pandorable and I caught this recently. When it was over, she summarized the problem with this movie with a single insightful comment:

"I don't know why they made a movie about her."

Exactly.

Georgiana: The Duchess of Devonshire, the best-selling biography that inspired the movie, did explain: quite apart from a compelling soap operish personal story (various lovers, illegitimate kids, living in a threesome, fabulous wealth, equally fabulous gambling, huge hair) Georgiana played a major political role in 18th century events, finding a powerful political voice – this despite an ongoing series of personal screwups. (And thus reminding us that the interest and participation of women in politics is not a 20th century feminist invention.) In addition, the woman portrayed in the book was a woman easy to identify with: intelligent, witty, yet desperate for validation, with an all too human tendency for massive screwups. (In one of the best sentences of the biography, the biographer tells us, dryly, that Georgiana had "told a terrible and stupid lie," and then proceeds to explain just why this lie was to prove so terrible.) Impossible to put down; I was caught between cheering the woman on and wanting to shake her out of her tragic gambling addiction and wondering how she would survive the next soap opera twist. And survive she did; this is a biography of triumph, of overcoming earlier mistakes and personal flaws, to find a certain happiness in later life. Very moving.

The movie shows little to none of this.

Oddly, the movie seems to assume that its viewers have read the book, thus showing us certain scenes with little explanation – particularly the scenes where Georgiana begins political campaigns for the Whig party, demonstrating her unusual popular appeal. The book delineates why her actions were so critical; in the film, she shows up, waves at people, and then walks off. This problem could have been managed with a bit more dialogue, something like this: two nobles, to the side, "I cannot believe that the Duchess of Devonshire is heading out to the streets to talk to people about politics!" "I cannot believe her success – but without her, the Whigs have no hope of winning the election! They need her popularity! No wonder they're sending her out to campaign!" And so on. If you are wondering if that added dialogue might have made the movie longer, well, yes, but that could have been easily dealt with by shortening other, more turgid and boring bits, and would have explained why

Oddly, the movie creates some historical drama that did not exist. In the film, for instance, the Duke rapes his wife – an event with no historical evidence whatsoever. Also, the Duke forces Georgiana to give up her lover, Charles Grey, on the basis that the two are being indiscreet; he has found out about it, and will keep her from her children if she does not give Grey up; only later, after the end of the relationship, does she inform the Duke that she is pregnant with Charles Grey's child. In reality, Georgiana kept that relationship quite discreet; the Duke discovered her infidelity only when Georgiana became pregnant. After that discovery – an extraordinarily dramatic moment – the Duke exiled Georgiana from England, separating her from her children. She wandered through Europe, desperately missing her children. In addition, the film only hints at, rather than tells, the other major constraint on Georgiana's dealings with her husband: she was severely addicted to gambling, racking up millions in debt, and desperately needed him to pay her bills. Not sexy, but very real – and could certainly have added to the film's drama, had it been told.

And the very compelling story of Lady Elizabeth (Bess) Foster – the woman forced to turn to social climbing through economic and social circumstances and a hellish marriage – gets turned into a "well, a woman should and will do everything for her children." In the film, Bess Foster sleeps with the Duke of Devonshire and then almost immediately gets to see her sons, allowing Georgiana to understand and forgive because of course you would do anything for your kids including sleep with your best friend's husband. The reality was considerably more complex: Bess Foster was not able to see her oldest sons until they were adults; she slept with the Duke (and many others) because she needed money and liked sex – and because her place in society kept her from pursuing other professional options that might have earned her a steady income. I'm not sure how this could have been effectively conveyed in a film – perhaps with a hushed discussion of the very real problems faced by women in Bess' position.

In addition, some of the more fascinating characters in the book – Georgiana's sister Harriet, happily sleeping with most of the aristocracy, eventually giving birth to the woman who would become Lord Byron's lover, are completely absent, as is the womanizing Duke of Dorset, Georgiana's nasty sister in law Lavinia Spencer, and others. This sharp focus makes Georgiana's mother feel considerably harsher and more narrow minded.

Filmmakers, of course, need to shape a story for an audience, tightening here, expanding there, allowing the camera to tell a different tale than the one peeking through letters and journals, but the story of Georgiana and Bess was dramatic enough, without needing changes made to it, changes that ultimately deadened the film.