Madonna: 'W.E.' Have a Problem

It probably isn't fair to Madonna that we got to screen her new film, "W.E.," after spending two hours mingling with some of the biggest stars on the planet. (Read about that HERE. The Material Girl was seated a few rows in front of us!) But excitement and expectation follow her wherever she goes, so she's probably used to it by now -- so here goes. My headline's a bit of a cheap shot -- "W.E." isn't great, but it's not awful either -- but it was an upgrade from the (admittedly) prejudicial lede I had all but picked out going into it: Turns out the Golden Globes were right, "Masterpiece" *is* the best thing about Madonna's "W.E."'! But then I decided to be fair. Like fellow fashion icon turned director Tom Ford, Madonna knows how to make a visually pleasing film -- give or take one too many smoking/paparazzi close-ups and flashback montages -- and the well-chosen cast added to the optical splendor. It was the story, however, where she ran into problems. (If this had been a music video, it'd have cleaned up at the VMAs.) For those living under a rock, "W.E." chronicles the romance of the Duke and Duchess of Windsor while also introducing us to Wally, a woman who becomes obsessed with the scandalous couple during the auction of their belongings in the late '90s, finding strength from what she learns about their relationship as she navigates her own flawed marriage. The dual (or duel?) plots flipping between history and present that have become all too common in films today did grow tiresome, but more because the modern story was so weak than because of the clumsiness of the device. (See: "J. Edgar.") Madonna and co-writer Alek Keshishian seemed to be going for a parallel lives theme that didn't work for me at all. I never felt they adequately explained why today's Wally was so obsessed with Wallis Simpson; did she really see herself in the Duchess of Windsor simply because she had given up her job at Sotheby's? (We're told that her mother was obsessed too, and had named her after the "most hated woman on the planet.) That Abbie Cornish -- the "modern" star -- is so beautiful and compelling yet still couldn't make it work tells you how lacking it is.

The film isn't nearly as bad as reviews out of Europe suggest -- hardly an endorsement, I know -- but if the crowd had been laughing inappropriately as reported, it might have been when the past and present characters speak to one another, a moment I found particularly ill-advised. (OK, I admit it: I chuckled.) The historic parts were quite nice, though -- Madonna broke down in tears at the premiere thanking her crew that recreated the era and I can see why, it was so well-done -- but basing an entire film on imagined conversations is a tall order, so I can also see why they added the modern angle. However, I think she would have been wise to have collaborated with a more seasoned writer -- Keshishian's resume makes Madonna's film career look like Meryl Streep -- as I think Madonna's strong suit is her eye and attention to detail, not her words. (Her lyrics often reflect this as well.)

All in all, not a bad effort. (Michael, who more or less turned on Madonna years ago, even thought it had its moments, and that's saying something.) What a pity she didn't listen to early feedback and edit it down by 90 30 minutes or more. New directors so often are loath to cut anything that looks pretty -- and this looks pretty much doomed to fail (even as a "little" film) because it's waaaay too long.

My grade: C.

Try as she might, style did win out over substance.