MovieChat Forums > Victor/Victoria (1982) Discussion > Decolletage

Decolletage

posted 9 years ago by eqxander
7 replies | jump to latest

I have to admit, this is one of my favorite movies in that it touches on subjects (even in 1982) that were quite risque, but does so in a light-hearted and humorous manner. The singing, the songs, the dance routines, and even a lot of the dialogue (though it could have used less slapstick, but that's Blake Edwards)-- but there was one flaw to the movie that I noticed last night that seems to have flown under the radar.

In the routines "Victor" is on stage, the dresses Julie Andrews wears reveals way too much authentic cleavage to (let's be honest) be believable. True, the audience is farther away, and maybe they were all nearsighted in 1934 Paris, but surely someone would have noticed...? But if you notice most male to female impersonators wear something underneath plunging necklines to avoid revealing what they do not have.

The movie is such a fun farce that it's a joy to just go along for the ride, but it did catch my attention, and since I didn't see any obvious comments about it in the forum, I thought I'd at least bring it up for discussion.

[–] steph_kris 9 years ago

Julie Andrews has alluded to this. She said that she was worried for several reasons (among them the size of her chest) that no movie audience would believe her portraying a man. She said that Blake Edwards explained to her that only the characters in the movie had to believe she was a man. He thought that the movie audience would buy the "woman impersonating a man impersonating a woman" story as long as the characters bought it. I think he was right!

[–] steph_kris 9 years ago

Sorry; I hit "done" before I finished my reply!

Anyway, the idea is that the movie audience is in on the joke. Victor's audience at the club simply believes what they are told to believe. I think this is supposed to imply that people in 1934 were fairly ignorant of what a true gay, crossdressing man would actually look like. King Marchand recognizes from the beginning that Victor is really a woman, which perhaps shows more experience or depth in him than in the other audience members.

With all this in mind, it seems that the cleavage was not an error; it was done on purpose. It reminds the movie audience that they're in on Victoria's scam and no one else is, and it also helps to develop Marchand's character.

[–] Chiscully 9 years ago

Love the movie also I do agree too much cleavage, or chest area, was shown.

[–] thefabslv 9 years ago

Have you watched RuPaul's Drag Race? Boys creating boobs for a grand illusion. Granted, this was 1935, but drag queen is a drag queen, yes?

This is my very favorite movie of all time. I really had no knowledge of drag queens when it first hit theaters, but I never questioned her cute little strapped down bosom. Illusion complete and wonderful!

[–] snelling 9 years ago

Two empty wallets.

"I will not go down in history as the greatest mass-murderer since Adolf Hitler!" - Merkin Muffley

[–] thefabslv 9 years ago

LOL... Yep!

[–] TongueFu 9 years ago

What bothered me about this movie is that I could never see Julie Andrews as anything other than Julie Andrews, even with her hair severely pulled back to supposedly make her look like a man. I just couldn't buy into King Marchand or anyone else seeing her as a man. Despite the severe hairdo and the lowered tone of voice, Julie never looked or sounded anything like a man. So, the premise of the ruse the story was built around just never worked.