General Discussions => Entertainment => Movies => Topic started by: Dana_W on November 16, 2008, 02:01:42 PM Return to Full Version
Title: Different for Girls
Post by: Dana_W on November 16, 2008, 02:01:42 PM
Post by: Dana_W on November 16, 2008, 02:01:42 PM
I caught this one on cable the other night. It's a British movie called "Different for Girls."
From the IMDB plot synopsis:
It was made in 1996. It was pretty alright but nothing too exciting story wise.
The most interesting elements for me were:
The transsexual was not played by a female actress, but rather by a male actor. And she was not made to look ridiculous or comedic as a result. And this was in 1996! That's some forward thinking Hollywood has yet to catch on to.
It was basically a love story, with a happy ending and all. And there was no "gotcha" due to the transsexual element as a result. Two people fall in love and metaphorically sail off into the sunset together. The fact that one of them is transsexual doesn't alter the meaning one bit.
I'd love to see more serious treatments of transsexuals in film that resist the urge to sensationalize or shock like this.
From the IMDB plot synopsis:
QuoteKarl Foyle (Steven Mackintosh) and Paul Prentice (Ropert Graves) were best mates at school in the Seventies. But when they meet again in present-day London things are definitely not the same. Karl is now Kim, a transsexual, and she has no desire to stir up the past while she's busy forging a neat and orderly new life. Prentice, on the other hand, has charm but is a social disaster stuck in a dead-end job. His main talent is for getting them both into trouble. Amid the squabbles, they start to fall in love. One night, Kim invites Prentice to a romantic dinner at her flat. Prentice, finding the seduction unexpectedly effective, freaks out. He proceeds to make a public display of both of them and winds up in court. Humiliated and angry, Kim runs away. Only she can save Prentice now, but will true love triumph for a new made woman and an aging punk?
It was made in 1996. It was pretty alright but nothing too exciting story wise.
The most interesting elements for me were:
The transsexual was not played by a female actress, but rather by a male actor. And she was not made to look ridiculous or comedic as a result. And this was in 1996! That's some forward thinking Hollywood has yet to catch on to.
It was basically a love story, with a happy ending and all. And there was no "gotcha" due to the transsexual element as a result. Two people fall in love and metaphorically sail off into the sunset together. The fact that one of them is transsexual doesn't alter the meaning one bit.
I'd love to see more serious treatments of transsexuals in film that resist the urge to sensationalize or shock like this.
Title: Re: Different for Girls
Post by: Sandy on November 16, 2008, 02:21:43 PM
Post by: Sandy on November 16, 2008, 02:21:43 PM
The scene where Kim is sitting at her dinner table crying because Prentice has not shown up is particularly heart wrenching.
But the scene with her in the dock defending him is very uplifting.
It is different for girls.
-Sandy
But the scene with her in the dock defending him is very uplifting.
It is different for girls.
-Sandy
Title: Re: Different for Girls
Post by: Chrissty on November 16, 2008, 02:52:16 PM
Post by: Chrissty on November 16, 2008, 02:52:16 PM
Yep.....
Listed as one of my favourite movies..
...but then I live in the UK.. ::)
The nearest US equivalent for me is the now rare "Second Serve", but as you say, it did have Vanessa Redgrave in the lead role.
Chrissty
Listed as one of my favourite movies..
...but then I live in the UK.. ::)
The nearest US equivalent for me is the now rare "Second Serve", but as you say, it did have Vanessa Redgrave in the lead role.
Chrissty
Title: Re: Different for Girls
Post by: Arch on November 16, 2008, 05:09:13 PM
Post by: Arch on November 16, 2008, 05:09:13 PM
Quote from: Chrissty on November 16, 2008, 02:52:16 PMRedgrave is so terrific in that role. I have a rapidly disintegrating bootleg copy of the movie--wish it were on DVD.
The nearest US equivalent for me is the now rare "Second Serve", but as you say, it did have Vanessa Redgrave in the lead role.