Film Review: W.E. (Madonna, 2011)

The first piece of advertising I saw of this film was a poster at the cinema when I went to see Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. It was this poster in fact:



At first glance it seemed to be just another schmaltz-y love story (possibly with a vintage/retro-edge) since it was being released just in time for Oscar season, and at first I didn’t think much of it. At second glance (waiting for Jibsy to come out of the bathroom, I think) I caught a glimpse of the tagline, which made me a bit surprised. Oh, so it was a film about Wallis Simpson and King Edward  VIII. The tagline did nothing for my opinion of it being a schmaltz-y love story with a vintage edge:

“One of the greatest love stories of all time… The King who gave up his throne for the woman he loved.”

Frankly, I think the tagline did not do the film justice at all.

Due to this fact, one cannot judge movies on posters alone – that is what trailers are for – but I admit, I never caught a glimpse of a trailer on television or bothered much on line. Frankly, the whole thing didn’t seem to be advertised very much at all. I wondered if this was because the director, Madonna, had something to do with it. Was she trying to make this an art-piece with a historical edge? Or was there just something lacking in the advertising of it to make it seem more ‘underground’. Unlike other ‘Oscar Bait’ films such as J.Edgar and The Iron Lady this one seemed to be playing to a specific crowd of people.

The people, I described to my mum while sitting myself down in the cinema as being ‘The Downton Abbey Crowd’. I was the youngest person in the audience, and although the cinema in the end did seem to be full, we had been shoved into one of the premier cinemas – which, although is fantastic for legroom and comfortable seats, does make me a little wary of just how popular the film is going to be.

For the film did not seem to be succeeding in the popularity side of things according to some reviews I had gotten a glimpse of. Most describe it as glamourising and romanticising the relationship between the king and the divorcee, and generally tear it to shreds. The Guardian gave it one star (however, they were gripping at straws by the end, insinuating that costume designers were involved with script writing because they couldn’t think of a better insult).  It is at this point that thinking back on the film I have just seen, I do sit here and wonder whether or not most of the reviewers got past the first twenty-to-thirty minutes of the film, because it certainly doesn’t seem to be the case.

 The beginning of the film admittedly, is perhaps the part where the movie is at its weakest. Where it very nearly falls down, flat on its face at the first hurdle. It starts, by trying to introduce two characters, a young Wallis Simpson – obviously – in 1924, with her first husband, and the semi-sub-plot of the strange Wally Winthrop. (I say semi-sub-plot for reasons explained in a moment). I am guessing Madonna was trying to introduce the striking similarities between the two characters – which becomes evident later in the plot anyway – from the get-go. I think this is actually one of its problems. There was such a flickering back and forth between Wallis and Wally, with the two women looking similar (this again, being a device used later in the film) that it certainly took me a good ten minutes or so to realise that there were actually two different women we were comparing in similar situations. There is a very long introduction period with Wally in the modern day – but it is introduced in quite high society in New York, that it took me a few minutes to realise we were actually in the modern day, and not 1950s New York, with a surprisingly young-looking-for-her-age Wallis Simpson.

After the initial confusion, the plot decides to focus on the semi-sub-plot. Wally gains an interest in Wallis and her love affair with Edward by visiting the auction house in New York which has an exhibition of both their things during the time they were together. For a film that is supposed to be about Wallis and Edward, it takes a surprisingly long time to focus in on them. Instead, we have a lot of Wally looking serious, going home, going for IVF, telling her husband she knows he’s having an affair, etc.etc. She is quite a weak-willed character, and too be honest, it took me a very long time to start to like her – and I still think she is possibly one of the least likeable characters in the film. However, this doesn’t mean she isn’t likable, and in fact, when the character of Evengi turns up (Wallis/Edward, Wally/Evengi – W.E? See what they did there?) you start to really enjoy Wally’s side of the story as well.

Looking back, I think the reason the disjointed parts of the story exist at the beginning, as said, are to compare the two characters, but to also represent the disjointed knowledge Wally has of Wallis Simpson. Certainly, the more she begins to learn and research about Wallis Simpson, the more she begins to understand the other woman’s way of thinking, her way of being, and suddenly, Wallis’ story is essentially what Wally uses to escape and evolve out of her miserable existence. Wally spends more and more time in the auction house, looking over items and keepsakes, and suddenly is having extended daydreams about what Wallis the woman must have been like to have ended up in this strange ‘fairytale’.

This is when the flashbacks start. With Wallis with her current husband, visiting and meeting the Prince for the first time. There are many other meetings, however, it is when Wallis gets to spend some time with Edward, when her ‘friend’ Velma (who is flirting with Edward before Wallis gets his attention) goes away for three months to America. Suddenly, Wallis has all the attention of Edward, and the audience. These scenes are very much typical of a generic historical film. Or at least they would, without the occasional flash-forwards to Wally in the modern day, along with clever camera shots, and superb use of music. There is a wonderful scene when Edward asks Wallis to dance, when the entire scene erupts in laughter and music and the sex pistols.  There are many interruptions to the general flow of things. Fantastic use of real historical news reels – and re-creations of them – real vintage newspapers, and the use of real quotes from the letters they wrote to each other. Plus the lovely bit of naughty humour thrown in:

Edward: *gives Wallis yet another priceless Cartier piece of jewellery*

Wallis: My, you do know the way to a girl’s heart.

Edward: I wasn’t aiming that high.

Things like this, is what really made me sit up and pay attention. It isn’t trying to be The King’s Speech. It is trying to be something different.

I think the main point that quite a few reviewers have seemed to have missed, is that, unlike traditional Oscar Bait films such as The King’s Speech, The Iron Lady, etc. is that they’re trying to retell a story of a historical person. They are picking out bits of history which they think are interesting and turning it into an entertaining film that more often than not shows one character coming over adversity. (I think it is all fair to say that the morale of the British People didn’t entirely rely on whether or not the King of England could read a speech without stammering – but then where would all the tension be?)

In W.E. however,  I very much got the opinion that Madonna wasn’t trying to tell a story about what happened to Wallis and Edward, but more about how they – especially she felt and gave up.

In my humble opinion, it is not a film about ‘the greatest love story of all time’ (bad tagline). It is a film about the romance between the King and Wallis which gets out of their control. They are indeed romantic together, but it is not the romance that is the focus. Instead, it is more about Wallis herself. It is about her realisation of just what kind of situation she had gotten herself into – for better or worse, she was stuck with it. It was very interesting, actually, to see this from the woman’s point of view, as a point that is made repeatedly in the film, that Wallis Simpson’s interpretation and view of events rarely gets a mention, as it is always what the King gave up. It is certainly a very character-driven piece, and it is this depth of character that is most interesting. She isn’t a card-board cut out. Or someone who’s personality is written down to one fault, or has a generic personality. She is deep and complicated, and most of her actions aren’t ever explained. We are still left questioning as to who she is which, often is considered a bad thing in film. However, I think that in this case, it is actually a very good thing. She is played as a complicated and truthful character. One cannot ever understand the true depth of any other person, so who are we, to fully understand this woman who we have watched for only two hours. We enjoy her presence, but are not entirely sure why. She is not necessarily ever ‘nice’. But that doesn’t matter. She comes across as contagious and lights up every scene she’s in, so much that we want her on screen all the time. Surely a character like that, who we don’t fully understand, is much better than a character we understand from top to bottom?

I mentioned to my mum when the film ended, that it was very obviously directed by a woman – I don’t think this works in Madonna’s favour as female directors rarely get a mention in the male-dominated world of Hollywood. However, this does not mean it is a bad film, it is in fact a very clever, intellectual film, intended to make you think, not about your opinion of Wallis Simpson, or of the King, or of the institution as a whole. Instead it just requires you to think about the kind of things one is willing to do or give up in life, to get something they may, or may not want. There is a little mention in the film about ‘changing one’s destiny’ but frankly, this just seems to underlay the simple point of the world is the world. You do what you have to do to get what you want. The outcome might not be perfect. But you do what you feel you have to.

Closing words:
I would recommend this film to anyone who likes historical dramas, but is willing to look for something a little bit more. Of course, the costumes are gorgeous so anyone who is willing to sit and watch through a film with pretty clothes I would also recommend. Film enthusiasts – even if it is not your cup of tea – I would really recommend it, as it is a beautifully shot and very well directed film, plus the acting is absolutely superb.

I would give this film 3.8 out of 5. (It would have a 4, but the confusion at the beginning is where it fell down the most, which is a shame. Maybe a re-edited edition could be released on DVD at a later date?