Ever After Question...(minor spoiler)
Ken Rose
telling of the Cinderella story. A fine fairy tale for everyone...even
the cynics who hang around this newsgroup should take a break and see
it. The Leonardo de Vinci appearance as stand in for the fairy
godmother was a hoot.
However, I am unclear as to why Danielle was not considered royalty
based on, at least her mother's title of comtesse. Wouldn't this mean
her father was a count and the daughter would have inherited the
title.
Or, did the father's remarriage pass the title to the step-mother who
subsequently disinherited the step-daughter?
Ken
Norman Wilner
Her mother wasn't actually a countess - she just used her mother's name with a
courtier's title.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine
Jenu
<D3858A06B2AA8033.1C3F3C74...@library-proxy.airnews.net>,
kenr...@airmail.net (Ken Rose) writes:
>First of all I thoroughly enjoyed this lush, well cast, well written
>telling of the Cinderella story. A fine fairy tale for everyone...even
>the cynics who hang around this newsgroup should take a break and see
>it. The Leonardo de Vinci appearance as stand in for the fairy
>godmother was a hoot.
Ooh, I have to agree! Loved it, the look, the music, the cast, the locations
were all great. :-) And I really enjoyed how the 'ugly stepsisters' weren't
superficially ugly at all. Poor Jacqueline is neglected and bullied, and
Marguerite, while quite stunning, has an ugliness deep in her soul (and when
she gets that well-deserved punch, the whole theater errupted in applause <g>).
And I do feel that the Baroness at least cared somewhat for Danielle's father,
I don't think those tears when he died were a put on, but I think once he
passed on, she would think only of the welfare of her own daughters (and even
then moreso Marguerite than Jacqueline). I love the complexity of all the
characters. And yes, da Vinci was wonderful. :-)
>However, I am unclear as to why Danielle was not considered royalty
>based on, at least her mother's title of comtesse. Wouldn't this mean
>her father was a count and the daughter would have inherited the
>title.
>*snip*
>
>Ken
>
I asked my sister this same question on the ride home. :-) My sis reminded me
of what the Baroness says to Danielle when D comes back from meeting Henry at
the ruins and has pretty much been caught red handed as masquerading as the
Comtesse. The Baroness says something to the effect of 'How dare you make your
mother a Comtesse?!'. So we're thinking that when pressed for a name, Danielle
grabbed her mother's and then tacked on a title out of thin air. Danielle's
father wasn't royalty, even though he had his own land and servants (I'm
guessing he was a successful businessman of some sort, or he could have been
given the land by the King for doing something noteworthy...) And (still
guessing here) the Baroness was of royal lineage in her own right, so her title
wouldn't affect Danielle.
Just my wild guess for the night. :-)
Jen
~*~
within AOL only-Jenu outside AOL-Ju...@yahoo.com
CBFC, PWFC
"In the end there can be only a bunch." Peter Wingfield, Anaheim 1998
Mr. Chuck Sutton
> based on, at least her mother's title of comtesse. Wouldn't this mean
> her father was a count and the daughter would have inherited the
I do not remember when but there was line about makign her mother a
contessa. I donot think Dannielle's mother was a rela contessa.
BTW delightful movie.
Skander Halim
Ken Rose (kenr...@airmail.net) writes:
> First of all I thoroughly enjoyed this lush, well cast, well written
> telling of the Cinderella story. A fine fairy tale for everyone...even
> the cynics who hang around this newsgroup should take a break and see
> it.
This is one of those films I would have avoided like the plague were it not
for some good critical notices. Bless those critics: I almost forgive
them for leading me to Still Breathing.
Ever After reminds me of that Sting/Jennifer Beals movie The Bride in that
it's a feminist take on a classic tale that by all rights should have
turned out terrible, but is actually pretty cool (though it's not as good
as The Bride). I liked how Danielle never needs rescuing, consistently
uses her wits, and just generally kicks ass, but not in an unrealistically
macho G.I. Jane-type manner. Note also that the prince _genuinely_ falls in
love with Danielle's personality, and in fact never once mentions her
physical qualities (unlike in Can't Hardly Wait where we're supposed to
belive Ethan Embry really, truly loves Jennifer Love Hewitt because they
both like the same kind of pop tart; all the other boys who like her are
shallow!).
Drew Barrymore continues to cultivate a surprisingly sweet and virtuous
screen presence, which is a pretty remarkable feat considering her
off-screen reputation consists largely of impromptu stripteases. Anjelica
Huston, Melanie Lynskey, Jeroen Krabbe are also typically strong. Throw in
some breathtaking cinematography, and solid directing by Andy Tennant
(whose previous credits include It Takes Two and Fools Rush In, which means
there may be hope for Stephen Hopkins), and you have a fine summer movie.
Okay, so there are generous amounts of dopiness due to the film's target
demographic -- villains fall into a vat of dye and get red faces! -- but I
didn't really mind. I even liked the inclusion of Da Vinci, even though he
was probably only there to dupe teenage girls ("I hear Leonardo's in this
movie! With facial hair!").
So yes, let me echo Mr. Rose's plea that "the cynics who hang around this
newsgroup" (of which I am one) give Ever After a chance, despite the fact
that the trailers make it look like crap. Oh, and rent The Bride while
you're at it.
--
Skander Halim | http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~ba547/
"So, did you guys fight any demons this summer?"
"Yes! Our own personal demons..."
"Like lust. And thrift."
Anthony B. Gilpin
Henry captures a thief who stole a canister containing a painting. Rolled up
inside the canister is the "Mona Lisa," thereby letting the audience know
that the canister's rightful owner is Leonardo da Vinci.
Forgive me for nitpicking, but:
YOU CAN'T ROLL UP THE "MONA LISA" AND PUT IT IN A CAN!
Leonardo painted the "Mona Lisa" on a *wooden panel*, *not* on canvas! If
one tried to roll the painting up, it would splinter into toothpicks.
My companion at the movie tells me that this is the kind of error that only
I would spot. Someone please tell me that isn't so!
Skander Halim wrote in message <6qfbca$i...@freenet-news.carleton.ca>...
Alleigh
<star...@gte.net> wrote:
>The only part of "Ever After" that broke my concentration was when Prince
>Henry captures a thief who stole a canister containing a painting. Rolled up
>inside the canister is the "Mona Lisa," thereby letting the audience know
>that the canister's rightful owner is Leonardo da Vinci.
>Forgive me for nitpicking, but:
>YOU CAN'T ROLL UP THE "MONA LISA" AND PUT IT IN A CAN!
>Leonardo painted the "Mona Lisa" on a *wooden panel*, *not* on canvas! If
>one tried to roll the painting up, it would splinter into toothpicks.
>
>My companion at the movie tells me that this is the kind of error that only
>I would spot. Someone please tell me that isn't so!
>
If I had known that tidbit - I would of noticed and it probably would
of bothered me - but I really liked this movie
ELurio
YOU CAN'T ROLL UP THE "MONA LISA" AND PUT IT IN A CAN!
Leonardo painted the "Mona Lisa" on a *wooden panel*, *not* on canvas! If
one tried to roll the painting up, it would splinter into toothpicks.>>
And in real life Prince Henri married Marie de'Medici, and together they ruined
France. Big Deal.
eric l.
Iami
ELurio wrote in message <199808111739...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
|<<Forgive me for nitpicking, but:
|YOU CAN'T ROLL UP THE "MONA LISA" AND PUT IT IN A CAN!
|Leonardo painted the "Mona Lisa" on a *wooden panel*, *not* on canvas! If
|one tried to roll the painting up, it would splinter into toothpicks.>>
Well, often artists paint several versions of a painting. I'm quite sure he
must have left the panel version home for safe keeping.
nicholas.k...@pepsico.com
"Anthony B. Gilpin" <star...@gte.net> wrote:
> The only part of "Ever After" that broke my concentration was when Prince
> Henry captures a thief who stole a canister containing a painting. Rolled up
> inside the canister is the "Mona Lisa," thereby letting the audience know
> that the canister's rightful owner is Leonardo da Vinci.
> YOU CAN'T ROLL UP THE "MONA LISA" AND PUT IT IN A CAN!
> Leonardo painted the "Mona Lisa" on a *wooden panel*, *not* on canvas! If
> one tried to roll the painting up, it would splinter into toothpicks.
As you noticed that, I noticed that "paperback" versions of _Utopia_ were not
invented yet. The printing press had just been invented for crying out
loud!! Even so, that book would have been worth more than the glass + diamond
slipper.
_Ever After_ is rightly to be taken as a 90's feminist update of a classic.
What bothers me is it's presumption that the only way to have a literate,
smart, well-read woman in the Middle Ages is to update her 90's style. There
_do_ exist great women role models in the Middle Ages, but I don't see the
major studios green-lighting projects about St. Catherine of Sienna or St.
Theresa of Avila.
My two cents.
Nick.
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Chad Irby
> As you noticed that, I noticed that "paperback" versions of _Utopia_ were not
> invented yet. The printing press had just been invented for crying out
> loud!!
...about a hundred years before...
> Even so, that book would have been worth more than the glass + diamond
> slipper.
Might be. It's pretty obvious from the movie that Danielle's father was a
book nut, and was worth a good deal of money for the times. It was just
the mismanagement after his death that made the finances of the family go
into the tank.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
ci...@magicnet.net \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
Evelyn C. Leeper
ELurio <elu...@aol.com> wrote:
> > YOU CAN'T ROLL UP THE "MONA LISA" AND PUT IT IN A CAN!
> > Leonardo painted the "Mona Lisa" on a *wooden panel*, *not* on canvas! If
> > one tried to roll the painting up, it would splinter into toothpicks.>>
>
> they ruined France. Big Deal.
Actually, it was Catherine de'Medici. She married Henry II,
son of Francis I.
There were, however, other problems in the movie.
Leonardo da Vinci lived from 1452 to 1519. He painted Mona Lisa in
1514, and lived in France from 1517 to 1519.
Michaelangelo was painting the Sistine Chapel between 1508 and 1512.
Thomas More wrote "Utopia" in 1516.
Henry VIII of England divorced Catherine of Aragon in 1533. (Or not,
depending on your religious beliefs, I guess.)
Okay, here goes:
Danielle's father brings her a copy of "Utopia" when she is young. The
earliest date for this is 1516.
Ten years pass. It is now at least 1526. Leonardo Da Vinci has been
dead for at least seven years, and the divorce (mentioned by King
Francis) is seven years in the future. Move the date forward and Da
Vinci is even deader (or whatever); move it back and "Utopia" is still
a gleam in Thomas More's eye at the beginning.
Put another way, the main body of the story must take place both after
1526 (in fact, after 1533) and before 1519.
Plus Da Vinci claimed he was in France because Michaelangelo was
trapped under a ceiling in Rome, but Michaelangelo had finished the
ceiling at least five years before Da Vinci arrived in France.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper | ele...@lucent.com
+1 732 957 2070 | http://www.geocities.com/Athens/4824
All work and no play makes Jack a valued employee.
RCLOVELY
>> > Leonardo painted the "Mona Lisa" on a *wooden panel*, *not* on canvas!
Oh (she said with a heavy sigh) I thought I was the only one so picky.
RC
Jeffrey Davis
> There were, however, other problems in the movie.
Aieee! It's spreading! Even the Leepers got it!
--
Jeffrey Davis <da...@ca.uky.edu> throw me a frickin bone here
Mary Ker
: In article <199808111739...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
Hey, here's a news flash for you----IT WAS A FAIRY TALE! OK, so you know
more about dates than the people who wrote the script. If that kept
you from enjoying it, you need to readjust your expectations!
Evelyn C. Leeper
You don't understand--this *is* how I enjoy movies. (At least one of the
ways.)
IrishRose
>
> In article <6shdon$674$2...@noao.tuc.noao.edu>,
> Mary Ker <m...@yogi.tuc.noao.edu> wrote:
> > Evelyn C. Leeper (e...@hobcs1.mt.lucent.com) wrote:
> > : In article <199808111739...@ladder03.news.aol.com>,
> > : ELurio <elu...@aol.com> wrote:
> > : > > YOU CAN'T ROLL UP THE "MONA LISA" AND PUT IT IN A CAN!
> >
> > Hey, here's a news flash for you----IT WAS A FAIRY TALE! OK, so you
> > know more about dates than the people who wrote the script. If that
> > kept you from enjoying it, you need to readjust your expectations!
>
> You don't understand--this *is* how I enjoy movies. (At least one of
> the ways.)
> --
I can see both sides of this particular arguement, but re: the Mona Lisa
being on canvas.....I just allowed that it was a "study" copy before
Leonardo got around to the *real* one.
I guess I'm in the habit of making explanations for movie maker's
blunders if overall I enjoy the movie. =) and Ever After I LIKED.
Linda
@->--- @->--- @->--- @->--- @->--- @->---
"Not Everything that is beautiful is good.....
But everything that is Good is beautiful"
@->--- @->--- @->--- @->--- @->--- @->---