Dangerous Beauty AKA A Destiny of Her Own

This is the second worst film I have ever seen. Fortunately, with my eyes kept open constantly by the sight of Rufus, I was able to stay awake and not miss the (intentional and unintentional) funny bits.

I feel that part of the problem lies in the fact that the script was written by a GCSE English student whose set text was "As You Like It." For example, everything is going along really nicely, with everyone chatting away in nineties English, when all of a sudden, Marco Venier (Rufus) delivers a line with Shakespearian word order.

Catherine McCormack Of The Square Jaw is praised amongst Venetian courtesans for being able to compose hilarious poetry. As far as I can see, the gist of it all was: Venice is held together by sex - yes, but this does not leave me rolling around on the floor laughing, or make me want to bed her (that which follows was originally a footnote but I don't have the wherewithall to arrange that now, so: Classic case of "you had to be there"). It had the exact opposite effect on Lord Sewell, however - poor boy, he should get out more!

Some bits of the film will make you cringe. These include:

A) All of the opening sequence. If you can get through this, you're a strong woman. It begins with a rose, in soft focus, twirling around in the air. This is followed by R.F.S. and assorted courtesans behaving in a very undignified way, and is meant to be really sexy while actually just being really funny. Consider my personal problem of being unable to imagine R.F.S. doing anything everyday, whether it be dignified or not, such as consulting maps and menus, or hoovering. So, when he's drunkenly carousing, the temptation to leave the cinema can be almost overwhelming.

B) The ghastly revelation that they couldn't afford to pay Rufus to do the whole film, so at times dyed Postman Pat's hair and bunged him on instead.

C) The sex scenes. They're in soft focus. They made me speculate horribly about Rufus and Yasmin.

D) The bit when Rufus is in battle - you can tell he's trying to be Kenneth Branagh.

On the other hand...

A) We've got better looks and smaller waists than Catherine McCormack.

B) She has a really lovely dress with shoulder straps inlaid with turquoise.

C) The overall message of the film: shag and be happy!

D) The bit when Rufus leans on a yellow pillar. Mmmm.

E) It made me remember all my fab Geisha Girl tricks from first year of uni.

F) RUFUS SEWELL! and his i) eyelids, ii) hands, iii) legs (a worrying list now I look at it - I'll be fancying Bob Monkhouse next!)

Actually, if you go for any other reason than this last one then you'll hate it! Venice and Catherine McCormack's turquoise dress manage to upstage everybody.

This is a very dull film.

From Kate - Australia

The Honest Courtesan (aka Dangerous Beauty / A Destiny of Her Own) is a story about love, duty and selfhood and in some respects, speaks as much to the modern woman as it does of Veronica Franco in sixteenth century Venice. Rufus Sewell has described it as a "chick's film" (well, lucky us!) and maybe it is...but from a superficial perspective only. This review is an explanation of why THC struck a chord with me and an attempt to describe what THC offers, for those who want more than a beautifully gushy romance...

THC is lush and opulent; the score is gloriously romantic and evocative; the costumes and fabrics are exquisite and the decors sublimely elegant.... and of course, it's set in sixteenth century piazzas and palazzos as well! So visually, the film is splendid (and even Ruf didn't argue with that)...

Now to the characters...Veronica Franco (Catherine McCormack) is a gorgeously modern heroine- she is beautiful. spirited, rebellious...and literate. She loves risqué clothes and poetry and fine conversation...all of the things denied upper class, virtuous Venetian women. From the minute she is introduced as a teenager, we meet a charmingly naive, willful and energetic girl who prefers to read than sew, and is 'mesmerized' by the apparent freedom and admiration the courtesans enjoy... she yearns for more to life than virtue and the restraints imposed by a patriarchal society. It is as if she is anathema to the social constraints of her time, so it is not surprising that she decides she likes men and sex too...

But her choice is fraught with risk- she alienates herself from aristocratic women and assumes the responsibility of supporting her family. She chooses in effect, the world of men...a place to socialize, write, read, learn - and of course, to sleep with lots of them... But she is also defiant in her choice: the 'banana scene' in which Veronica demonstrates her ability with fellatio- is a rather comic 'get stuffed' to the ignorant, puritanical matrons of Venice, who nevertheless, need her help to explain what is going on politically. It is the perfect demonstration of Veronica's defiance...if it takes expertise in banana-consumption (or whatever) to earn her right to an education then she'll do it....and earn an income in the process.

Marco Venier (Rufus Sewell) on the other hand, chooses comfortable conformity over love but suffers in the process. He is a wealthy, patrician male free to enjoy guaranteed status and a political role in Venetian life. The film's Marco (c/f Rosenthal's) is a party boy who is not beyond seducing an innocent maid (at least for kissing purposes) and finds himself amused and taken-aback by Veronica's unique spirit and "bold tongue"... It is debatable how long he really takes to fall in love with her- he certainly lusts after her (as she teases, while punishing him so cleverly) - but by the time of the life-threatening duel with Maffio, he certainly knows his mind.

The critical plot turn from an anti-Mills & Boon perspective, is that Veronica insists on maintaining her 'career' despite Marco's patronage/ love; she recognizes that he loves who she is and fears the loss of self and his love were she just his exclusive mistress. And, in a startlingly modern (but realistic) twist, she has mouths to feed... This raises the critical test for Marco- can he love her and overcome jealousy ...i.e. is love a thing separate from possession and physical fidelity... Probably the film cops out totally on this one, but the issue is still raised - albeit implicitly resolved otherwise. All this leads to the rather melodramatic (and slightly silly) inquisition scene, when Marco stands up (several times...) for Veronica and Venice; the duel analogy/conflict of corrupt virgin and lover/ whore which pervades the poetry is played out and finally... won.... to everyone's great relief!!!

A few words upon the moral elements of this film- some may find the suggestion that courtesanry is somehow fun/ elegant distasteful and certainly, Veronica is never depicted engaged in the more tawdry aspects of her trade. For me, the fact that she has to become a whore to be educated is the critical point; the morals of her trade are otherwise a distraction which for some people, may render her morally deficient and therefore unheroic. However, the point is tackled to some extent- any woman contemplating sex with Bishop de la Torre must realize how unattractive the job is at times! The film does however depict a woman who enjoys her job and more particularly, what it brings...access to a literary salon, publication of her work and the chance to consort with the academic luminaries of Venetian society on a relatively even social footing.

As for the love story, it is not as simplistic or gushy as first viewing might suggest. It evolves over time from lust to love, and follows certain duel-like poetic conventions, while mirroring the whole romantic concept of 'Venice'. The serenade scene is a highly amusing demonstration of the uncourtly nature of Marco's early feelings - while he plays the serenading suitor, he is openly subverted by Maffio who cynically floats past singing in counterpoint...'but I don't really love you, I just want to kiss you// don't tell mama she will want to catch me...' But never the blushing maiden, Veronica laughs and of course, succumbs to Marco's magnetic charm, and why not? Marco is quite handsome, stylish, smart and witty- what girl wouldn't, especially one as naive as Veronica. But when Marco declares his choice for reasons of political obligation and duty, Veronica is forced to face her choices and lose her naivete... mercantile Venice requires a dowry for women to marry well, so Veronica's options are church or service (either way, submission to the social constraints and rigidities of Venetian society). As her mother says, she is "not the type" to endure what Beatrice so tragically descries:

Which is why Veronica chooses the consequence of education - at a price. So while I agree THC is on one level, a joyous and prettily put-together costumed romp, it does speak on other levels as well. I found the film a joyous and energetic celebration of love but also, somehow a liberating vindication of women who choose freedom and selfhood, despite social mores to the contrary.

From Amy - Mother of Triplets!

I actually passed this movie up in the video store the day it was released. The title implied to me one of a "B" movie with not much going for it. Lucky enough I had rented a movie that night which had a trailer for Dangerous Beauty on it. The very next night I was watching it. I was taken in by Rufus and have since become a huge fan! Marco is our hero and Rufus plays him very well. I have since read The Honest Courtesan and have to say the accuracy is lacking, but this is a timeless love story that pulls at the heart strings. His passion for Veronica is the type of passion all women secretly pray for. This is probably why I loved the movie so. I felt his love for her. Catherine plays Veronica very good, and her and Rufus play against each other as believable lovers. It was a good match. This is a definite must for Rufus fans and for fans of romance and period pieces. I give it my two thumbs up!

Let me say off the bat that I anxiously awaited the release of this film. I had read Margaret Rosenthal’s The Honest Courtesan (the original title for the film, and a much better one in my opinion – Dangerous Beauty sounds like a bad Shannon Tweed-type “B” movie that you find on late-night cable) for a graduate history class on the Renaissance and was eager to see how this very dry historical account could be made into a film. If you haven’t read the biography, let me just say that Veronica Franco was a fascinating woman. I have since read more of her letters and poetry (which the film does not do justice).

I remember seeing previews for this film long before it came out and was definitely intrigued because I couldn’t get a good sense of it from the trailer. However, what I could tell from the preview and was not disappointed by with the actual film, was how visually breathtaking it was. It was a sumptuous, beautifully photographed movie that was aesthetically very pleasing to watch. I have always preferred period pieces in general, and I knew this film would be no exception. That being said, can I just tell you that I loved this film! I know, I know, it’s not everyone’s cuppa tea, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. It is most definitely NOT a faithful adaptation of the book, but I for one don’t care. Being an historian does not predispose me to dismiss films for their historical inaccuracies – if it did, I would not have enjoyed Elizabeth or Braveheart as much as I did.

This brings me to another interesting point. I sat through much of my first viewing of this film saying what the Doge of Venice says in one scene: “Who is this girl?” It really bugged me because I could not for the life of me place where I had seen Catherine McCormack before and the name didn’t mean anything to me. I saw this film for the first time in an art house theatre which publishes its own Playbill of the films it shows. It wasn’t until after I read the write-up for this film that I realized she was in Braveheart (which is one of my all-time favorite films) – but it did me no good anyway, because I STILL couldn’t place her. She looked totally and completely different.

Anyway, what I most liked about this film were the performances. There were some definite miscasts (Fred Ward as a Venetian nobleman?), and many great underused actors (Moira Kelly, Joanna Cassidy, Daniel LaPaine – whom I loved in Muriel’s Wedding -- and Jeroen Krabbe in particular), but the film’s main players were overall good:

Jacqueline Bisset was a riot and perfect for the part of Paola. If this film had been made twenty years ago, she would have been great as Veronica, but as such, she played a retired courtesan wonderfully. I thought there was a very interesting mother-daughter jealousy/rivalry dynamic going on between her and Catherine McCormack and they played off each other very well.

Oliver Platt has always been one of my favorite young character actors, and he didn’t completely disappoint me here. He was witty and looked generally amused most of the time. He played the jealousy turned to malice bit very well, as Maffio Venier was Veronica’s outspoken rival in real life, but I thought he (and the script) went a bit over the top during the Inquisition trial scenes.

Rufus Sewell – aah, Rufus Sewell … dashing, heroic and more than capable of filling out a codpiece – what more could one ask for in a romantic leading man? Seriously though, I thought Rufus was very good. He looked and played the part of the rakish playboy. His character was much more of a rogue in the original script, and it would have been interesting if the director had let that play out. What we were left with was a man torn between duty and love, and Rufus played the angst and heartbreak extremely well. What did bother me was his hair. At times it looked well groomed and at other times like he had a bad case of bed-head.

Catherine McCormack – in short, I thought she was amazing. It must be an extremely difficult task to be in at least 98% of the scenes in a film (like Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth), and I thought she pulled it off beautifully. She had to age from a teenager to a woman in her late thirties (the filmmakers did not do a good job with time continuity in this respect – unless you knew the history, you may not understand how many years had past), and she was believable in all stages. I thought she gave an outstanding performance and was surprised that she, like Jacqueline Bisset, was overlooked for her work.

Nevertheless, being the hopeless romantic that I am, what I was completely caught up in with this film was the love story, which I thought was extremely well acted. Rufus Sewell and Catherine McCormack had wonderful chemistry and I really believed in and rooted for their relationship. Isn’t that strange – I remember when I saw this in the theatre, I heard one older lady remark to her companion, “Did you ever think that you would sympathize with a hooker? And WANT her to get the guy? Shouldn’t we want him to be with his wife?” Frankly, no, in my opinion. The filmmakers did everything they could to portray the wife as frigid and thoroughly unlikable. So much so, that I was initially disappointed when Veronica told her Marco was still alive during the war. I thought, “Let her find out on her own, the cow”. But then again, I guess Veronica was a much better person than both Guilia DiLezze and I, which was really the point of this story, wasn’t it?

In general, is this film silly in parts? Definitely. Could it have been much more? Having read the script, obviously. Is it enjoyable and entertaining? In my opinion, yes. And isn’t that why we go to movies in the first place?