Stage Beauty. Dlrected by Richard Eyre. Screenplay by Jeffrey Hatcher
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
SEDERI Yearbook ISSN: 1135-7789 [email protected] Spanish and Portuguese Society for English Renaissance Studies España MORA, María José Eyre, Richard (dir.) 2004: Stage Beauty. Dlrected by Richard Eyre. Screenplay by Jeffrey Hatcher. Performed by Billy Crudup and Claire Danes. Lions Gate Films SEDERI Yearbook, núm. 15, 2005, pp. 151-156 Spanish and Portuguese Society for English Renaissance Studies Valladolid, España Available in: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=333527601010 How to cite Complete issue Scientific Information System More information about this article Network of Scientific Journals from Latin America, the Caribbean, Spain and Portugal Journal's homepage in redalyc.org Non-profit academic project, developed under the open access initiative Eyre, Richard (dir.) 2004: Sfage B eaufy Dlrected by Richard Byre. Screenplay by Jeffrey Hatcher Pcrfonned by Billy Crudup and Cleirc Dencs. Lions Cate Films María José MOR A LlII¡"ersily of Sr"illr Richa rd Eyre's Slnsr Brnllly (2004) seems lo ha ve been conceived as a seq uel of so rls lo SJmkrspenrr in Lo"r ('998). Like its predec esso r, this is a períod romance set against the background of the theatre wo rld or, rather, of a world which is spellbound by Ihe magic of the theatre, 111e action m oves ahead in time lo the Restoration, but the similarities are obvious: in both cases the male protagonist suffers from crea tive block (writer's then, actor's now), and can only be reconci led to his art throu gh the inspiration provided by a woman who is struck both with admira tion for his talent, and with el passion for the srage. There are even some shots that look slrikingly sim ilar: Slnsr Brnllly opens as a performance of Cnhelío is conc luding, an d we see Maria (Claire D~l n es) in the w ings silent1y mou thing the wo rds of Desdemona, exactly as Viola (Gwynelh Paltrow) does w ilh the famous Sylvia speech during the court perfo rm ance of The Two Ccntlemen of Vrrolln in the Shakespeare film. Slnsr Brnllly is sel in the early Restoration period (al least in theory, since the film seems to take the years 1660-1700 as one limeless historical moment). As Cha rles 11 reopens the theatres, which had been closed duríng Ihe Puntan lnterregnum, YOl1ng men continue lo play female roles; but a couple of months later the king issues a proclarnation penn itting women lo act, and a revolution begins on the stage. The film focuses on the most famous of actors who impersonated women in the early 16605, Ned Kynaston: the title is, in fact, taken from the comments of prOlnpter John Downes un this player: "he being then \'ery Young ma:..le a Comp/eflt Femnle Slnsr Brnllly, pe rfonning his Parts so we ll ... that il has since been Disputable among the Judiciou s, whether any Woman that succeed ed him so Sensibly touch 'd the Audience as he" (19). Compleat Femnle Slnsr Brnllly was indeed the full title of the original play by Jeffrey Hatcher on which the script is based and, as il suggesls, the film (like the pla y) is as much about gender issues as ~c ¡"' r i ,,- ' 5 (2005: pp. '51 -56) it is abou t backstage intrigue, As actor Hugh Bonneville alleged ly says in the production no tes, this is "a period piece with a ge nder hender agenda ." Gender issues ha ve certainly been brought lo the foreg round . Th e film p lavs 111' the homo sexu al associa rions that often fall to the 101of the female impersonator, and gives Kynaston a liaison with the Duke of Buckíngham. There is also a "ague fem inist slent: the ad vent of the actress 15 presented as él female conquest, one more step in the stm ggle for equality. Women - led by Kvnaston's dresser Maria and th e king's rnistress Nell Gwyn claim and ga ín not only the right to "el, but also the righ t lo represen t themselves on the stage instead of being represented by men oBul lhe emergence of the aclress means the down fall of aclors like Kynaston; he loses both his parts and his lover and , as he does not know how to play men, he loses his profession as wel1. He is then presen ted as a sexually confused individual, w ho ca nnot fully come to tenn s with his identity as aman on or off the slage. Un til he docs, he w ill not be ablc to acl again. Billy Crud up is good in the almost impossible lask of playing the sexua lly tro ubled "stage bea u ty." His graceful ges tures and coquettish sm iles w hen he is in petticoats bear w itness to his talent and discipline as an actor. But all his chann and art cannot disg uise the fun damen tal falsehood at the centre of the film. The Kynaston who played female parts in t 660 wa s se venteen: Cru dup is thírty-six, and his Desdemona ínevitably has a tinge of the drag queen. But the hero 's age is not the only crucial point on which this ad -hoc b íopic wholly re-inven ts its subject: the actor's crisis of iden tity is also something thal rings esenlially false. Young Kynaston certainly knew how to play men, and from the beginning of his career was equally acclaimed when he appeared in male guise. As early as [anuary 1661, Sam uel Pepys wrote of Kynas ton's perform ance in [onson's The Silent ~\'011lnll: Among ather things here, Kinastan the bay had the gaod tum to appear in three shapes: J, as a poor woman in ordinary dot hes ... then in fine dot hes as a gallant, and in them was clearly the prettiest woman in the whole house - and lastly, as aman; and then likewise did aprea r the handscmest man in the ha use. (Diary 7/t/t66t ) To give this largely concocted slory so rne semblance of historical truth, d irector Richard Eyre has w rapped il up in a package that is sparkling and bright in ma ny ways: cos lumes are su perb, an d se ttings are ccnv incing eno ugh. Characteriza tion 1S sometimes uncanni1y good : Rupert Everett as Charles 11 ano Hugh Bonneville as diarist Sarnuel Pepys are particularly oulslanding (even lhough Everell has a lenden cy lo overact): they almost seem lo ha ve slepped out of the piclures in the National Portrai t Gallery. Tom Wilkinson as actor and theatre-manager Thomas 8etterton is a solid presence, if sligh tlv old for the role. Buckingh arn, porlrayed as the arch-seducer, is well se rved by a handsome, knowing-looking Ben Chaplin, who is abou t the sam e age the Duke was al the Res tora tion. Bul Sir Charles Sed ley, who was barely twenty-one in 1660 and was one of the brighlesl stars of King Cha rles/s court, is a sad dis appomtrnent. Sed ley is here cas i as the villam of the piece, and his cha rm is acco rd ingly downplayed: he is incorporated by an actor in his late fifties (Richa rd Críffiths), excessively fat , and turncd inlo a ridicu lous fop; thc absurd ly claboratc w igs he wcars ma ke him look very much Iike a wedding-cake extra vaganza. The characterization of Sedley is just ene o f Illilny examples of the film 's tam pering with historieal dala. Anachroni sms and ina ccuracies 100m large in Sfnge Henllty. Many of them 1l1ay seem minor detai ls, Iike assuming that peformances al the theatre began al eight in the evening (ins lead of three), that differen l actors mighl rival each other in playing the same role, tha t Elízabe th Barry or Anne Bracegirdl e began their careers in the 16605 (Barry bega n in the mid 70s, Bracegirdle in the late 80s), or tha t Kynaslon ever acted Othello (he was Cassio in the King's Company productions). 1l is also inaccurate to present Kynaston and Betterton sharing the stage in the early 16605; lhey did, in fact, belong lo the s arne lroupe (lohn Rhodes 's) for a very brief period before the formatíon of the pa lenl companies, bu l by October 1660 Kynaston had joined the King's, and Betterton the Duke's, Yel all this is lo a large exlenl untmportant: as ;my director w ould claim , perio d ñlms cannot be kepl prisoners of the historical record, and so me licences - Iike the placing o f I3etterton in the Saine company w ith Kynaston - may make sense: the leadi ng man in the King's company, Charles Ha rt, is a more shadowy figure no wadays, and the author an d d irector proba bly thought their subject was obscure enough lo do away w íth any of lhe few names lhal mighl SOlU1d familiar . Even lhe presen lalion of Nell Gwyn firsl as royal mislress and only Jaler as 153 aspiring actress m íght serve so rne purpose in the plot. Yel sorne other m anipulations rem ain bafflmg, like making the Duke of Buckingham marry someone called jane Bellamy (he had married Mary Fairfax in 1657, in a no toriously opportunist mo ve to recover hi s con fiscnted esta fes) . The liberties taken in the recreation of the periad mark a clea r difference between Slnge Benuty and its model Slmkesl'enre in LOl l{'.