MovieChat Forums > Victor/Victoria (1982) Discussion > The Emperor's New Clothes

The Emperor's New Clothes


Drag comedies are rarely convincing; their usual approach is that we have to suspend disbelief and just accept that the the protagonist's disguise will fool the other characters even though it doesn't fool us.

Victor/Victoria came out the same year as Tootsie, and both films adopt a certain level of realism not usually found in the genre. In Tootsie, Dustin Hoffman turned out to be semi-convincing as a woman. (As Roger Ebert put it, he looked like "certain actual women who look like drag queens.") In V/V, by contrast, Julie Andrews never looks remotely like a man--yet the film handles this fact by basically acknowledging it and incorporating it into the story.

Note that Marchand isn't fooled for a second--he senses immediately that she can't possibly be a man. Of course because everyone insists she is, he isn't absolutely sure. But that just goes to reinforce the idea that people accept her ruse simply because they can't fathom the possibility that a woman would do something like that. That's why I think the story is a bit like "The Emperor's New Clothes," the way conformity and conventionality cause people to deny obvious truths in front of their own eyes.

reply

Good analogy! Well said.

reply

I agree. Great explanation for things that bothered me--I admit I never see the things that were discussed in English classes, instead sitting in a fog, having taken everything literally. Needing explanations.

Watching the film after not seeing it in years, I was surprised by Julie Andrews not going all out to appear more like a man. She lowers the register of her voice to sound male, while a man would be raising it to portray a woman in his drag act--so she should have lowered it more, then raised it to the correct point, if that makes sense, to get the right sound, from the right direction....it sounds slightly different to do that. She never really flattens her chest either (even though she's not a busty woman and it should have been easy), the costumes leave plenty of room so she keeps the illusion of a woman's figure (why?), and she has cleavage showing in the stage costume she wars for each performance. Ironically, to me anyway, she looks most male in the bedroom scene with James Garner after Alex Karrass finds them together--her hair is actually in a man's style, her makeup is far more subdued. Next scene, though, she is back to a tightly corseted dress singing like no man ever could. Your explanation excuses those shortcomings. It was on purpose! Thank you!

reply