"W.E.": Madonna Fetishizes Subject at Story's Cost

Location Info

Map

Bridge Theatre

3010 Geary
San Francisco, CA 94118

Category: Movie Theaters

Region: Richmond (Inner)

Photos

0 user reviews	Write A Review
Save to foursquare

Related Content

• Boobylicious: Five Insanely Breast-Centric Stage Outfits
  April 17, 2013
• Kanye West Says He's Like Picasso. Here Are 5 Equally Egomaniacal Musicians
  February 28, 2013
• Five Disturbing Tales of Plots to Kill Musicians
  March 20, 2013
• Five Musicians' Kids Who Have Better Jobs Than You
  March 13, 2013
• Sizzle & Fizzle: Highs and Lows from the Last Week in S.F. Music
  March 6, 2013

More About

• Wallis Simpson
• Madonna (Entertainer)
• W.E. (Movie)
• Celebrity News
• Arts, Entertainment, and Media

W.E. is the second feature film credited to former MTV queen Madonna and the second film in about a year — after The King's Speech — to dramatize the empire-imperiling affair between King Edward (James D'Arcy) and American divorcee Wallis Simpson (Andrea Riseborough), a woman who couldn't be queen. The movie was lambasted by critics at the fall festivals, with many citing a late-inning scene in which a Benzedrine-addled, circa-'30s Simpson dirty dances to "Pretty Vacant" by the Sex Pistols as particularly indicative of its maker's cluelessness. But Madonna's anachronistic use of music is the least of her movie's problems. It's basic storytelling that stymies her. In telling of the Simpson affair through the blatantly whacked lens of Wally (Abbie Cornish), an unhappy trophy wife in late-'90s Manhattan who becomes obsessed with the "fairy tale" romance of Wallis and Edward when the couple's effects are auctioned by Sotheby's, Madonna borrows heavily from the music-video form she has already mastered: aesthetics-first, with an anything-is-possible anti-logic. There is a kernel of a fascinating film here about the dangers of coveting luxuries (particularly someone else's) and of imbuing beautiful things with imagined life. But as Wally's story goes on (and on, and on . . .), the film falls increasingly deeper into the fetishization it takes as its subject, repeatedly imbuing clothes and jewelry with heavy symbolism, forgetting any impulse to critique. Still, a shot of a pearl necklace falling off a woman as her husband is beating her is too dumb to really gall.