18th Century @ MindSay

We all know them as a couple of 21st century musicians struggling to make it big in a series on HBO, but what if they partied like it was 1789?  I decided to set Jemaine and Bret of Flight of the Conchords in the 18th century via the time machine that is my pencil and sketchbook.  Here is how they would look:

Jemaine was the easiest to translate into the 18th century.  He has romantic, dark features and his tussled black hair and sideburns were the classic hairstyle of revolutionaries of the period.  He would swish his way into a scene (almost tripping over his sword) and be the first to recite epic poetry at a local tavern. 

 

Bret was hardest to draw because he has almost a nondescript face.  He could blend into a crowd, but when he performs and sings, it's then that he really stands out.  His intense eyes and rigid jawline make for the perfect aristocrat.  Out of the two guys, I would say he'd be the one who was from blue blood stock, however it wouldn't be just Jemaine opting for wearing more ruffles and cloaks.  Bret would have a stiff collar and a long braid topped with a bow, might even wear a tri-cornered hat and would formerly address the ladies in a quaint and proper manner.

 

Yeah, we're talking Jane Austen romance novel fodder here, ladies.  Can you just imagine?  *goose bumps*  Oh, I'm such a big fan, it's not funny!

 

I'm not totally satisified yet with the portrait of Mel (Kristen Schall, the Flight of the Conchords' obsessed fan.  I think I may need to give her a total head-to-toe portrait where we can fully see her in a big bouncey gown.

I think if I were to draw her again, I'd give her a big bonnet with larger-than-life ribbon.  Her features, however, do translate well into the late 1700's.  I could see her putting the powder on thick and dressing up in layers of silk and taffeta.  Her hairstyle (or would that be wigstyle?) might be slightly out of date, her curls piled up high like the ladies of the day wore theirs in the 1770's with big puffy white feathers and little wooden ships sailing through their locks.  Mel is the type who has to have it all.  I could see her pretending to faint to get the guys' attention or she'd wave a handkerchief at them, blowing them kisses and leaving a horrible trail of perfumed love letters.

And the band's manager, Murray Hewitt (Rhys Darby).  He'd be the stuffy, wig wearing type who is trying his best to look official and powerful.  In the 21st century he may be Deputy Cultural Attaché at the New Zealand consulate, but in 1789 he might be an ex-ship's captain or a part time judge whose full time job is to help the guys get a big break playing for all manner of interesting historic figures.   

 

Sometimes I sit around and imagine today's celebrities and pop icons as if they lived further back in history.  It's fun.  It shows how timeless some faces can be.  I submitted these fan art pieces to the Flight of the Conchords website at Myspace.com.  I'll let ya know if any of "their people" approve of what I've done here!  I'd like to think the guys would get a kick out of it.

I don't know about you, but I saw a trailer for Le Chevalier D'Eon over the weekend and am determined to get it.  Very fascinating anime of swashbuckling swords and sorcery set in 18th century France.  I MUST SEE IT.  Besides, how could I ignore such an elegant looking gold embossed cover?

 

UPDATE 5-01-08:  I've seen the entire series and I was disappointed.  However, in the special features they do list a somewhat historical time line of D'Eon's real life.  The anime Le Chavlier D'Eon has nothing really to do with the real historical figure. 

I finally got to see Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette last night and I was so happy with it, I immediately re-watched it.  Finally there's a film out there that really went into detail about what life was really like at Versailles on the cusp of the French Revolution, yet juxaposed in between all the lushious and sometimes down right boring details, the film was done with some artistic license (the hairdos and make-up were not entirely accurate, they needed to be more elaborate) and 20th century touches (including an early '80s New Wave soundtrack complete with references to Adam Ant, especially in the opening fantasy "bad queen eating cake" sequence) to bring late 18th century history to life for a more hip contemporary audience.  I was intimidated at first by the soundtrack and the casting of Kirsten Dunst as Antoinette, but by the first scene, I was hooked by the rich costumes and elegant performances by American and English actors masquerading as French aristos who weren't "over the top" at all (yet could've been). 

 

Sofia's vision of Antoinette seems to be a lost and ill-fated version of Cinderella.  Young Antoinette is literally thrown out of her somber motherland (Austria) into an opulent world of strict etiquette and intrigue (France) where her fate hangs on whether or not she can produce an heir, yet her equally young and stifled husband (Louis Auguste) is no help.  It's not that he doesn't like her, he's just an insecure dork.  Out of all the performances, I enjoyed Jason Swartzman the most as Louis Auguste (King Louis XVI).  He is the one actor who doesn't look entirely like the man he is playing, but emotionally he literally becomes Louis, even right down to his walk, posture, underhanded way of speaking, and obsessions with hunting and science.  In contrast to Louis, Antoinette was much more interested in art, music, and dance.  She was like a little caged bird and he was like a boy in love with nature. 

 

However, what they didn't show enough of was a more mature version of Antoinette and Louis.  Sofia really focused on the couple as teenagers ruling the palace and playing games, and we never see them interested enough in politics to save their country.  Often Louis encouraged Antoinette to indulge in gaming and gardening to distract her from interfering in politics.  Louis ruled much through the instruction of his advisors and was very much interested in knowing the hearts of the people, yet he was prideful, taught to be a king not a politician, and kings back then were believed to be ordained by god.  Much of what went wrong in France was not due to their fault, but the poor decisions of their ancestors.  By the time Louis and Antoinette reached the throne, there wasn't much they could do to balance the debts or maintain the support of their subjects.  Antoinette and Louis were basically scapegoats sacrificed to the fires of revolution, and Sofia portrays them as mere innocents, which no doubt was the reason why some critics booed the film at Cannes.  Even though they were just as much victim to their station in life as anyone else at the time, they certainly weren't children, and they were brave and stubborn enough to face their enemies when the time came for it.  Louis himself even approved of the motives of the Revolutionaries, but disapproved of the methods.  Theirs is a story that would later be repeated in history, making me always ask this question:

 

Why have societies executed their monarchs?  Perhaps I'll never understand that.  The French Revolution was a holocaust in the sense that it called for the extermination of whole families of people whose only crime was that they were born aristocrats, many of whom never had much of a say in government anyway.  In order to have a brand new way of life, it required the total destruction of the previous one, but one so soaked in blood that it couldn't possibly work either.   

 

Based on Antonia Fraser's Marie Antoinette: The Journey, whenever I review the book and compare it to the film, I have to say that Sofia Coppola really shines as a writer and adapted Fraser's material well.  The film is literally a companion to the book; a rarity amongst many films too often poorly adapted from printed page to screen.  I also love Sofia's bold choice in not showing the bloody end of Antoinette's life.  We don't need to see her get her head lopped off, we know it's coming, and so does Antoinette. But as we prepare for the end, I want to rewind and stay just one more night in that beautiful palace surrounded by good friends where the air is ripe with gossip and whisps of dresses and fans delicately brush me into a fantasy of capes, candy, and champagne.

 

And this leads me to add  Marie Antoinette to my list of favorite movies based on 18th century history.  Here's the rest of the list (some astute readers of my blog will recognize a few movies I've already mentioned in my favorite movies list part one and my favorite movies list part two):

 

Amadeus (1984) Most likely the very best movie set in the period, this film follows the short and decedant life of Amadeus Mozart. My favorite line: "I love them all! Why can't I have three heads?" said by Amadeus in the wig salon.

La Nuit de Varennes (1982) In June of 1791, a group of passengers in a stagecoach find themselves caught up in the events of the French Revolution, when they find themselves in the city of Varennes when revolutionists arrest the fleeing King Louis XVI and his family.  Be sure to check out Harvey Keitel starring as Thomas Paine (his voice is dubbed in French)!

Dangerous Liaisons (1988) Based on the classic eighteenth-century novel Les Liaisons dangereuses, by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos, this gem of a film focuses on the Marquise de Merteuil (Glenn Close) and her lover the infamous Vicomte de Valmont (John Malkovich). The Marquise makes a devious deal with Valmont to seduce the young daughter of her cousin, Madame de Volange (Swoosie Kurtz), thus having revenge on a former lover, the man to whom young Cecile de Volange (Uma Thurman) is promised in marriage. At first, Valmont refuses her proposition: he wants to seduce the prudish Madame de Tourvel (Michelle Pfeiffer), who is spending time at his aunt's house while her husband is abroad. But, as fate would have it, Valmont falls in love with Madame de Tourvel and war is declared between the Marquise and Valmont which ends in diaster for all.

Valmont(1989) Also based on Les Liaisons dangereuses, this film stars Colin Firth in the role of Valmont and gives us another sexier take on the story.

The Lady and the Duke or L'Anglaise et le duc (2001) The story of Grace Elliott (1760-1823) and Philippe, the Duke of Orleans. Set during the French Revolution, Grace and Philippe remain close friends after a torrid affair and both struggle to survive and both have to make drastic decisions to either save themselves or their friends. In 1792, Grace must escape Paris on foot. We watch her on her difficult journey, her feet bloodied and ravaged, a desparate figure slowly and painfully making her way to unknown safety with the landscapes of old Rococo paintings behind her (all the actors were filmed in front of green screen -- making them look like moving paintings -- a bold choice). This movie is very stylized, but moving in its portrayal of the real historical characters.

Beaumarchais, The Scoundrel or Beaumarchais, l'insolent (1996) The true life story of Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais, the son of a clockmaker, who writes "The Barber of Seville" and "The Marriage of Figaro" who also worked as a spy, provided American Revolutionaries with weapons, and gets into all sorts of sexual encounters (despite being happily married). There's an interesting costuming decision in this period film -- everyone who isn't loyal to the monarchy is dressed in creamy white or beige, even the beggars on the streets of Paris look clean, and only a few select "good" characters will appear in loud colors to make a point. Despite being good entertainment, it is clearly a film that favors the Revolutionaries.

The Madness of King George (1994) Lovely performance by Nigel Hawthorne as King George III who suffers from a disabling psychosis brought on by porphyria, a blood disorder. Not much was known about such disorders back then, but since the King is integral to the proper functioning of government, a race is on to "cure" him. Ian Holm plays Dr. Willis who employs all sorts of sordid punishments to correct the King's behavior.

Plunkett and Macleane (1999) Captain James Macleane (Jonny Lee Miller) and Will Plunkett (Robert Carlyle) are highwaymen from opposite ends in 18th century English society. Macleane is a disgraced gentleman soldier down on his luck and Plunkett is a former apocathary who lost his partner in crime to a vicious "Thief Hunter General" named Chance. Plunkett employs Macleane as his new partner when he discovers him digging up the corpse of his old friend to retrieve a ruby he stole. The two men are captured for grave robbing and their odd partnership/buddy friendship begins after they buy their way out of prison with the ruby (evacuated out of Plunkett's bowels). Soon they become famous highwaymen, but their relationship is complicated with Macleane falls in love with Lady Rebecca Gibson (Liv Tyler) and is seduced into Lord Rochester's (Alan Cumming) gambling parties in order to extract information about who is the richest of the rich. Very enjoyable and lively. We need more swashbuckling romances like this.

Tom Jones (1963) A young and irresistably cute Albert Finney stars as Tom Jones, a likeable rake who adores, and is adored, by women, but his one and only is the gentle Sophie Western (Susannah York). But being suspected a bastard, Tom cannot marry a woman of higher standing. Sophie is forced by her family to accept the unlikeable fellow, Blifil (David Warner). Blifil and several other members of society influence Tom's guardian to banish him. During his travels, Tom has many adventures almost ending with him being hanged. He is soon saved, Blifil is disgraced, and he is free to marry Sophie.

Farinelli (1994) The true life story of Farinelli (known as Carlo Broschi at birth) a famous Castrato who led a real rock star lifestyle in the 18th century. Contrary to what some may think, Farinelli, and other castratos like him, were able to have richly sensual love lives, but sadly were not allowed to marry because they could not produce children. Farinelli was castrated against his will in order to retain his angelic voice, a betrayal brought about by his older brother. A very intense drama rich with lavish set and costume design.

Triumph of Love (2001) Based on a play of the same name by Pierre de Marivaux, the story follows the romantic conquests of a princess (Mira Sorvino) who learns that the rightful heir to the throne her family stole is a handsome prince named Agis (Jay Rodan). Agis has been instructed to hate her and reject all love, but he's much too pretty to stay unmoved by passion for long. The princess falls in love with Agis at first sight and vows to woo him, but Agis is guarded by a brother (Ben Kingsley) and sister (Fiona Shaw) team who also seem to be prudes. In order to get close to Agis, the princess cross dresses to win the hearts of the brother and sister. To further add to the confusion, this entire story seems to be play acted in front of a modern audience who distress the sister when she tries to escape seduction. It totally gives you the feeling that you are watching the play outside in a country garden.

The Adventures of Baron Munchausen (1988) Possibly my favorite Terry Gilliam movie second to Brazil, this is a pure late 18th century fantasy featuring the Baron Munchausen's supposed travels and fantastical experiences with his band of misfits. A must see.

Mesmer (1994) Those of you who lust after Alan Rickman in his Snape costume will love him as the infamous Franz Anton Mesmer, the eighteenth century Viennese physician who used unconventional healing techniques and mumbo-jumbo to cure the severely ill. He was proved to be a quack yet he perfected a mode of hypnotism based on his theory of "animal magnetism" leading to the use of his name to describe the exertion of strong will power used to overcome a person and induce them into a trance-like state where they are ripe for seduction; mesmerism.

Quills (2000) Stunning performance by Geoffery Rush as Marquis De Sade trapped in a post-French Revolutionary/pro-Napoleonic era insane asylum where he tests the faith of The Abbe du Coulmier (Joaquin Phoenix), annoys the fight out of Dr. Royer-Collard (Michael Caine), and nearly seduces Madeleine 'Maddy' LeClerc (Kate Winslet) out of her petticoats. All are based on true life characters but much artistic license is given to the story to make it more entertaining. For instance, in real life Abbe du Coulmier was of dwarfish height, Madeleine really was De Sade's lover at the tender age of 14, and De Sade's wife (played by Rush's wife in real life) remained ever faithful to him, even though he did tend to pick on her a lot like the movie suggests.

Ridicule (1996) Beautiful movie, already previously reviewed it, loved it, although I could've done without all the propaganda against the aristocracy!

 

 

I couldn't resist doing this.  After I did a few of myself here, I took a look at a few photos of msdania and genio in this blog entry posted by  msdania. 

 

Now I'm probably going to have to do a few Photoshop doctored 18th century style images of other people...  Hmmm.... Who should I do next?

First random thought of the late night: the new Will Ferrel movie "Stranger Than Fiction" is similiar to a screenplay I wrote in 1996 for a beginning screenwriting class.  The professor gave me a 'D' because she thought, "no one would ever want to sit through a series of over voiced narration like that, plus an author talking to a fictional character is just absurd."  I argued for an 'A' and when I didn't get it, I withdrew from the class -- now there's a film with a similiar premise -- a character hearing the voice of his writer-creator and trying to save himself from being killed off by the author.  'Cept I think my concept was way cooler -- I had a beat generation character called Bobby BeBop trying to track down his author to save himself from being deleted.  Yep.  Yet another lovely idea trashed by academia.  My advise: don't always listen to your professors and just keep doing what you love.

 

Something silly happens to me when I do too much research on another time and place; I start to talk and act differently.  For instance, since doing research on the 18th century modes of fashion and society, I've started to say "quite" a lot after someone else finishes a sentence.  I also tend to pay more attention to my posture and how I walk.  It's as if when I'm armed with knowledge about the lives of my European ancestors, I tend to start to want to be more like them, but this is all based on a romantic view of their lives.  I'm somewhat ignoring the hardships many of them had to face and begin to also start to appreciate our century a bit more.  Yet, I wonder where all my fascination with the past comes from? 

 

I think it comes from a need to connect with something more eternal, to draw connecting lines between this life and the past, to explore an old world as if it were new...  and I can't for the life of me think how boring this life would be if there were no history!  So, as I start to study my particularly favorite period of the 18th century -- 1770 to 1789 -- I begin to think, "the goings-on during the final decade of the Ancien Régime at Château de Versailles would make a great television series -- like Deadwood or Rome but with big white wigs!"  What do you think?  Would you watch it?

 

I'm coming up with a "Which 18th century archetype were you?" sort of quiz.  Because I'm bored, of course. 

 

Here are the archetypes I created/discovered and will be illustrating sometime in the next few weeks:

Men: Gentleman, Country Squire, Libertine, Chevalier, Prince, Highwayman, Fop, Farmer, Philosopher, Poet

Women:  Lady, Maid, Coquette, Courtesan, Grisette, Préciosité, Princess, Wealthy Widow, Lady Painter, Chaste Wife

 

I still have to figure out the questions and answers bit. 

In the meantime, I've devised a new way to enjoy LOST at Mindsay: check out my newly rendered LOST Mindsay wiki page!  It's just a little silly something to distract us while we wait for the new episodes on Feb. 7th, 2007. 

 

 

Now I'm going to go home where I can further get lost in other times and places in my lonely own mind...