.jpg)
By Morris Dean
I wish that every review I ever wrote was of something as delightful as the 2011 British film, Hysteria, directed by Tanya Wexler and starring Hugh Dancy and Maggie Gyllenhaal, with Felicity Jones, Jonathan Pryce, and Rupert Everett in key supporting roles. It's not only a delight, it's also extremely informative. Did you know that the root of the word "hysteria" is the Greek word ὑστέρα ["hystera" = uterus]? Or that, in the late nineteenth century, about half the female population of England was considered to suffer from hysteria and that those who could afford to be treated by a physician would go in for more or less regular vulvar and clitoral massages to achieve relief through "paroxysmal convulsions"?
Right, incredible. And very funny in the hands of Tanya Wexler, who worked on the film for seven years, and with actors like those named above in the key roles.
The Hugh Dancy character, Dr. Mortimer Granville, patented an electromechanical vibrator. Dr. Granville had not himself treated hysterical women, but out of dramaturgical necessity does so in the film, in which he is presented as a man out of touch with his time because he "believes in germs." He can't abide working with physicians who apply leeches and don't wash their hands before examining patients...which leads to his being out of work and finally hired by Dr. Dalrymple (Jonathan Pryce) to assist in his very busy and lucrative practice of "relieving" hysterical women.
Jones and Gyllenhaal play Dr. Dalrymple's Victorian daughters Emily and Charlotte, respectively. Everett plays Mortimer's wealthy inventor friend, Lord Edmund St. John-Smythe, who has developed an electrical feather duster....
With all this, you might expect the movie to be Mel-Brooks-ishly outlandish, but it isn't. It manages to be a measured period costume drama, a romantic comedy, and the story of an invention all in one.
If you buy, borrow, or rent a DVD to watch this film, do watch the 30-minute feature, "Passion & Power: The Technology of Orgasm," with its sketch of over 2,000 years of attitudes towards sexuality and its history of the development of sexual vibrators. Did you know that it is illegal to sell such vibrators in Texas, or own more than five of them?....
_______________
Copyright © 2013 by Morris Dean
| Please comment |
Morris, do we have here a belated but brilliant bit of April Fool's satire on your part, or the explanation for why the Brits rushed to embrace socialized medicine, so all could afford such free treatments?
ReplyDeleteI knew a woman long time ago that made a living putting on house parties, where she sold vibrators and other play things.
ReplyDeleteI believe at that time, are around that time, it was thought that for a woman to enjoy sex meant she was a whore. I may have to try and fine this one.
Ed, the 30-minute feature I mention in the review talks about a woman in Texas who was running parties like that...until the Authorities got wind of it. The woman simply had no idea that what she was doing was illegal in Texas, but she sure learned that it was!
DeleteI still edit better after I hit sent, but maybe fine fits better than find, after all.
ReplyDeleteHijacking of topic is now officially under way...when I ran a commercial photography studio, in addition to hiring models to wear clients' clothing, we started doing portfolios for models. Which led to boudoir photography, which led to photographing and doing video for a woman who held the type of parties which you describe, which led to photographing and doing video for some women who I am not sure were marketing themselves only as models. Which put us in the middle of a situation almost as bizarre as the British doctors being paid to "cure" hysteria.
ReplyDeletePaul, "almost as bizarre"? Perhaps you didn't spell that out in order to try to protect the blog's family rating? Did some Authority or other come calling at your studio?
DeleteP.S.: Golly, Paul, what haven't you been involved in? <laugh>
DeleteHey Paul any of your work on the porn net? And, was this a hands on kind of a thing or did you just watch? (More of a laugh than a smile)
ReplyDeleteWhen one is a writer and photographer for more than 30 years, and is not great enough at any of it to become famous in any one genre, and not awful enough at any of it to be excluded from any genre, and is easily bored, yes, you do get involved in a little of everything over the decades.
ReplyDeleteTo wax poetic, sort of. Just as it is a natural progression for a rain drop to land in a mountain stream and someday flow into the ocean, so is it a natural progression to advance - or descend, perhaps - from photographing high school seniors, to models, to boudoir, to "personal" photography and video. Just as it is an amazingly short leap from photographing fishing guides with local political and business clients, to photographing national-level politicians and CEOs, to photographing the mistresses and aspiring mistresses of those national-level personalities. As some famous artist once said, it is all about establishing trust with the subject.
Kono, to answer your question, during my time between marriages, it was demanding and exhausting work for a guy in his 40s. Like most athletic pursuits, it is a game much better played by younger men. I am referring to the rigors of carrying heavy lighting equipment, of course.
Morris, we weren't in Texas so we never had any law enforcement issues. I'm not claiming we aspired to a level of art as practiced by the masters of centuries past, but we did our best, and were quiet about it, so perhaps we earned a pass. What the clients did with their images after the fact was their choice, and the fallout was their problem. We didn't exactly stamp our work with a copyright and we stayed out of the "marketing" side of the business. Plus there was no TMZ back then, although we did have a couple of run-ins with National Enquirer.
By the way, isn't Sunday supposed to be about movie reviews?
Well, movies, you know, are sometimes about REAL LIFE....
DeleteThanks for filling out the picture of your picture-taking.