miscast
-
jh66 — 12 years ago(February 13, 2014 02:07 AM)
Oooooh, touchy? Lol. I bet you're stamping your tiny feet and got your manicured hands on your childbearing hips?
I think your username and girly over-sensitivity prove your own worth here, not that other guy you failed to flame! -
SimplemindedSociety — 12 years ago(February 13, 2014 01:44 PM)
'Oooooh, touchy? Lol. I bet you're stamping your tiny feet and got your manicured hands on your childbearing hips?'
I don't have those physical characteristics. Why, do you want/need me too? are you projecting?
'I think your username and girly over-sensitivity prove your own worth here, not that other guy you failed to flame!'Why ,does sensitivity bother you because you lack such? If we lived in a world with more sensitive people, it would be a better place. Of course,if you knew you were insensitive,you would no longer be insensitive. Are you afraid of being perceived as girly if you emote? This is something you need to work on,or carry on in your primitive ways.
Hope I helped. -
spookyrat1 — 12 years ago(February 15, 2014 01:01 AM)
Some how I'm not sure this debate would be taking place if we were watching Hampton's play upon which the screenplay is partly based.
Glenn Close and John Malkovich steal the show IMO as the slimy, immoral patricians attempting to wreak havoc on their fellow aristocrats.
There don't appear to be many other substitute suggestions apart from the those in Valmont, which is OK I supposefor a less successful film. -
jeskavandetta — 12 years ago(March 08, 2014 07:37 PM)
A nice face is timeless.
That's the dumbest thing I've ever read.
What is considered a "nice face" is highly subjective. I know that I, for one, tend to like big noses (Jewish or Iranian shapes in particular) others may prefer different shaped eyes, different sized lips, &c. Of course, the idea that the perfect face is anyway timeless doesn't take into account the fact that different shapes are quite obviously more prominent among different ethnicities - how do you suppose the Sub-Saharan Africans or East Asians, for example, who don't fit your Eurocentric ideal of beauty have managed to reproduce for so many years? -
Elynne — 12 years ago(March 12, 2014 08:15 PM)
Having read this whole thread, I tried to figure out where the best spot would be for me to add my POV, and the sentence "They would have considered themselves to be attractive" is a very good observation. People who carry themselves in a certain way because they have an air of self-confidence will draw people to them, whether they are particularly good-looking or not.
But there's more to it than that. DL is a movie about people who were wealthy aristocrats, and just that fact would cause them to think very highly of themselves and to believe that they could get whatever and whomever they wanted. Also, because they were aristocrats, the peasants from that time period also probably envied them and thought them to be the most attractive and desirable, yet unattainable people on earth. Remember ~~~ there wasn't much of a "middle class" in those days; you were either very wealthy or you were as poor as dirt. -
furienna — 13 years ago(February 24, 2013 09:23 AM)
I too never understood how Uma Thurman's character could fall for John Malkovic's character, or how Keanu Reeves's character could fall for Glenn Close's character. I could maybe see Michelle Pfieffer's character falling for John Malkovic's character, but that's it.
Intelligence and purity. -
sarizonana — 13 years ago(March 13, 2013 06:40 PM)
I'm not a huge fan of John Malckovicth but I thought he had great chemistry with Glenn Close and that helped him a lot in his performance.
Glenn Close well I think I think she was amazing here.
She is not beautiful like let's say Catherine Zeta Jones right now or Angelina Jolie but she is attractive in a sophisticated way, she was sexy avoiding the typical cliches in a sexy type of performance.
I loved Glenn's casting in this film.
I'm so glad they didn't go for typical beauty for this part. -
bridgetjones12002 — 13 years ago(March 16, 2013 11:54 AM)
I saw absolutely no chemistry with John Malkovich and any of them, but irony of ironies, he did have a real life love affair with Michelle Pfeiffer when they met on this film. I actually preferred the film VALMONT with Colin Firth in the John Malkovich role, Annette Bening in the Glenn Close role (she was evil) and Meg Tilly in the UMA Thurman role where she and Colin fell in love and had a child together. Seems like there was more going on behind the scenes of these films that was actually on the screen LOL.
Remember us, for we too have lived, loved and laughed -
MyMovieTVRomance — 12 years ago(October 27, 2013 06:23 PM)
She is not beautiful like let's say Catherine Zeta Jones right now or Angelina Jolie
And, thank goodness for that!
but she is attractive in a sophisticated way
Amen! The best kind of attractive, outside of good vs. bad.
she was sexy avoiding the typical cliches in a sexy type of performance.
I loved Glenn's casting in this film.
As did I.! I tried to watch the remake with Annette Bening, but I didn't get through it, because I just couldn't imagine anyone but Glenn in the role, and she made a Annette Bening character looks so sub par!
Please excuse typos/funny wording; I use speech-recognition that doesn't always recognize! -
sarizonana — 12 years ago(November 08, 2013 09:15 PM)
And, thank goodness for that!
OfCourse, that's what makes this film so special
Amen! The best kind of attractive, outside of good vs. bad
Couldn't agree more with that, Actually if there was another adaptation I'd cast an actress in a similar type of sophisticated beauty like Kristin Scott Thomas.
As did I.! I tried to watch the remake with Annette Bening, but I didn't get through it, because I just couldn't imagine anyone but Glenn in the role, and she made a Annette Bening character looks so sub par!
I haven't seen Valmont with Colin Firth and Annette Bening but I feel like they are too cute or soft for those roles, I saw the modern take and even though it was very good SMG and Ryan Philipie fall a bitt into cliches of sex appeal and evil. -
coolbluegreen — 12 years ago(October 02, 2013 10:19 PM)
Really? It might be interesting to you to know that Michelle Pfeiffer and John Malkovich got together during this film (he left his wife) and had a long affair. I guess she found him attractive and lord knows she is gorgeous.
-
hafabee — 12 years ago(November 11, 2013 01:50 AM)
I believe that the casting director looked at who fit the role best, acting wise, not who looked the part best. After watching this version I can't stomach any other, the actors here just fit their roles so well they made them their own. These actors aren't unattractive either you know; they might not be underwear models but they're all charming and good looking.
-
sarizonana — 11 years ago(October 10, 2014 09:29 PM)
I think so too that he was looking more for who fitted the best acting wise instead of looks wise and There is exactly where debate Relays on.
Some say including me and obviously you that it was a good choice picking the actors more based on who were the better actors for these roles acting wise since their performances who transmit that sex appeall anf would bring other stuff to the table like for example Glenn Close that evilness the role required and the experience on what made Cecile trust her so much and made Cecile's mom think she was good influence on her daughter.
If there was a live TV debate this would be our argument in favor of closing the best acting wise.
On the other aside who prefer them fitting the parts better looks wise
Have the argument of this characters were famous and got away on what they did for their natural SEX APPEAL, CHARM and LOOKS. Those were their main weapons or tools.
They also argue that everybody should have felt the sexiness of thr characters and their appeal should be obvious.
The thing is both sides have a good argument for our position : we the people who prefer fitting the parts talent wise and the ones on the other side.
It would be cool to see a TV debate on this novel and its adaptations.
Personally if I'd make my own version I'd be getting closer to what Frears did or the casting director I'd DL did.
My cast would be
Valmont: Ralph Fiennes or Daniel Day Lewis
Merteuil Kristin Scott Thomas, Kate Winslet or Cate Blanchett
Madamme de Tourvell : Natalie Portman, Keira Knightley or Jessica Chastain.
Cecile : Amanda Seyfried, Tamzin Merchant who played Catherine Howard in The Tudors or Jennifer Lawrence
Rapahel Danceny : Liam Hemsworth.
Madame de Volanges : Glenn Close. -
LaissezFaire_Aggeliki — 12 years ago(February 11, 2014 05:42 AM)
Well, I totaly agree with you. Neither Malcovic nor Close do it for me at all which is subjective of course, but I really don't think they can be considered attractive enough for those roles at any era, not by any "objective" standard either.
I can see their charm coming from the brilliance of their acting, their strong real-life personalities and the great direction of the film. But may I remind you, those two characters are not supposed to inspire true love or admiration or respect or any other noble/deep/everlasting feelings to the other characters. They just need to inspire overwhelming sexual attraction, physical fascination and lust, they are predators, professional seducers. And both actors are just
not
sexy enough to fall for so hard; they are not nearly as irresistible, handsome and fatally hot as they should be. -
rascal67 — 12 years ago(February 13, 2014 04:28 AM)
And both actors are just not sexy enough to fall for so hard; they are not nearly as irresistible, handsome and fatally hot as they should be.
They are represented as mature, intelligent, supposedly wiser characters and had their own unique appeal. Close oozed sex appeal in FATAL ATTRACTION from the previous year, even though she wasn't traditionally hot as Douglas's wife played by Anne Archer. It worked fine and she was believable.
Close and Malkovich complemented each other here, as neither is a stunner in looks department, but they were sublime together. Too much emphasis is put on looks and sex appeal can derive from the commanding presence of a person. Uma Thurman's character was a silly little teen, who liked the attention that Malkovich adorned on her and was a man of influence and persuasion. Pfeiffer's character, was not so shallow as to be smitten by just good looks. This would have made the challenge even more ambitious. I would say, this film was perfectly cast, due to the skill in which the material was presented.
Milos Forman's VALMONT-89', the following year had Annette Benning and Colin Firth in the 2 lead roles and could be considered more appropriate lookers for their characters. I would have to view again to comment on the film, as only seen once and years ago. Don't recall being as impressed as DL though. -
LaissezFaire_Aggeliki — 12 years ago(February 26, 2014 11:44 AM)
rascal67:
They are represented as mature, intelligent, supposedly wiser characters
Yes of course, I agree. But any good actor/actress of their acting league and their age would have portrayed all those attributes successfully, for that's only a matter of (great) script and direction. But are those attributes enough to drag a woman like Pfeiffer's character into distruction and death? I don't think so. (Cinematically, I mean, because in real life people have driven themselves mad for much lesser seducers than those two. In cinema usually everything has to be magnified and more "stereotypical" of sorts to be believable, and for us viewers to relate with. That's the nature of the beast, and much more when it comes to such stylized, stereotypical characters and eras, imo.)
So, just imagine if those attributes also had stunning looks as a bonus they would be so much more believable, I think. Because yes, Close was sexy in Fatal Attraction, sexy enough to seduce a married man into an one-night-stand or even a brief affair. But she was not nearly sexy enough to make Douglas leave his wife or jeopardize his married life, not by far, or, much more so, to ruin his life by making him fall into depression or die for her love, as Pfeiffer's character did for Valmont. I don't think Close could ever play a femme-fatale successfully (which oddly enough Meryl Sreep did), for the simple reason that she's not beautiful enough, as cruel as this sounds. Same goes for Malkovich. Looks are not something significant generally, not for me, but for, let's say, "iconic" roles of famous seducers they are actually essential. Imagine Casanova played by some average looking bloke. I can't imagine the beastly sex-appeal this actor should have to be believable, but it should certainly be more than Malkovich's.
I watched 1989 Valmont very recently, and I have to say, Colin Firth was da bomb imo. He was exquisite. And Benning was not bad, eventhough she didn't have the gravitas of Firth. The '89 film was a lighter but not a shallow one, and frankly, I enjoyed it more, because of guess what? Firth's natural playful charm and hotness. The man is just beautiful and acts great (and I'm not even his fan, lol).
But I sure have to agree with what you said about Close/Malkovich being sublime in their interaction, as a pair. Yes, they were powerful and amazing, and their extreme passion for each other was totally believable. But this passion was different from the one they aimed to inspire to their seduction victims. Their mutual passion rooted much deeply than any other, it was like two beasts recognizing their mutual dark scent and be captivated forever, I don't know how to express it. Anyway, in the end that was all this film was about, I think, their soul-eating, excruciating relationship. And Close's shuttering scream and amok when she heard about Valmont's death was worth watching the whole film, and then some. God, Close is an amazing actress.