![]() ![]() Rather, “Tulip Fever” aspires to the handsome, harmless middlebrow appeal of such Miramax movies as “Chocolat” and “Shakespeare in Love,” and ultimately represents the kind of “prestige” art-house pablum around which Harvey Weinstein could once spin a best picture frenzy. Not only is there nothing presently in the zeitgeist to which to peg such a story (except perhaps the Dane DeHaan-Cara Delevingne reunion nobody asked for, shot before “Valerian” and shelved for nearly a year), but the entire package has a curiously old-fashioned feel - and not just because it takes place 380 years ago. ![]() It was an economic bubble, of course (although the term would not be coined for nearly another century, with the so-called British South Seas Bubble), and fortunes were made and lost according to when investors entered the market.īut timing also matters in the telling of such stories, and Deborah Moggach’s 1999 novel coincided nicely with the dot-com bubble, whereas the long-delayed adaptation of same from the Weinstein Company arrives at a perplexing moment. ![]() That’s the takeaway, both on-screen and off, from “ Tulip Fever,” a well-bred, if tawdry period drama set in Amsterdam at the height of Tulipmania, in 1637, when prized bulbs might fetch more than the value of a house. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |