Les Liasons Dangereuses - Page 2

[Cupid Boy2]

Posted: 12/17/16 at 9:52am

Braniff Forever said: "Yes I forgot about the fluorescent chandeliers. They were strange and didn't seem to fit into an 18th Century chateaux "

Fluorescent lighting is notoriously unflattering - it exposes people and all of their flaws. Because of when it was incorporated, I found it to be an effective choice. Like much of the play, it was unsettling to see, and I appreciated it as an extension of that. 

 

Updated On: 12/17/16 at 09:52 AM

[jimmycurry01]

Posted: 12/17/16 at 11:52am

I am surprised by the love of Malkovich in the film version. He is so icky. He's not at all the type to charm the skirt over a lady's head. I also feel that the film lacked a certain amount of fun that I should feel needs to be there.

In terms of adaptation of the novel, I like Valmont much more. It finished shooting before Dangerous Liaisons, but got released the year after. Colin Firth is far more charming than Malkovich could ever dream of being, and the movie feels both dirty and fun.

I watched the National Theatre Live version of the London revival and felt rather bored by it. Once again, it was missing the fun that needs to be part of the play.

 

Posted: 12/29/16 at 11:11am

jimmycurry01 said: "I am surprised by the love of Malkovich in the film version. He is so icky. He's not at all the type to charm the skirt over a lady's head. I also feel that the film lacked a certain amount of fun that I should feel needs to be there.
 

 

I actually loved the movie and it really made me excited for the play. But ugh i was bored out of my mind. The text needs to be updated. And I thought Janet McTeer's performance was kind of drag queen-esque, the way she would flip her hands in the air. Ugh, and the only time I found Schreiber sexy only when his shirt was off. His performance was strikingly monotone, without any fire.

 

 

"