W.E. Review

• 24th Jan 2012

Last Friday I popped along to the cinema with a dear old friend to see Madonna’s most recent cinematic offering W.E.  It had been 12 years since the last time this friend and I had been to the cinema together, and on that fateful day, deep in the wilds of Pennsylvania we had also been to see a Madonna film – The Next Best Thing.  When we booked the tickets for W.E., my friend reminded me that not only did I talk all the way through The Next Best Thing (for shame!), but that when we came out of the cinema I ripped it to shreds and described it as one of the worst films I had ever seen.    In my defence it hasn’t really stood the test of time has it? 

To make up for my teenage indiscretion, I promised to go into W.E. with a completely open mind and judge it as fairly as I could, without any preconceived notions I might have about the director.  Having now seen the film, and after reading some reviews online, I can’t help but wonder if I’m one of the only reviewers to do this.  The amount of vitriol that is being laid at its door, far outstrips any flaws it may have.  Although it’s not a perfect film, I’ll confess here and now that I did actually enjoy it (and to my friends’ happy surprise didn’t talk all the way through it).

Let’s talk about what’s good.  Well first, the cast.  Angela Riseborough especially must be praised for her subtle but powerful performance, taking one of the most vilified women in British history and somehow making her sympathetic.  That’s no mean feat.  Her Wallace is a schemer, a social climber who sets her eyes on the future King, and yet, by the end of the film we do feel pity for a woman who is trapped in a marriage to a weak, childlike man whom she knows she will never be able to leave, even if she wants to.
That seems to me to be one of the central themes of the film and I felt it echoed Madonna’s own performance, as Evita Peron in Evita.  Here, we have another woman who came from nothing, who climbed her way up through society by manipulating men until she reached the very pinnacle, only to die ruing her pursuit of fame at the expense of a happy family.  One could (at the risk of inciting my friend’s wrath), argue that such social climbing is a mirror to Madonna’s own story.  She came from nothing, but worked her way up to become the most successful and powerful woman in music, in part (in the early days), by the choices she made in the bedroom.  You could even cynically wonder if her marriage to Guy Richie wasn’t a way to learn as much as she could about directing.  However, to say that would be to grossly undervalue Madonna’s own talent and to suggest that she is unfeeling, and that’s patently not true. 

Madonna as a director clearly cares deeply about both Wallace and her 90s’ counterpart Wally, another woman trapped in a seemingly fairytale relationship.  Wally, like Wallace has made life choices which have resulted in her being trapped in a gilded cage, unable to escape except through day dreams about her namesake. Madonna’s treatment of Wally is terribly sympathetic, yes, she has all the trappings of happiness and success, but in reality she is lonely, visiting the Wallace and Edward exhibition at her old place of business, wearing black and mournfully fantasising about another life. 

In these fantasy sequences, Madonna sometimes has her Wallace and Wally interact, the one trying to help the other.  There is a kindness between the two women, the fantasy Wallace urging her latter-day namesake to wake up to the reality of her situation and act to change it before it’s too late.  To realise that the “fairytale” marriage and children with the “perfect” (in reality philandering and violent) husband won’t give her the fulfilment she so desperately craves.  Fulfilment can only be found through herself and she cannot rely on another person to “complete” her.  This is arguably what Madonna has been saying for years in her other artistic endeavours.

Moving back to the film itself, one has to remark on the costumes and set design.  Truly they are lavish and beautifully created.  The colour palate is muted, nearly everyone wears black, grey or white (regardless of the era) and it’s all terribly stylish, like an arty music video.  All of the beauty and style is lovingly shot, Madonna framing her female leads from behind, elegantly dressed but standing alone in long corridors waiting….always waiting. She has a real eye for beauty and how to frame it in a subtle yet powerful way.

I will however say that, although she has an eye for a shot, she’s still clearly finding her feet as a director.  I felt there was too much close up at times.  I longed for the camera to draw back so that I could get my bearings.  In places it was dizzying, especially in the opening scene where we flicked back and forth in time between the two women.  I realise that this was done to establish the parallels between them, but it wasn’t as effective as it could have been. I’m inclined to cut Madonna some slack on this however, she’s still a relatively young director, this being only her second film.  Most directors don’t really find their feet or their style until a few films in, it’s just that Madonna is such a juggernaut that her early outings get a much wider release and much more fan fare than an unknown directors offerings would.  I’m not saying that is a good thing, of course, I’m just saying; let’s not forget that she’s still fairly new to this directing game.

Another criticism is that the story is a little muddled in places and I’m not convinced that the 90s’ Wally added as much to the overall piece as perhaps our director wanted her to.  What really was the point of the handsome Russian intellectual working as a security guard at the Wallace and Edward exhibit other than a delicious piece of eye candy?  Did 90s’ Wally really need another man to rescue her from her abusive husband?  Is that what he did?  I’m not sure.  What I will say that surprised me about Wally’s relationship with this man, and indeed with all of the male/female relationships is that in the sex scenes, the men where always on top.  I don’t know why, but I can’t imagine Madonna ever allowing a man to be on top. Was she trying to say something there or am I reading too much into this?

Anyway, I think that in spite of the criticisms that can reasonably be levelled at this film, the real reason people react with such bile towards it is because of the name of the director, rather than her vision or style. It’s a tiny bit like sour grapes, she’s such a musical success that people don’t want to see her succeed in film.  I’m not suggesting that she’s the next, oh I don’t know, Spielberg or Scorsese, but I don’t think this film deserves the reviews it’s been getting.  Overall, it was very enjoyable, beautiful, stylish, subtle and dare I say it, kind to a vilified historical figure.  I don’t doubt that Madonna will learn from the mistakes she made on this film and come back next year or the year after with something more polished, but it remains to be seen if it will receive a fair shake from the critics.
Suzanne King