'The Danish Girl': The protagonist remains something of a mystery

'Danish' stars Eddie Redmayne as Lili Elbe, one of the first people to undergo gender reassignment surgery.

Focus Features/AP
'The Danish Girl' stars Eddie Redmayne (r.) and Alicia Vikander (l.).

It’s a sign of the cultural shift that a movie about a transgender woman who undergoes gender reassignment surgery should today seem less than an eye-opener. After Caitlyn Jenner and Jeffrey Tambor in Amazon’s “Transparent,” there is little novelty in Tom Hooper’s “The Danish Girl,” about the Danish landscape painter Einar Wegener (Eddie Redmayne), who transitioned in the 1920s into Lili Elbe, one of the first to undergo such a surgery. Novelty isn’t everything, though. What might have rescued “The Danish Girl” is a deeper and tougher treatment of Lili’s transition, and the transition, too, of her portrait painter wife Gerda (Alicia Vikander, fine), who stood by her.

Redmayne, who radiates ambi-sexuality here, is perfectly cast, but the role, as scripted by Lucinda Coxon, doesn’t provide enough ballast for him. Lili's exploration begins when Gerda asks her husband to pose as a female model for one of her portraits. When Gerda arrives home one day to find Lili swathed in stockings and high heels, they are both confronted, after six years of marriage, with a momentous decision about their future together.

But what this couple goes through, in psychological terms, is vague at best. (Gerda, for example, demonstrates little rage.) Whether Einar or Lili, the character remains something of a mystery by the end. This is not an inappropriate approach, I suppose, but I wish the filmmakers had tried a bit harder to unravel a bit more of that mystery. Grade: B- (Rated R for some sexuality and full nudity.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.