Drugstore.com Coupons
Kynaston is famous, but his vocation is threatened when his hottie dresser, Maria (Claire Danes), and the King's mistress (Zoe Tapper), convince the King to allow actresses on stage. Once out of favor, Kynaston goes straight downhill, until Danes stages an one-woman intervention. Is her motivation pity, guilt, maternal, or sexual? Do we care?
How I felt about it. This movie is aimed at the Shakespeare in Love crowd. Women are equals, regardless of the time period or culture involved. Our heroine, Danes, becomes a groundbreaking actress, and also manages to correct an injustice done to Kynaston, even though he was mean to her in the past. She even manages to convert him to heterosexuality.
I was dubious of this movie for at least three reasons. The sexual frankness seemed excessive, particularly when scenes include the King. The inclusion of historical figures bothered me, such as noted diarist Samuel Pepys (Hugh Bonneville), not to mention the King of England. Is the film guilty of name-dropping?
The third problem is that the characters, rid of any normal inhibitions, act too much like they are from the year 2004, instead of 1664. All films are a product of their era, but some show it much more than others. The Duke of Buckingham may have had gay sex with a famous stage drag queen while (s)he wore a Rapunzel wig, and Kynaston may have had a matter-of-fact discussion about gay lover role-playing with a fascinated Danes, but these scenes seem artificial. They are devised to appeal to our prurient nature, perhaps the wrong angle of approach to achieve interest.
Moderate post-film internet research reveals no whopping historical inaccuracies. King Charles II did have a mistress who became an actress. He was interested in the theater, as was Pepys, and women were allowed to act during this era. Unusual liberalism may well have existed, even at court, as a reaction to the excessive conservatism during Cromwell's "protectorate." But while the film may not be bad history, that doesn't mean it qualifies as good comedy, or compelling drama. Instead of being baldly bogus, it is bogus in insidious ways.
Danes gets too much credit for the decisions of theater operators, and her too-flexible character shows surprising (and unduly effective) devotion to her formerly scorned mentor. Kynaston the gay drag queen becomes Kynaston the manly actor, a coach and (presumably) lover to Danes. Together, they introduce a style of acting alien to the Shakespearean theater until at least the 1940s.