MovieChat Forums > Vanity Fair (2004) Discussion > Okay...could have been better...

Okay...could have been better...

posted 17 years ago by hannahp1
19 replies | jump to latest

I just watched this on HBO and it was not as bad as I thought. Reese's real life pregnancy was so noticable it was distracting. I did not know if we were supposed to like or hate this women. The movie kept going in different directions as to were it was going. One scene a person was alive, the next dead, if you went to the bathroom, you would have missed key points in the movie.

To me she seemed like a heartless, harlot who wanted no more than money and a place in society, leaving her son seemed no more painful as taking out the garbage. But Reese has such a sweet face, it was hard not to like her. I think she was miscast for this movie.

[–] Hada_Haruko 17 years ago

I know what you mean about her son going to school, but It was really common for woman not to be attached. It seems so unlikely now but back then it really was like that. I think she was hit hardest when her husband left her. That's when she realized that she wasn't just playing a game, she was messin with everyone's life, and her own.

[–] folliesgirl 17 years ago

On the DVD extras, Mira Nair said she cast Reese Witherspoon in the role because of her sweet face. Becky Sharp is such a ruthless and two faced character, yet there's something magnetic that attracts people to her, and Reese has that. Even so, that didn't really help me see past Becky's flaws, and because I didn't really like anything about her, it was really hard to continue watching the movie. It makes me feel like I should pick up the original novel, because I'm sure Thackeray depicts her differently.

[–] ritamilo 17 years ago

The original novel is very biting; Becky's character is far more clearly depicted.

"...truth against the world..."

[–] SunKissT 17 years ago

I think that the character could have been cast differently, Reese made the character more likeable then she was supposed to be. It made it confusing whether to like Becky or hate her.
I dont think that the movie was bad but it could have been better. And i agree that if you even blinked something would happen, like when Becky revealed that she was married to Rowdon, i was like... wait what? when did that happen, and when he died it was the same.

Also, this is just me talking i was dissapointed that all the hot guys died at the end lol, first Johnathan Rhys Meyers's charcter and then James Purefoy's character. haha

[–] ritamilo 17 years ago

This may sound silly on my part, but I think Reese was "too pretty" for the role of Becky. I guess my feeling comes from the copy of the book I have - it has copies of sketched illustrations and Becky is not depicted as beautiful. I think she was adept at sizing up a person and what they wanted to hear from her and adapted her approach to them. She has nothing, feels that she is nobody and insures that she "marries up" to get into society. I think she was most likely attractive but Thackeray aptly named her "Sharp." I think of angularity and cleverness.

Maybe Reese put a pretty face on a two-faced backstabbing character, but I think it was miscast. Holly Hunter comes to mind for some odd reason.

"...truth against the world..."

[–] mcelists 17 years ago

This discussion is amusing....

In Thackeray's novel, it IS confusing as to whether one "ought" to like or dislike Becky. I don't think it's so cut and dry as that. She is a smart and scheming woman--but, it can be argued, she does have a heart. These qualities need not be mutually exclusive.

Furthermore, Thackeray's illustrations are comical. His illustrations of Becky make her look sneaky. Did you look only at the illustrations and not read the text? Because he many times alludes to Becky's beauty. She's supposed to be far more beautiful than Amelia, too.

[–] ritamilo 17 years ago

I have read the novel numerous times and it's somewhat insulting to be asked if I only looked at the illustrations.

Becky's soul and spirit are not beautiful and she is very sneaky and manipulative. She could have all the physical beauty in the world but her avarice and scheming as as ugly as can be.

"...truth against the world..." - attributed to Boudicca of the Iceni

[–] mcelists 17 years ago

It's my belief Thackeray intends something a bit more complicated than that.

And as for Becky's beauty, it's clear I was referring to her physical appearance.

[–] randommovies2002 17 years ago

but, it can be argued, she does have a heart. These qualities need not be mutually exclusive

It has been a long time since I last read VF, but I don't recall ever reading anything that convinced me that Becky "has a heart" (as you put it). Each kind gesture that I can think of from the novel is actually done for selfish reasons -- all part of Becky's schemes.

[–] mcelists 17 years ago

It's my opinion this is arguable. I realize there are other opinions out there.

I do think Becky is often heartless, but I also believe she acts out of a desperate desire for self-preservation. Having grown up dirt-poor and without a mother to look after her as she might have preferred, she cared not only for frivolity (parties, flirting, etc.) but also for financial stability. Of course, if she could go beyond mere stability in that area, all the better....

What do you think motivates Becky to show Amelia the note George gave her? Do you think Becky does this out of selfish motives? (I am referring to the plot from the novel, not the film.)

[–] randommovies2002 17 years ago

Thanks for the response.

What do you think motivates Becky to show Amelia the note George gave her? Do you think Becky does this out of selfish motives? (I am referring to the plot from the novel, not the film.)

I think the novel suggests that Becky wants Amelia and Dobbin together so that Amelia won't be a constant drain on Jos's resources.

If Amelia and Dobbin had remained apart, I wonder if Becky would have gotten him to take out a life insurance policy with Becky as the beneficiary?

[–] iseepinkelefants 15 years ago

Really? I find it hard to believe that someone with such little pedigree could get by on nothing more than personality. She would need the looks to draw them in and the biting intelligent wit to keep them interested. I can't imagine someone unattractive could accomplish as much as she did (for her time).

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all

[–] Unwanted_Birdtamer 17 years ago

I don't think it was Witherspoon's fault about Becky being too likable, that fault would lie with the screenwriter and director who wrote and directed her to play the character that way.

Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite.

[–] randommovies2002 17 years ago

Even if the script had been written differently though, Reese just doesn't fit my idea of Becky Sharp.

[–] theoceansblue 17 years ago

I really enjoyed the movie. Yea, it could have been a lot better, but.. still it was good. I actually rented it the first time seeing it, and a year or two later bought it on sale.

Havn't read the book, so I didn't know it missed the mark that much. But, I still think Reese did a great job despite being pregnant. I'll try to pick up a copy of the book, though.

[–] karagape 16 years ago

**SPOILER** I think Witherspoon's looks were perfect for the part, the script didn't do the role justice. I'm reading the book now and the movie makes Becky way too nice. The scene where Becky is helping Amelia out of Brussels - yeah, never happens in the book. In the book, Amelia has already chewed her out and accused her of trying to steal George. Becky is busy taking as much of Jos' money for the horses as possible. Also, the line in the movie where she shows a little compassion towards her husband, "You won't do anything brave will you?" also never happens in the book.

[–] iseepinkelefants 15 years ago

So in the book she really didn't love him?

I always thought, in the movie, she married Rawdon because she actually did love him (and thats the reason she gave up any hope of a title and more money). In the book though is he in the same circumstance? Is there a reason she married someone who really could never advance or say Pitt who could have given her a title at least (in the movie he seems to have some money)?

If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all

[–] randommovies2002 15 years ago

Nope, she didn't love him. In fact, in the novel (and in the 1998 miniseries), Becky is sorry that she's already married to Rawdon when Sir Pitt's second wife dies and he asks her to marry him. She's very disappointed that she cannot accept him (Sir Pitt-- Rawdon's disgusting father--he's a real skanky lech in the novel!), and be Lady Crawley with a house in London!

Becky had counted on winning over Miss Crawley, Rawdon's aunt. She expected that Rawdon would eventually get back into her good graces and back into her will. Although Pitt (R's brother) was heir to the estate and title, Rawdon would have been wealthy in his own right if he had inherited his aunt's estate.

[–] netshopper-2 14 years ago

I didn't think she loved him. The fact that she gave him a son so quickly and then acted indifferent towards the child that her husband doted on was telling.