
Tags
The Favourite (2018)
There is a fine line between black comedy and satire, but blended well, the result is both funny and biting. The period comedy-drama The Favourite (2018)is another timely reminder that, from the hallowed halls of monarchy to the corridors of presidential rule, life at the top is never what it seems.
We know from previous absurdist works like The Lobster and The Killing of a SacredDeer that the Yorgos Lanthimos approach to British history was never going to be conventional. Set in the 18thcentury reign of Queen Anne (Olivia Coleman), The Favourite is a portrait of a monarch who today would be diagnosed as psychotic depressive. Her lesbian lover and principal court advisor Sarah Churchill (Rachel Weisz) makes all the key palace and parliamentary decisions while the queen struggles with gout and alcoholism, ruminating over her seventeen pet rabbits that substitute for her seventeen dead children. With Britain and France at war, this is not the time to have a dysfunctional monarch. Then along comes a cousin of Sarah’s, Abigail Hill (Emma Stone) who has fallen on hard times and in need of rescue. Initially given the most menial of work and lodging, Abigail’s cunning survival skills see her slip into the queen’s favour to soon displace Sarah as the royal favourite in court and bed.
With a simple linear storyline loosely based on history, narrative is not the drawcard of this film. What makes it stand out from the vast field of British period drama is outstanding performances from the three female principals, a clever script, and sumptuous set and costume design. Coleman’s performance of the imperiously vulnerable and erratic Queen Anne is superb, while Weisz and Stone are brilliant in their courtly pretensions and cat-fights over the Queen’s favour.
Like so much of the Lanthimos style, the visuals are exaggeratedly lavish, colourful, and large. The camera frequently resorts to a fish-eye lens which dwarfs the actors as if to remind us that even those who sit on thrones are mere specks in the cosmos of history. The dialogue is tuned for comedic impact and laced with contemporary f-bombs and other sexualised references to the royal personage. The script chooses funny over faithful at the cost of seriousness, but a hilarious royal dance scene unmistakably stamps mockery all over this court.
This is a thoroughly entertaining film, brilliantly acted, and dominated by complex and ambitious women. Its contribution to our understanding of history lies in showing us yet again the frailty and fickleness behind the masks of power.
Director: Yorgos Lanthimos
Stars: Olivia Coleman, Rachel Weisz, Emma Stone
Great review! Distilled and made cogent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you Christine.
LikeLike
This was a great film; well acted and cleverly constructed. When I returned home I headed straight for the computer only to find much to my amazement, that it was at least based on true events in history, though no doubt interpreted with a degree of dramatic licence.
Entertaining and informative (though I use the term ‘ informative’ loosely).
LikeLiked by 1 person
The dramatic licence was most evident in that amazing dance scene; can you see that happening at the time?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for your reply Richard. I admit to having to find footage of the dance scene to refresh my memory. It WAS extremely memorable, but my mind is still full of images from “Vice” which I saw yesterday.
The dance sequence was hardly in keeping with the staid dances of the times and was visually arresting. This was one of many images that disturbed my equilibrium. I enjoyed that aspect though I understand it was not to everyone’s liking. I also enjoyed the use of the fish eye lens. Again, not everyone’s cup of tea.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great review! It took me a few days to fully digest this movie but I really enjoyed it. Some scenes were so absurdly outrageous, and it was funny throughout.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Absurdly outrageous” expresses it well. Nice to see you again.
LikeLike
Everyone here is so good. Especially Stone. Nice review.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great review! I had seen The Lobster and did not enjoy it. But I loved this film. I also love the way you describe the effect of the fish-eye photography. I hadn’t thought of it quite like that, just found it visually new and fun, but I wholeheartedly agree that it serves to shrink the humans.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Camera angle, framing, and lens type are the artists brush in cinematography. For example: angling down diminishes a subject, while angling up empowers them. Close-up frames express the feelings or perspective of a person, and wide frames emphasise action and relation to things and others. A fish-eye lens can distort reality or reduce subjects in statue, and a shallow depth of field lens emphasises the plane of focus. One of my careers was in professional photography so I notice these things and they impact on how I read a film. Once you begin to notice, it broadens how you interpret the director’s intentions.
LikeLike
Well, the fish-eye shots enhanced the distorted reality of this film…in a beautiful way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Can’t wait to see this! I love Rachel Weisz. I’m all for outstanding performances.
LikeLike
I agree about Weisz. Did you see her in Denial? Its one for you.
LikeLike
I sure did! She was very good. I remember your review!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I watched it! Phenomenal acting, her speech at the Oscar’s actually brought a tear to mine eye for its true bare honesty and disbelief at being chosen. It’s filthy, lavish and real – just as it probably was. I don’t bother much with period pieces, but Dangerous Liaisons (all hail the God within) and this win bestest Cloud awards from the Cloud. Very impressed with Rachel W for the lean into character actress rather than glamour as well, she pulled it off (sir) – Esme pegging it fast grinning.
LikeLiked by 1 person