|
|
Post by grimnir on Jan 27, 2013 12:04:47 GMT -5
More: in.omg.yahoo.com/news/grace-kelly-tried-escape-her-cruel-sham-fairytale-091918159.htmlSo was the runaway bride (barbie) also an attempt to imitate her mother in law? (Even aside from whether Grace's attemps were true or not?) Who's to say the Wittstocks didn't supply the filmmakers with information? I just remembered CC's solo trip to Los Angeles with only her brother for entourage... I have trouble imagining that Albert told her all the dirty family secrets. Just as William is blind to his mother's faults, I'm not really sure that Albert wants to say anything negative about his mother or that he is slandering his parents marriage behind closed doors. |
|
|
|
Post by paca on Jan 27, 2013 12:27:52 GMT -5
Graces attempts were certainly true for the beginning of the marriage. Rainier went to fetch her back from the US. I'm not sure if Caro was already born or if she was pregnant at the time. But Rainier addressed this in an interview. He said at some point that she had tried to change ways in the palace and got into conflicts with staff that had been with the family for a very long time. He maintained that she wanted things to change too fast. Also she lived in Paris for quite some time. The official claim was that it was due to Caro and Steph, but ALbert stayed behind and there were loads of rumours about a seperation at the time. Grace received plenty of visits in the Paris appartment from friends, but the appartment was just upstairs from the MC consulate, so she was under strict supervision. SHe only returned to MC when Caro was married and Steph in boarding school. Once she was deprived of an excuse to stay away, she had to return to MC or divorce. I suppose she didn't have much to go back to then, if she had decided on divorce....
As to Albert slandering his mom....well, I think they have all convinced themselves into believing the myth Rainier created. I also don't think that they are discussing their parents much between them
|
|
|
|
Post by agentf on Jan 27, 2013 15:31:54 GMT -5
In families, people concede things or exaggerate faults about its members sometimes so as to let the new people not feel too overwhelmed or intimidated. Sometimes that comes back to bite you in the behind when you presumed the new family member was really trying to find their place. There is also the old staff that could have let slip things that could easily be construed. I see CC as an interloper who could have soaked up enough hearsay and use her position within the family afterwards to say just about anything to who stands to make a buck, about her ghostly rival. It's the tricks of the weak-minded. We have seen her PR's defense do the very same thing, planting lies about the young other royals on blogs and forums, with the help also of the media minions. Look at Hello and the dog at Pauline and Stephanie. If CC can accuse others of trying to capitalize on her, it doesn't preclude on the contrary that she isn't. A rat is a rat.
|
|
|
|
Post by paca on Jan 27, 2013 15:48:26 GMT -5
the problem with peabrains is that they usually end up with peasoup... and in trashys case eventually that might be served to her lining up behind the other homeless people she will eventually be joining if she continues to listen to her idiotic family and her own misfunctioning brain....
|
|
|
|
Post by margarita on Jan 27, 2013 15:57:07 GMT -5
the problem with peabrains is that they usually end up with peasoup... and in trashys case eventually that might be served to her lining up behind the other homeless people she will eventually be joining if she continues to listen to her idiotic family and her own misfunctioning brain.... Indeed!! True enemies are better than false friends ;D |
|
|
|
Post by paca on Jan 27, 2013 17:27:50 GMT -5
or greedy, dimwited family
|
|
|
|
Post by margarita on Jan 27, 2013 17:53:09 GMT -5
or greedy, dimwited family So true... |
|
|
|
Post by agentf on Jan 27, 2013 19:43:07 GMT -5
Interesting that Pierre-Ange Le Pogam who bought the rights to the movie at auction, used to work for Disney who today are featured in the Daily Mail displaying their private club 33 that has a whiff of 33rd degree Freemasonry. I'll have to pop over to see Eringer, whose dad worked for Disney, and ask what he thinks. It seems Pogam came up through similar channels as Nadia Lacoste. Also, what a weird guy to pen the script: www.marketingshift.com/people/techies/arash-amel.cfmHis only other movie was about a CIA agent... |
|
|
|
Post by agentf on Apr 25, 2013 12:00:33 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2013 13:50:40 GMT -5
yes, it smells like that.  |
|
|
|
Post by agentf on Sept 16, 2013 18:48:57 GMT -5
The trailer is here. It sounds like the Phantom of the Opera and looks like a chandelier commercial. It doesn't really tease IMO. Grace movie trailer |
|
|
|
Post by tops on Sept 16, 2013 19:27:26 GMT -5
The trailer is here. It sounds like the Phantom of the Opera and looks like a chandelier commercial. It doesn't really tease IMO. Grace movie trailerdid not really draw me in. darn it. hopefully, it's just a start but they better act quick. |
|
|
|
Post by paca on Oct 21, 2013 6:27:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by hibou on Oct 21, 2013 20:06:30 GMT -5
hmmm--- sounds like some people are buckling to external pressure if there's a major re-edit. |
|
|
|
Post by paca on Oct 22, 2013 5:59:06 GMT -5
well, the producer is Harvey Weinstein. I don't think that he is easily impressed, unless some of the people who gave him the money for the movie only gave it to him under specific conditions. My gues is that Albert and/or MC has put money into it. Grace is their cashcow and that would have been another way to milk her without it being too obvious. In the beginning MC was supportive, but then they retracted. At the time it looked unwarranted, but since the director has stated that he doesn't know how they got their hands at copies to recut the movie, but Weinstein confirmed that there was another version, my guess is that Albert saw from the beginning scenes of the movie without the director knowing. That's when they retracted and that's when they started to apply pressure. I think Weinstein would only change if the film is really bad and risking to be a major flop (like Diana) or because those people funding the film have asked their money back, if it isn't recut. IMO it was bound to be a flop from the beginning. Kidmann has no facial muscles left to properly act as anything and the few days in the 60s are not that relevant. At least not to display her and the fascination people had with her. I think much more interesting would have been her pre marriage personality and how much she had to change and give up in order to fit in. Tim Roth is the wrong choice for Rainier too, as much as I like him.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrszinck on Nov 25, 2013 10:37:31 GMT -5
Elle.Fr. article : ‘Who was really Grace Kelly?’ '...(in France theaters in January 2014), which deals with the year 1962 in the life of the princess at the crucial moment when General de Gaulle marks the end of certain tax privileges Monaco...’ --- ‘Here are four assumptions’ No, everything was not rosy No, she was not the great friend of Jackie Kennedy www.elle.fr/People/La-vie-des-people/Interviews/Qui-etait-vraiment-Grace-Kelly-2622972two missing - I will look at the 'paper' magazine and come back tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Post by tops on Nov 26, 2013 5:52:50 GMT -5
Elle.Fr. article : ‘Who was really Grace Kelly?’ '...(in France theaters in January 2014), which deals with the year 1962 in the life of the princess at the crucial moment when General de Gaulle marks the end of certain tax privileges Monaco...’ --- ‘Here are four assumptions’ No, everything was not rosy No, she was not the great friend of Jackie Kennedy www.elle.fr/People/La-vie-des-people/Interviews/Qui-etait-vraiment-Grace-Kelly-2622972two missing - I will look at the 'paper' magazine and come back tomorrow. thanks for this article. i google translated it but sure i didn't grasp everything. interesting with the kennedy/cassini tie-in. look forward to your report from the paper magazine! |
|
|
|
Post by mrszinck on Nov 27, 2013 4:28:46 GMT -5
it's the same as the paper version only with four titles:
No, everything was not rosy/pink
No, it was not a nightcap, stumbled in the bohemian milieu of cinema
(Non, ce n'était pas un bonnet de nuit, tombé par hasard dans le milieu bohéme du cinema)
No, it was not the great friend of Jackie Kennedy but enemy
(Non, elle ne fut pas la grande amie de Jackie Kennedy mais sa meilleure ennemie)
No, marriage does not look like a postcard
Nicole Kidman said ‘I was told a lot about Grace, but nothing definitive. Where is the truth? ... Instead disturb me it freed me’ they discuss the problems between Olivier Dahan and Weinstein.
|
|
|
|
Post by tops on Jan 11, 2014 19:11:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by paca on Jan 24, 2014 11:05:11 GMT -5
|
|
Who's to say the Wittstocks didn't supply the filmmakers with information? I just remembered CC's solo trip to Los Angeles with only her brother for entourage...I have trouble imagining that Albert told her all the dirty family secrets. Just as William is blind to his mother's faults, I'm not really sure that Albert wants to say anything negative about his mother or that he is slandering his parents marriage behind closed doors. 
