disappointing on many counts

Rating: 3/10 (30 April 2016)

I can't pretend to know all the particulars of the actual story this is based upon - the Gerda Wegener and Lili Elbe (in the first part of the story Elinar) - and even as I can look up the real life facts and those that were in the book the movie's based on (and some of them are startling and could've made the more more compelling, but I'll get to that later), I have to take the movie on its own terms. And by itself, as a story telling about one of the first known cases of a man becoming a woman in the 20th century, it sucks.
I don't mean this as any affront to anyone who wants to look for the messages of acceptance of others and considering the politics of the moment it's a touchy subject. But a movie can not be good despite being about something important, and actually that importance can sink a movie even further. In the case of The Danish Girl, it's art-house, Oscar-bait trash, and it's borderline (or simply just) dangerous as far as showing images of what it's like to go through what Elinar/Lili does in this story.
Where to begin? I think this is a story that, if the filmmakers (namely the director and screenwriter, I'm looking at you Hooper), had gone to the actual true life material it could have made for some strong stuff, or at least some interesting contrasts. Take Gerda (who by the way with Vikander in a very good performance for what she's given has more screen time it seems than Redmayne, why she has Best supporting actress who knows whatever); she is shown as a talented, capable artist and she gets more offers and perhaps, arguably, gets better and deeper as an artist once she draws Lili - in his/her ambiguous form in art - and that's fine. But the real life Gerda, if one reads about it, was lesbian or at least bi-sexual.
Imagine how this would've deepened the material, how there would be some tougher question to ask: a woman married to a man, which is not her exact sexual preference, then married to a woman and... what if she found *Lili attractive*? Forget the book for a moment and look at that original story and what potential is there for exploring sexual ambiguity and doubt on multiple fronts, maybe even being a little more daring with how sex and bodies are depicted (there is nudity here but it's mostly chaste)? Nope, can't go there, we've already got the Hot-Button-Topic of trans so can't let in the bi or lesb part of it, right?
Vikander does what she can with the role, but so much of the dialog is trite, ridiculous, and flowery when it really should not be at all. And perhaps real transgender people can correct me, but it seems stupid the way the story takes certain turns. The first time that Lili meets in private with another man (Ben Wishaw's character, who is mentioned to be homosexual so there's, uh, no problem I guess as far as fidelity goes) her nose bleeds. Then when Elinar goes to the doctor and talks about his problems he describes (the doctor reads this) as bleeding out the nose, stomach cramps, and it happening once a month. Really? If psychosomatic things happen as far as men getting the same "time of the month" bodily functions in the scope of becoming a woman, then fine, but in the scope of how it's presented in the film it's meant to be taken seriously and it feels laughable. So much of this film can be described as laughable, insipid, and frankly insulting to people who go sometimes their whole life feeling this way. From the way the film, not talking about real life or the book I mean the film here, presents it a man suddenly feels womanly as soon as he puts on stockings and a dress and some make-up and a wig.
If the script had given just some minor indication about how Elinar felt beforehand then it might be more believable in the dramatic context of what comes after. But it never does that. In fact it goes further - Lili doesn't paint anymore once she is fully herself, and I didn't buy this either; does one really change all that much that artistic talent goes away too? But on top of all of the bad decisions and poor dialog from the script is Redmayne's performance, among the worst I can think of that's has the AMPAS seal of approval in nomination form. He is both so mannered and yet so affected, so over the top and obvious with every move that he/she makes, and it's to the point where his 'immersion' into the role seems more like a stunt. I can't decide if he may just be an actor who isn't particularly believable in general or if it's just here (in Hawking at least his immersion was more physical as far as a full-bodied thing). Here it's... lots of tics and stares and hand motions and a lot of nonsense that is sickening in its excessive nature.
Bottom line, this is a poor attempt at making something grandiose, and Hooper's direction, which in his past work was sometimes distracting, is more noticeably bad here (we get it, you like wonky frames) I'm sure there are other films that depict transgender themes and characters better - I haven't seen it but have heard wonderful things about Tangerine from 2015 - but this is both watered down and preposterous, and it leaves its characters stripped down to where Lili is an unlikeable B-word and Gerda is the mostly accepting, all-too-loving wife.