Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day (2008)
Mar. 9th, 2008 05:11 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
electriclandI cannot for the life of me remember who on my friends list made me aware of this movie, and thus of the book. If it was you: Thank you!* Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day (1938), by Winifred Watson, is a thoroughly delightful book about the healing power of female friendship, good clothes, makeup, and having fun, not to mention the marvellous liberating power of cocktails, make-believe, and rising to the occasion. One morning Miss Pettigrew, friendless 40ish spinster and failed governess at her wits' end, arrives on the doorstep of Delysia LaFosse, actress and nightclub singer with far too many men in her life. Hijinks ensue. Over the day that follows Miss Pettigrew becomes both Cinderella and fairy godmother, and a good time and a happy ending are had by all (well, all who deserve a happy ending, anyway).
Jen and I saw the movie Friday night, and I am sad to report that it is significantly less awesome than the source material. Writers David Magee and Simon Beaufoy have taken pretty much all the elements that made the book great, discarded them, and replaced them with female back-stabbing and ominous pre-war overtones. Amy Adams is delightful (although her Miss LaFosse lacks the native shrewdness of the original) and Frances McDormand does yeoman work with a script that mostly requires her to stand around looking half-starved and miserable. Lee Pace and Ciaran Hinds are both adorable as their respective love interests, but dear God, was it really necessary to turn Shirley Henderson's Miss Dubarry into such a scheming nightmare? And to do so much violence to the plot? I mean, yes, there wasn't much to the plot, but it was perfectly serviceable the way it was.
At least the movie looks pretty. Too bad it's had most of the fun leached out of it. Read the book instead.
*Turns out it was![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
nineweaving.
Jen and I saw the movie Friday night, and I am sad to report that it is significantly less awesome than the source material. Writers David Magee and Simon Beaufoy have taken pretty much all the elements that made the book great, discarded them, and replaced them with female back-stabbing and ominous pre-war overtones. Amy Adams is delightful (although her Miss LaFosse lacks the native shrewdness of the original) and Frances McDormand does yeoman work with a script that mostly requires her to stand around looking half-starved and miserable. Lee Pace and Ciaran Hinds are both adorable as their respective love interests, but dear God, was it really necessary to turn Shirley Henderson's Miss Dubarry into such a scheming nightmare? And to do so much violence to the plot? I mean, yes, there wasn't much to the plot, but it was perfectly serviceable the way it was.
At least the movie looks pretty. Too bad it's had most of the fun leached out of it. Read the book instead.
*Turns out it was
nineweaving.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-03-10 03:48 am (UTC)Is there as much delicious lesbian subtext in the book as there is in the movie? Is there??? No, no, wait, wait! I want to find out for myself!
Oh, I'm excited! !!!
no subject
Date: 2008-03-10 02:05 pm (UTC)Either way, the book is awesome. I'm glad you liked the movie (I did enjoy it really, just not as much).
I regret to say that I am lousy at spotting lesbian subtext. Even when it's practically text (see: Xena, Warrior Princess). But this review (http://www.villagevoice.com/film/0810,354607,354607,20.html) says "what makes her novel a delight is its guilelessly homoerotic subtext" and suggests that the movie actually plays this down, so I'd say you're in pretty good shape there. ;)