MovieChat Forums > The Countess (2009) Discussion > No, no, Delpy

No, no, Delpy

posted 14 years ago by SonicAndy
7 replies | jump to latest

Had I known Delpy wrote & directed this, I would have stayed way. what is it about? Why is Bathory delivering a speech about suppressed women at the end? I found that to be idiotic and deeply offensive. She slaughtered (yes) very young women and children for a warped idea. It's offensive to put a lot of garbage about emotionally immured (?) women in this maniac's mouth.

Second, why didn't they show the horrible nightmare that took place in her castle? If you're going to shoot a movie about Countess Bathory, you can't have her cut one girl, and that's it. She was much more than that.

And why would the King let his adviser get away with basically calling him an idiot? Laughable stuff.

If this was somehow a defense of Bathory for some reason, it did not work. It's like defending Vlad the Impaler. Well, except for stating that that's how they behaved etc.

I have nothing against Delpy as an actress, but this was just a waste in every way.

"What sweaty pervert ?"

[–] Patito5 13 years ago

I don't think this film was made in defence of Báthory, but rather to show that even historical figures such as her who have been labelled monsters are also human. However, I do agree that this film could have been better in many ways. I wish it would have more clearly focused on her spiralling into madness, instead of her obsession with her boy toy Thurzó István.

[–] cheerforRMatFT 12 years ago

I told that WELL-OFF WIDOW to use TIGER BLOOD!!! Not that VIRGIN BLOOD!!! but NO!!! NO!!! stuburn cow would not listen tome!!!(anonymous spurned lover-suitor)

____________

...She don't need mine, so she leave mine alone...she got her own...

...I like my girls a little bit older...don't wanna lose your luv...

...I just want a woman that looks 30 when she's 81...

...Would you dance if i ask you to dance???...I will stand by you forever...
(regardless of what you've done BEFORE/DURING/AFTER!!!)

[–] denise1234 12 years ago

SonicAndy^

Yeah...

It's kind of hard to hear (or take seriously) her bemoaning the oppression of women when she was ruthlessly killing young women and children, and for the most selfish, base reasons & was quite the sadist by historical accounts.

Doesn't add up, so what was the point?

"We would have been fine, if there hadn't been any.....mess"

[–] NYHeraldTribune 10 years ago

I don't think she was bemoaning the oppression of women but rather bemusedly noting that her ruthless character and thirst for violence would have earned her laurels and a good place in the world if she had been a man. She's not speaking in terms of morality or talking about how things should be but about how she thinks things are.

The speech also begins as a prayer that breaks down when she admits she doesn't believe in god so the speech is really her own day of reckoning with herself as she approaches her own suicide. It's not about sweeping political or philosophical statements.

[–] kokoagogo 10 years ago

This movie is also not exactly historically correct. If I remember correctly, it is very possible all of this stuff embellished upon. I think I remember reading about her defending women in legal cases before she went crazy. She also instituted a law allowing women to own land. So she didn't hate women. And Vlad the Impaler is a hero to his people. He kept the Turks out, for however long. People are not one dimensional in real life. (I know you didn't mention him, but another post did, and I figure two birds one stone) Let's not forget that, and also how poorly women are recorded from history.

Though I don't think she was bemoaning the oppression of women. I think she was simply stating the uneven treatment. She didn't see herself as a murderer. I think she saw herself as a warrior, or at least that's what I got from it. Maybe she felt being a woman is where the obsession with youth came from. I think there are a lot of interpretations, but I just don't think it was written into the film to piss people off.

[–] kokoagogo 10 years ago

I don't think you've ever studied Vlad the Impaler before, if you think there is no defense for him. There are many people who believe he is a hero (and they're not crazy.)

[–] stevenrjohnson 10 years ago

First, you have nothing against Julie Delpy as an actress but if you had known she wrote and directed THE COUNTESS you would have stayed away? Please clarify.

Secondly, the point was made very early on that "history is written by the victors," meaning the man narrating the film (in whose mind it is essentially taking place) and the father whose word he relied on to form his perspectives -- one with very clear political and romantic reasons for distorting the truth. Anyone who has lived through the first Gulf War and heard the fictions (on network news, no less) about Iraqi soldiers removing babies from incubators to die understands the uses of propaganda. And even a cursory review of the Far Right's writings on and attitudes toward Hillary Clinton, including allegations of witchcraft for god's sakes, in the 21st Century, will properly frame one's mind for Delpy's viewpoint here.

All the same, she does leave room to question whether there is truth to the historical record, as in the inquest scene in which the bleeding cage is very much present, suggesting it was not a fabrication of the father's but an artifact for Istvan to see with his own eyes. The film is more than a feminist spin on a possibly misogynist icon, but a challenge to anyone to not accept the official record at face value in any situation where someone has to gain. In that, it was a relief from the usual run of exploitative approaches to the material, also answering your question about why the "horrible nightmare that took place at her castle" was not shown. If you found this "a waste," perhaps it was not to Delpy's discredit.