Movie Review: Sylvia Scarlett
Oct. 10th, 2010 02:53 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
osprey_archerSylvia Scarlett has Cary Grant - and Katherine Hepburn - and cross-dressing; and ought, therefore, to be awesome.
BUT NO.
It's awful. It is, first of all, boring. Although many things happen, they seem only vaguely connected and don't add up to a coherent plot. But even if Sylvia Scarlett had a plot, it wouldn't matter because it's impossible to care about the characters. What characters? At least cardboard cutouts would have been coherent.
Grant is cast against type as a lower-class conman with a heart of lead that occasionally - inexplicably - transmutes to gold. The secretly nice criminal with a protective crust is a common enough type, but Grant's character is too cruel (nearly ruining a girlfriend's life for his own convenience) to fit it; yet his kindnesses inconvenience him too much to be merely a sociopath's protective coloration. Who is he? The film doesn't know and isn't much interested.
Hepburn's character is similarly centerless. As Sylvia she's weepy, constantly overwhelmed, and ineffectual; cross-dressed as Sylvester, she's brusque, pugnacious, and...still completely ineffectual. Where does the terminally wet Sylvia find within herself Sylvester's irritating combativeness? As played, she displays no inner ferocity that would let her be such a person. And why, when she begins wearing dresses again, is Sylvia exactly as she was before she played Sylvester? Could I have a character arc, please?
This clear-cut split between Sylvia and Sylvester is a symptom of the film's anxiety about gender identity. A cross-dressing story requires gender to be largely performative; Sylvia Scarlett seems petrified of the idea. Thus, Sylvester is Sylvia's diametrical opposite, someone she could not possibly be, rather than an expression of potential within Sylvia that she usually hides. Because if Sylvester is a part of Sylvia that she lets out to play when she puts on pants...or worse, if Sylvia puts on pants, still behaves like herself, and is still taken for a boy...Abandon ship! Gender dichotomy is in danger!
Why someone so wedded to gender dichotomies would want to tell a story about cross-dressing, I don't know.
And you can't just say, "It's the thirties." Queen Christina, filmed two years before Sylvia Scarlett, features Greta Garbo meeting her beloved while dressed as a man. Nonetheless the sexual tension soars immediately as they dive into a discussion about the nature of love. It's funny, sweet, and a little titillating*.
Compare the gender-bending romantic scene in Sylvia Scarlett, when a girl tries to kiss Sylvester. Never mind titillating or sweet - the film is so appalled by this gender/sexual identity confusion that it can't even wring humor from the scene. The scene bleeds awkwardness instead.
As, indeed, does the whole film. It's a shame; the premise could have been so fun, and the stars are two of my favorites. I think I'm going to wash the memory out of my mind by watching The Philadelphia Story again.
*Lest I leave you with the wrong impression, Queen Christina is awful. The heroine is a historical figure who abdicated the throne of Sweden to study; in the movie, she abdicates it to be with her beloved. UGH. Even Garbo can't save such a story.
BUT NO.
It's awful. It is, first of all, boring. Although many things happen, they seem only vaguely connected and don't add up to a coherent plot. But even if Sylvia Scarlett had a plot, it wouldn't matter because it's impossible to care about the characters. What characters? At least cardboard cutouts would have been coherent.
Grant is cast against type as a lower-class conman with a heart of lead that occasionally - inexplicably - transmutes to gold. The secretly nice criminal with a protective crust is a common enough type, but Grant's character is too cruel (nearly ruining a girlfriend's life for his own convenience) to fit it; yet his kindnesses inconvenience him too much to be merely a sociopath's protective coloration. Who is he? The film doesn't know and isn't much interested.
Hepburn's character is similarly centerless. As Sylvia she's weepy, constantly overwhelmed, and ineffectual; cross-dressed as Sylvester, she's brusque, pugnacious, and...still completely ineffectual. Where does the terminally wet Sylvia find within herself Sylvester's irritating combativeness? As played, she displays no inner ferocity that would let her be such a person. And why, when she begins wearing dresses again, is Sylvia exactly as she was before she played Sylvester? Could I have a character arc, please?
This clear-cut split between Sylvia and Sylvester is a symptom of the film's anxiety about gender identity. A cross-dressing story requires gender to be largely performative; Sylvia Scarlett seems petrified of the idea. Thus, Sylvester is Sylvia's diametrical opposite, someone she could not possibly be, rather than an expression of potential within Sylvia that she usually hides. Because if Sylvester is a part of Sylvia that she lets out to play when she puts on pants...or worse, if Sylvia puts on pants, still behaves like herself, and is still taken for a boy...Abandon ship! Gender dichotomy is in danger!
Why someone so wedded to gender dichotomies would want to tell a story about cross-dressing, I don't know.
And you can't just say, "It's the thirties." Queen Christina, filmed two years before Sylvia Scarlett, features Greta Garbo meeting her beloved while dressed as a man. Nonetheless the sexual tension soars immediately as they dive into a discussion about the nature of love. It's funny, sweet, and a little titillating*.
Compare the gender-bending romantic scene in Sylvia Scarlett, when a girl tries to kiss Sylvester. Never mind titillating or sweet - the film is so appalled by this gender/sexual identity confusion that it can't even wring humor from the scene. The scene bleeds awkwardness instead.
As, indeed, does the whole film. It's a shame; the premise could have been so fun, and the stars are two of my favorites. I think I'm going to wash the memory out of my mind by watching The Philadelphia Story again.
*Lest I leave you with the wrong impression, Queen Christina is awful. The heroine is a historical figure who abdicated the throne of Sweden to study; in the movie, she abdicates it to be with her beloved. UGH. Even Garbo can't save such a story.
