movie would have the whomever seem a bit younger than audrey. yep i want to hit cliche and anything that makes us stateside look bad.
August 21, 2009 at 10:06 pm
Thanks for coming back, glimster. You’re a brightly coloured gem, honey boy…
Well, the only reason I brought up SCARLETT is because she’s one of the few female performers out there now that has that whole bombshell thing going on. There are a lot of beautiful, talented actors.
But there aren’t very many working regularly at this juncture that have that overwhelming sensual thing that they can pull out of their inevitable bag of tricks. SCARLETT had what MARILYN MONROE had…and that’s exceedingly rare.
Completely agree with everything you said. Except for one minor quibble.
According to IMDB, LOUISE BOURGOIN is only 27 and she looks even younger. So I don’t think that a comparable character in a similar stateside film (or remake) could be THAT much younger.
Otherwise we’d have a whole different motion picture on our hands.
You’re such a sweetie, glim. Whatever would I do without you…?