|
I have to admit that I was really excited when I first heard
about this project. I really enjoyed the first mini-series, and
the prospect of a similar concept but with lesbians instead sounded
excellent on paper. Unfortunately only two-thirds of it really
delivered.
It is easiest to deal with this film as three separate films,
because quality varied quite dramatically over the course of the
three stories.
1961
This was easily my favourite of the three films, though difficult
and extremely uncomfortable to watch. Who wants to be bitterly
reminded of the kinds of treatment we and our partners might have
to look forward to when we get older? Because let's face it, anyone
who thinks that this story couldn't just as easily happen today
is kidding themselves.
Edith Tree (Vanessa Redgrave in a heart wrenching performance)
and Abby, her partner, have lived together since they were young
women, sharing every aspect of their lives, being truly married
in everything but law. When Abby dies, Edith not only gets forgotten
at the hospital, but is invaded by Abby's next-of-kin who insist
on selling the house and everything she and Abby have built from
under her.
While it isn't really clear if Abby's relatives (with a particularly
acid-filled performance by Elizabeth Perkins) know of the nature
of Edith and Abby's relationship, it clearly makes no difference
to them. The supreme dignity Edith projects whilst faced with
such tragedy had me speechless. It was a powerful beginning.
1972
I was expecting huge things from this second instalment. Penned
by the Sichel sisters who were responsible for the wonderful All
Over Me, and starring Chloë Sevigny who I was awestruck
by in Boys Don't Cry, who wouldn't expect big things? And
for the most part it delivers.
Linda (Michelle Williams) is a feminist, strong willed and a
proud lesbian. She lives with her equally hard headed friends
(including Natasha Lyonne in an underwritten and pretty annoying
role), decrying the forces of discrimination and prejudice. When
Linda falls for young butch Amy (Chloë Sevigny, looking nothing
less than supremely sexy) she is forced to face her own prejudices
against those lesbians who don't fit her feminist ideals.
Michelle Williams was the real find here. I have never been a
fan of Dawson's Creek, and I was dubious at the thought of seeing
her in this type of role, but the change in hair colour does wonders
(I'm serious!) and her willingness to put everything on the line
for the role really pays off.
Despite what I thought was some pretty unrealistic and clunky
dialogue, the two leads managed to maintain enough chemistry between
them to keep the story pumping along. However, it just didn't
have the power of the first instalment. That being said, the sex
scene between Linda and Amy was amazing. It is just a joy seeing
this kind of representation on television. I thought it would
never happen.
2000
Easily the weakest of the trilogy, Sharon Stone and Ellen Degeneres
felt like they were reading from cue cards throughout this entire
instalment. They had no chemistry as a couple, and Degeneres never
managed to tear herself away from her TV show "Ellen"
persona.
The two play Fran and Kal, a couple who are desperate to have
a baby, and they decide to get artifically inseminated. Thus follows
a series of hijinks involving the sperm bank, and some nauseating
scenes where Kal basically gives a speech on gay rights to the
camera with Fran cooking aimlessly in the background. If this
was a novel I'd be reminding the writer of the "show not
tell" principal.
People watch shows for the characters and the story, but in between
the weak comedy sequences and politicising there wasn't much to
watch here. I was especially amused at how Degeneres and Stone
managed to have a sex scene for a good five minutes in which the
two women seemed like they were utterly embarrassed by having
to touch each other intimately. Give me Chloë and Michelle's
sizzling scenes any day.
In summary...
If all three of the stories had managed to sustain the intensity
and integrity of the first instalment this would have been a film
event to be reckoned with. As it was you're left with a vaguely
unsatisfied feeling, and a desire to rewind the tape and watch
the first part again, just to end it all on a more memorable note.
Got a comment? Write to me at nancyamazon@gmail.com
|