tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7348815.post2149118835373762105..comments2024-03-18T03:28:01.889-06:00Comments on Gossamer Obsessions: History vs. Romance - "The Duchess"AnimeJunehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18229748454410488167noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7348815.post-48273555821485307132022-02-22T12:55:47.353-07:002022-02-22T12:55:47.353-07:00Why could he have an affair and have his kids by b...Why could he have an affair and have his kids by bess in the house and bess kids by someone else but the duchess had to give up both her lover and kidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7348815.post-33008271906316101512018-11-25T14:18:25.074-07:002018-11-25T14:18:25.074-07:00Thanks for writing. Just a couple of observations ...<br />Thanks for writing. Just a couple of observations of what I say differently.<br /><br />1)"Almost every situation concerns her romantic or married life - her marriage to the Duke, <br />her friendship with Bess, her affair with Charles Grey, so we get a sense of the romantic<br />and sexual side of her personal". <br /><br />I only half agree. Over half of the film, the relationshop with Grey is not romantic. Her <br />friendship with Bess was geniune (at first from her G's perspective), not about sex despite <br />the frivolous bedroom scene. I don't even consider this film a "romance" until closer to the<br />end. Yes, the marriage is a cental part of the film but for obvious reasons. This is a <br />feminist film to highlight the struggle of women and they way she is trapped and powerless, <br />in many ways. So I may agree with you but it depends. It sounds like you are implying that <br />they only focus on the frivlous romantic things of her life because this is a typical modern<br />Hollywod sexist romance film. No! Quite the opposite. They take out the "real" things in her <br />life like her accomplishments and driven personality because that would clash with the narrow <br />feminist narrative that they have focused on.<br /><br />2) "The film dwells .... also on G's outrage about her husband's affair with her BFF Bess. <br />In the biography, she's not so naive. Nor is she as nonplussed by the Duke's bastard <br />daughter Charlotte". Naive. I don't think it was naive to not expect your husband to sleep <br />with your best friend. Like she said, it is one thing to put up with your affiars with maids<br />or whatever, but not my best friend. Besides, her surprise could just as well been over ther<br />betrayel by her friend. <br /><br />Bet you say this is all to support the modern Romantic idea. That is she must have a naive <br />view of adultury. Well again, no. This is to support the feminist narrative. She must be portrayed<br />as the innocent who is oppressed and even trapped, "having no other option" as her mother says. <br />Being free to have many relationships/affairs would betray that narrative. <br /><br />3)"In order to preserve the film's romantic narrative, Bess is transformed into a romantic, <br />self-sacrificing woman wronged by fate (rather than the consequences of her own actions)". <br /><br />Lol,in order to fabricate the feminist narrative of the film they completly lie about her life, <br />including making her husband a wife-beater. She is there to witness the rape of G, or at least hear<br />it through the door, as one of the girls comes up. This is to illistrate the (fabricated) rape or<br />abuse that all women as her have to deal with.<br /><br />4) Now, the Duke. And the rape scence. You provide 2 possible explanations, but for some strange reason <br />ignore the obvious. SMH. Sigh..here we go again. It was added because it first the feminist narrative of<br />the histoic raping of women both real and figuratively. To them it is irrelevant if there was a specific <br />rape. The marriage itself was a rape to them. And it is not just about sex. G askes her husband for <br />something fair, I suppose, and what does he do. He demonstrates he's power - "Deal. I don't make deals. I <br />just do because I am in charge". So this fits 100% perfectly with the feminist narrative. Because it the rap<br />was not about sex. Maybe it was not even about an heir. It was a demonstration of power. But since this entire<br />narrative is total feminista bulls*** fiction, it amounts to nothing by bullsh*** lies.<br /><br />Great film though still. Had me at the edge of my seat at a few times. And the acting was wonderful. But <br />total f**** fictions. Worse than fiction. It is libel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7348815.post-7021058270749567812016-10-21T04:31:33.828-06:002016-10-21T04:31:33.828-06:00Great post!
I will read the books, either The Dutc...Great post!<br />I will read the books, either The Dutchess of Devonshire and Marie Antoinette.<br />I saw the movies but by the posts here it seems that the books are more real story than movies.<br /><br />ThanksSara Branconoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7348815.post-14670968694917099652014-06-23T21:40:09.527-06:002014-06-23T21:40:09.527-06:00@Gossamer Obsessions ... Oh what a shame ... you h...@Gossamer Obsessions ... Oh what a shame ... you haven't replied to any of the comments. I hope it was just because you're busy, that you're well.denisebreslinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7348815.post-22929721830997624522014-06-23T21:37:26.872-06:002014-06-23T21:37:26.872-06:00Thank you so much for this comparison. You did a ...Thank you so much for this comparison. You did a great job!! I read the book quite awhile ago so couldn't remember all the "facts." I was, however, a bit shocked at the film as I knew it was deviating greatly from the historical story. What occurred to me, reading your comparison, was how very similar to Georgiana Princess Diana was: both tall with reddish hair, very outgoing, beautiful, fashionable, married to dullards, active in the world. Diana definitely had the Georgiana genes!! I hate the way these films think an audience needs rape and morality to tell a great story.denisebreslinnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7348815.post-35925113128302461752012-12-30T04:01:03.937-07:002012-12-30T04:01:03.937-07:00I had the same question. I think they had to have ...I had the same question. I think they had to have continued to see one another. I read he had several affairs behind his wife's back because she was always pregnant. Eliza got to see her mom so often, she even named her firstborn after her; Georgina. I would venture to guess they continued meeting in secret in much the same way she did with Eliza; her daughter. If anyone else found proof of this, please let us know here. I hope they continued to see each other and I'm glad the rape scene was fabricated. Great post! Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08395345735756923521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7348815.post-92162497930684801162010-12-10T23:34:01.772-07:002010-12-10T23:34:01.772-07:00did the duchess and Charles Grey continue their af...did the duchess and Charles Grey continue their affair after their daughter was born? It said that G would sneak off and see Eliza but did she ever sneak off and see Charles as well? Or, did their affair totally end once she rejected his proposal for her to leave her husband and children to be with him?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7348815.post-66215950800777927022010-08-08T07:41:56.614-06:002010-08-08T07:41:56.614-06:00Hey, i loved this post :)
1 question though, so w...Hey, i loved this post :) <br />1 question though, so was Charles Grey 'the love of Georgiana's life'? or was he kind of just 1 person in a string of affairs, that she didn't really care too much for?Chrissynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7348815.post-33795558774278873902010-06-07T20:31:30.202-06:002010-06-07T20:31:30.202-06:00This analysis (more academically framed and cited)...This analysis (more academically framed and cited) is precisely the type of thing we'd love to see at the Journal of Popular Romance Studies. Or, a little less formally, at the Film and History Conference in November, 2010: http://www.uwosh.edu/filmandhistory/<br /><br />IASPR is sponsoring a few panels if you're interested. Email Eric Selinger about them. :)Sarah S. G. Frantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12806353006812086825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7348815.post-30475401414412907882010-04-22T22:28:25.895-06:002010-04-22T22:28:25.895-06:00Really interesting post. Probably because I actua...Really interesting post. Probably because I actually saw The Duchess unlike most of the movies out in the last ten years. :)<br /><br />I would even go so far as to say the movie is aimed at an American audience, with our conflicted cheap sexuality yet puritanical romantic visions.<br /><br />I do know what Antonia means, I watched How Green Was My Valley (1941) a while ago and while there were things cut, it was astoundingly faithful to the book.Heloisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03792162189480854469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7348815.post-62951153680565972112010-04-22T18:08:59.027-06:002010-04-22T18:08:59.027-06:00Your review definitely makes me want to hurry up a...Your review definitely makes me want to hurry up and go through my TBR pile and read the book. Since you've enjoyed "The Duchess", and in case you might want to review something like this again, I can recommend Antonia Fraser's biography on Marie Antoinette. I don't know if you've read it, but it's a great book. The movie with Kirsten Dunst is based on it and based on what you've said about the differences between the book and the movie, you might find even bigger ones with Marie Antoinette than with the Duchess.<br /><br />Speaking of the Duchess, I can't exactly blame the screenwriters/producers/movie people for cutting and modifying so many aspects about the plot and the characters, with time management and all. <br /><br />However, I can't help but be disappointed at how little in common the adaptations nowadays have with the books. I've been watching a lot of older movie adaptations and they seem to be truer to the story. I can't exactly explain it. Maybe the movie industry is getting more commercial by the year, or maybe not that many people have patience ot interest to read longer books anymore, and they're only tempted to do so if they think that the book will contain the exact things that were shown in the movies. It's sad. You've pointed out so many aspects of Georgiana's life that could have a better fit in the movie than some of the other events they've chosen to portray. <br /><br />I don't know if that makes any sense.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7348815.post-24306177131659057422010-04-22T08:35:07.689-06:002010-04-22T08:35:07.689-06:00Kaetrin --> One other key scene was the whole &...Kaetrin --> One other key scene was the whole "stop seeing Grey or I'll take your children" scene. The book never goes into terrible detail about what the Duke thought of Georgiana's affairs - mostly, he was the angriest at her gambling debts and her tendency to lie and obfuscate them until they grew too big to ignore. <br /><br />The scene with Eliza (G and Grey's child) was different too - THAT was something the Duke wouldn't tolerate. She didn't just go "into the country" as in the movie, she was sent to the Continent in EXILE, with very little money, where she basically had to entertain herself and not see her children for more than a year until the Duke deigned to send for her. <br /><br />And she didn't only have Bess for company, either - her mother, sister, brother-in-law, hell a host of people went with her. G ended up giving up Eliza because otherwise she wouldn't be able to see her other children (the Duke tolerated Bess' illegitimate children in the household but not G's). <br /><br />Eliza did go to live with Grey's family, and Charles was reportedly charmed by her, but Foreman states that she had a rather unhappy childhood - her foster parents (her paternal grandparents) weren't cruel but they weren't happy-go-lucky about her situation, either. She ended up in a really happy marriage, though!<br /><br />I really liked Fiennes' portrayal of the Duke - he was very awkward, but you got a sense that he literally DIDN'T know how to act otherwise around women, he was very shy and reserved. And he did care about Georgiana in his way.AnimeJunehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18229748454410488167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7348815.post-91334636932398251372010-04-21T22:44:43.789-06:002010-04-21T22:44:43.789-06:00I have a question too (and, like Magdalen I'm ...I have a question too (and, like Magdalen I'm too lazy to read the biography!). You mentioned that Fiennes' portrayal was right on the money and the movie was accurate except for a few key scenes. The rape scene was one of them. What were the others? Did the Duke tolerate G's affairs? Did G have to give up her daughter with Charles like in the movie? Did G & the Duke know each other at all before the marriage? (I know, I know, I should just read the book.... LOL!!)<br /><br />As for your questions about morals, I agree that the facts were changed to make the story more acceptable to the modern movie goer. When I saw it, I had to remind myself that the Duke was a man of his times and (apart from the rape) didn't do anything wrong (even then, rape of one's wife was no crime in that time and she was his property to "use" as he wished so, arguably had that happened, he didn't do anything that society (at the time) considered wrong) (but that's probably another discussion). I'm happy that the biography doesn't say he raped her though! <br /><br />It was only when I reminded myself that the Duke was just being a Duke in the regency (or whenever it was!) that I didn't hate his character. As a modern gal, I certainly wanted to. (I hadn't been exposed to many real dukes before; most of the dukes in my reading are defenders of women's rights, hawt, commanding, dashing, handsome, sexy, etc - not like the actual dukes of the time!!Kaetrinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16936055488367251592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7348815.post-9959411310677917512010-04-21T16:58:47.033-06:002010-04-21T16:58:47.033-06:00Magdalen --> from the biography, it seems it ca...Magdalen --> from the biography, it seems it can be both. Bess certainly seemed to be doing it for security, and Lady Jersey (a nasty piece of work who briefly was mistress to the Prince of Wales) for power. Not in Georgiana's case, I don't think - most of her political influence came from her platonic friendships with Charles Fox and the Prince of Wales as well as her own intellectual and persuasive powers.<br /><br />Also - the Duke of Devonshire was one of the most powerful men in England, so by comparison Charles Grey was slumming it, and the Duke of Dorset was more or less equal.<br /><br />But yes - definitely the movie tries to make every sexual encounter about sexual attraction and love instead of say, financial security or political connection, if that's what you mean.AnimeJunehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18229748454410488167noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7348815.post-28439959640789130422010-04-21T16:48:22.186-06:002010-04-21T16:48:22.186-06:00I have a question (and it's due to my profound...I have a question (and it's due to my profound laziness that I'll ask you rather than read Foreman's biography and figure it out for myself).<br /><br />Are "affairs," in the context of Georgiana's life and times, primarily events of sexual attraction and consummation? Or are they also events of political and intellectual attractions?<br /><br />I have a vague notion that we, today, have a need to believe that two people have sex because of their sexual attraction. That way, the sex *matters*. But I wonder if back then, there wasn't greater emphasis on whether someone was intellectually and politically powerful, and so one might have sex with such a person even without a lot of the affair being about the sex?<br /><br />So -- great expert on the Duchess of Devonshire -- what say you?<br /><br />(signed)<br /><br />Lazy ReaderAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com