Stage Beauty

Comparisons between "Stage Beauty" and "Shakespeare in Love" are inevitable, but this 2004 film does not suffer much by the contrast to that Oscar winner for Best Picture. Both films deal with the conventions of the English stage that dictated the roles of women be played by men and while both have a woman who wants to play a woman's role, this one has a man who wants to play only women's roles. Both films conclude with a live performance in which the focal character ends up playing the opposite of their original roles. Both films are intricately involved with the Shakespeare plays being performed to such an extent that it goes beyond life imitating art. But whereas "Shakespeare in Love" was about writing and love, "Stage Beauty" is about acting and love, and I think it is ultimately more about its primary artistic focus than about romance.

When it comes to performing the classical plays of Shakespeare or the tragedies of the ancient Greeks, I believe in realistic (nee naturalistic) acting rather than following the acting conventions of those periods in contemporary performances. I enjoy those conventions, but I also think that if you can break the poetic constraints of the dialogue you can make those texts come alive for contemporary audiences. So one of the reasons "Stage Beauty" resonates so strong for me is that it not only endorses but also celebrates the idea that such realism can have much more of a profound impact on an audience that those historically accurate sytlistic conventions.

Half the inspiration for the original play "Compleat Female Stage Beauty" was when playwright Jeffrey Hatcher came across an entry in the diary of Samuel Pepys (Hugh Bonneville) that the actor Ned Kynaston was the most beautiful woman in the house when he was portraying one upon the stage. The other half was the decision of Charles II (Rupert Everett) to not only revoke the prohibition of women acting on stage, but to declare instead that henceforth only women would play female roles on the English stage. Thus we have the story of the most famous female impersonator of his day suddenly thrust into a world where he is no longer allowed to do what he does best.

Billy Crudup plays Kynaston and his success as a woman on stage hinges in part on the acting conventions of the time. He has studied the affected mannerisms demanded of the women characters on stage and if you would fault Kynaston's portrayal as Desdemona you can level the same charges against the Othello being played by Betterton (Tom Wilkinson). This is simply what acting was during the Stuart Restoration. Pointedly, a pair of women with aspirations towards acting on the stage doom Kynaston's career, one being his dresser, Maria (Claire Danes), who has memorized each inflection and gesture of his Desdemona and performed it in a tavern (which is technically not a theater). The other is Nell Gwynn (Zoe Tapper), the king's mistress, who has more than the king's ear when it comes to persuading him to change the way things are in the theaters of London.

There is, as you would suspect, some sexual tension between Maria and Kynaston, although it is more ardent on her part for most of the story. She loves him, but he loves acting. His argument against women playing women is that there is no "trick" to it. I was going to say that he means no skill to such performances, but he really does mean trick. Kyanston has studied his craft and literally suffered as his training stripped him of every aspect of acting masculine. He has the trick of creating the illusion of a perfect woman (for example, the five positions of feminine subjugation), without the skill of acting the part, and he is offended by the very idea that being born a woman would give Maria or any other woman any advantage in doing so. It is only when Maria and Kynaston discuss the tricks of being a woman versus being a man, after his life has been taken away from him, that he not only sees her as a woman but begins to see himself as a man. For her the key is her admission that she has never been able to do his Desdemona, not because it is mimicry, but because she disagrees vehemently with his premise that the character would not fight back when Othello murders her in her bed chamber.

This all sets up the grand finale and for me the last act of "Stage Beauty" when we get to the rehearsal and performance of the play is totally captivating. What we see is no less than the birth of naturalistic acting, which is exactly why I was so absorbed and why I know that those who have acted or directed actors will respond to those scenes and this movie in different ways from those whose vantage point has always been as members of the audience. Danes shows flashes of brilliance which we have not seen from her since her death scene in "Little Women." But Crudup gets special mention here, not only because his role is the pivotal one in the story and because he gets to play both Desdemona and Othello, but because his character is put through the wringer and has to evince two different styles of acting.

As a general rule, I try to avoid movies featuring men dressed as women. In the case of Stage Beauty, though, the cross-dressing is built upon the historic foundation of male-only performers in the 17th century London theatre. Claire Danes sweetened the pot enough for me to seek this movie out. I can't say I'm all that enamored with the film, though. It is sort of artsy, the kind of movie that makes you feel like you're supposed to adore it - but I just don't. Billy Crudup turned in a brave, amazing performance, but the story didn't completely click for me, and - I hate to say it - Claire Danes' performance came up a little short, as her character seemed to lack depth. Then there's the whole chemistry thing - basically, there isn't much of it to be found between Crudup and Danes, making the romantic angle of the story sort of weird and confusing.

As we all know, there was a time centuries ago when women were prohibited from performing on stage; instead, men played all the female characters. Here, Ned Kynaston (Crudup) is the most acclaimed "female" actor in 17th-century London, bringing the house down in roles such as Othello's Desdemona. Claire Danes plays his dresser, Maria. She studies his every move onstage and secretly performs the role herself at a nearby tavern. Kynaston finds out about Maria's acting debut at a royal dinner, but his attempt to cast calumny upon it backfires when King Charles decides to allow women to perform. Kynaston is necessarily a little unhappy about this, and he flat-out refuses to perform with Maria or any other woman onstage. Charles' little minx of a mistress soon talks (well, it's not really talking, but it does involve her mouth) the king into forbidding men to play female parts altogether. The celebrated Kynaston, "queen" of the London stage, is now without a job; to make matters worse, he's given a thorough thrashing by Maria's supporters. Kynaston, unwilling to play a male role, soon hits bottom - and it's really not pretty. Maria has a few problems of her own, as well; as celebrated as she is as the first woman of the London stage, she's not really a very good actress. Might it be that Maria and Kynaston need each other in order to find success and happiness?

This movie is really all about Billy Crudup and his character. There's one particularly poignant scene wherein Kynaston tries to show how easy it is to play a man - and fails miserably. Kynaston doesn't want to play men because there's no art involved in it, nor is there any beauty. He doesn't want to let the beauty die. He has spent years training for his profession, knows more about being a woman that Maria does, and feels utterly betrayed. It's a surprisingly powerful, emotional argument that gives the film a depth that nothing and no one else was able to supply. Of course, the most powerful scene comes at the very end, sending the movie out on a high note indeed.

Crudup is rather disturbingly feminine in his female guise; Danes, in contrast, is somewhat manly in terms of her actions and motivations. I never understood the feelings between their two characters; there's some kind of romantic flame winking in and out somewhere, but Maria is far too unfeeling early on to make whatever passion comes later believable to me. Anyone with a heart would take pity on the guy when he loses everything he cares about.

I should mention that Stage Beauty is surprisingly risque on several occasions - what with Kynaston having to convince a couple of admirers that he is in fact a gentleman, a lecherous courtier making advances on Kynaston in female guise, and a perverted king (and let me say, I hope I never again see a "king" dressed as a woman). There's only a modest amount of nudity, however (including one quick, slightly revealing shot of Claire Danes). There is also, I should mention, a kissing scene without any females in attendance - not my favorite scene.

In the end, my slight sense of disappointment with this film seems to come down to Claire Danes' performance. There just wasn't much depth there until the very end. I'm all in favor of women playing women, but I wasn't even sympathetic to Maria's cause. It's still a good movie, but I just think it could have been better. It's worth seeing, however, for Billy Crudup's tour de force performance, if nothing else.

We truly disliked this film. It seemed unfocused, and there was zero chemistry between any of the actors. I've seen autopsies that were more exciting and more pleasant, and I've also heard much better fake accents.

Most of the characters are completely unlikable (for example, the misogenistic male lead who obviously has many unresolved psychological issues), the script is shaky, and the only time we smiled when was the film ended.

You couldn't pay us enough to sit through it again. I hear a flushing noise every time I think of this stinker :-p