When I first found out that Natalie Dormer, one of my favourite period drama actresses, would play the lead part in the upcoming story of lady Worsley - and specifically when it became clear what the plot was going to be, I was beyond excited. I thought it would be my favourite movie: the beautiful actress, a feminist statement, a potential for whipping satire on patriarchy and, of course, BBC standards. Great expectations, in other words.
What exactly did I expect?
Having seen the trailer (which, by the way, reveals pretty much every interesting detail, scene and plot twist), I expected the story of an aristocratic marriage broken by the spouses mismatch - probably an affair or mutual disappointment. A story that is very similar, but probably more scandalous than that portrayed in The Duchess - after all, the premise is quite similar. A young, innocent girl marries a rich, influential man of great title, and along the way something goes horribly wrong. The lady, feeling trapped in her marriage, takes a lover - and her influential husband also makes a move, probably a much more threatening and dangerous to her, given a woman's place in 18th century England.
Historical background
The story is based on Seymour Fleming's character - and the film does follow it faithfully for the most part. Thanks to the detailed records of the trial, the producers and director didn't have to exaggerate the lady's sexual life or scandalous court case all that much - it all really did take place, after all. Born in 1758, the real Seymour (named after the Seymour noble family - Jane Seymour was king Henry VIII's third and most beloved wife) married Sir Richard Worsley, 7th Baronet of Appuldurcombe House, when she was 17. Their marriage soon proved to be unsuccessful - after giving birth to their son, she also had a daughter from another man, Maurice George Bisset. The girl, Jane Seymour Worsley, was accepted by Seymour's husband to avoid scandal. Later that year the scandalous lady ran off with her lover, and only then her husband took the case to court, demanding a financial compensation from Bisset for 'spoiling his goods'. Lady Worsley famously outwitted her husband, by sacrificing her reputation and revealing the truth about all 27 of her lovers - and her husband's part in the 'betrayal'.
So... the story is true - and a scandalous one indeed. The idea to make a movie about this outspoken woman who dared to spoil her own reputation and reveal her husband's kink - what is it, if not a no-fail plan? But, just like 50 Shades of Grey, it proved much harder to make an already scandalous juicy story into a great film than taking a mediocre real life story and dramatizing it on screen.
Where did it all go wrong?
All the right elements seemed to be put in place: a great story to tell, good, well-cast actors, high enough production quality and BBC working on it - I mean, everyone loves a good old BBC period drama. It's famous for delivering compelling and historically accurate films and tv series, after all.
The first thing that struck me was the narrative - within the first 5 minutes we are given three timelines. The film opens with the end - Seymour gets sent away into exile only after the famous court case and her reputation is in ruin. It's a risky move, in my opinion, with period dramas - for those, who don't know history, it's a clear spoiler, and for those who do... well, it does depend on the execution. The opening shot of lady Worsley, in her gorgeous maroon dress, entering a white marble chamber, is beautiful. Her husband seems more like a servant, rather than a rich, powerful politician that Sir Richard is supposed to be. A striking contrast with the duke of Devonshire played by Ralph Fiennes in The Duchess.
A more linear approach might have worked better
I'm not certain, but based on my own sense of inconsistency throughout the story, I feel that they key to myself not being engaged with the story and not emphasising with any of the characters is the extreme narrative choices made by the filmmaker. We keep jumping between the innocent Seymour being emotionally manipulated by her husband to her older, more experienced self - in love with another man, while her husband is frustrated with the situation he got himself in. What could have been a clever move... actually stops you from watching this fascinating story unfold. When something is sexy, dramatic and outrageous in itself, I feel that there's no need for extra fancy moves - just let the audience watch an innocent girl turn into the object of gossip, a woman with 27 lovers, and a man with not so traditional sexual desires watch how his inclination turns against him. Never mind the whole plot line with the whip being used to 'reveal' Seymour's infidelity - on the first watch I completely missed all of it and felt that it was unnecessary complication in the story, immediately forgotten as soon as the tv was off. It would have made much sense if it was done in a chronological way - as it was, it was a pointless brain exercise that didn't progress the plot that much.
The second problem is the character development
Fifteen minutes in I stopped believing both Dormer and Evans. Their characters started falling flat as soon as Sir Richard's secret desire to watch his wife have sex with other men is revealed. He becomes way too harsh and insensitive - despite how gentle and caring he has been up to that point.
And Seymour? I get that she's an innocent girl brought up to be obedient and also believing that she should give herself to one man, that being her husband... However, the way sir Richard convinces, or rather forces her to have sex with his friend - that's strange. In the aftermath she looks up at him like a child - 'are you happy now?' For a woman who firmly repeated 'no' and tried to avoid the deed, she turns into a fool, ready to please her husband, way too soon. Would she not be bitter? Politeness and obedience aside, emotions are still the core thing that plays in sexual relationships. A woman who one day becomes brave enough to defy her husband and reveal her infidelity to the public in 18th century English society - that kind of woman would grow strong and fierce out of bitterness, suppressed aggression towards the man who made her become what she was, or - learning to enjoy it. No, not bearing it, but actually indulging in her own sexuality and the forbidden pleasures her marriage brought into her life so unexpectedly.
30 minutes into the film Seymour realises that it is her fortune that secured her marriage - and therefore that she should be free to choose her destiny. That sounds like a breaking point, a revelation, a turn from the innocent, obedient, suppressed wife into a woman who is in love and is willing to fight for it, rather than to let her husband dictate the rules. Going back to the narrative problem - the character development is broken down into so many pieces that it's almost impossible to follow, and hard to connect with.
Instead of juicy scandal in the first half of the film, the audience is given a very low on energy summary of what happened - it doesn't really escalate the conflict, as we'd already seen the outraged Sir Richard and the aftermath of their 'final battle', so to speak in traditional film tropes. By the time we get to the most interesting part of Seymour's journey, the scandal of her life, we already know the climax and the new equilibrium - the things that are supposed to be in the last 20-15 minutes of the film, so that the audience can gather their thoughts together, make their conclusions and realise how they feel after seeing the characters at their worst and at their best, failing, succeeding and overcoming obstacles.
Character development is key in period drama
I can't emphasise this enough. For a film set in rooms-bedrooms-dining halls, which is where most of this type of period drama films unfold, it is crucial that the characters and their interactions are the strongest asset. You can always forgive the historical inaccuracies (just think about Gladiator - considered to be one of the best films ever made), wonky cinematography and costumes (Reign, despite the outrageous modernisation and mysticism, remains an entertaining show and has a very loyal fanbase), but when it comes to historical period drama, you can't get away with 'not-quite-there' characters.
What I wanted to see
Given that the trailer and short film description gives away the main plot twist (spoiler alert: Seymour sleeps with a lot of men with her husband's permission), I wanted to see Seymour's story. Not a broken into pieces puzzle, but her journey - from the youthful romantic to the woman who knows her own mind and willingly admits her adultery in public. I mean... How's that for a character arc?! But even after watching it twice, I see the beginning and the end - with barely anything in the middle, unfortunately. I wanted to see her struggle, her quiet exploration of the taboo her husband dragged her in, the slowly building resistance inside of her.
In fact. I get what I want in the second half of the film
It gets so much better right after the midpoint. The moment the timeline is more or less as it should be, with appropriately placed flashbacks during the trial scenes, the acting becomes fluid and natural, and the pace picks up - it's the determination of the betrayed woman I feel, the disappointment of her new lover, the quiet support of her old friend - the man she first cheated/not-cheated with on her husband. And the satisfaction that is brought by admitting her downfall - Seymour smiles as each man indirectly confesses his part in her undoing, and it not only serves her cause in court, but is a slap back for each disgraceful encounter she endured.
Maybe, if the whole film was done the way the second half was, it would be the statement it is supposed to be - and a powerful one as well.
Comments