Well… Reading all top comments, I thought Julie Andrews' performance is underappreciated in this film. It's not easy to balance the aura between different genders. As she is "a woman pretending a man to pretend a woman", "a gay in others' eyes", it's not right for her to "become" both a woman and a man. It's a dilemma for her actually. Therefore, she needs to be neutral. However, the mode of acting determined that it's not entertaining at all. Several days ago, I recommend the movie to a friend, but he refused it without a second thought, "I don't like neutrality. It's always boring and strange." Well, he hit the nail. This is the same feeling when I saw this movie for the first time. Both pure femininity and masculinity are appreciated by people (especially femininty), but not neutrality. When a man became a drag queen, the charming factor he attracted us is not neutrality, but femininty actually. The sweet voice they pretend, even more feminine than normal woman; the heavy make-up they made, really had attractive factors like great red lips, and also add some funny feelings as you know they are men, which is entertaining, too. You'll find a woman pretending man always receive more negative reactions than drag queens. Because they don't have any make-up (except horrible, dark styles) to help, and the aura they'll show is neutrality. If she's a good actress, she could really show masculinity, like Julie Andrews before singing and falling in love in this movie. However, she needs to sing and dance in a way of drag queens; she needs to love a normal man as a woman. Then it's wrong for her to show much masculinety. The result is, the only way for her is to show neutrality, not masculinity like James Garner, not femininty people adore very much like Lesley Ann Warren, not drag queen as funny as Robert Preston. That means she'll lose the way of entertaining audience, and lose the comdic function in this comedy, however, it's the only way to adhere the logic of the movie itself. One year ago I saw this movie for the first time, and only attracted by Lesley Ann Warren and Robert Preston honestly. However, several days ago when I re-watched this movie accidentally, I suddenly realized the special aura Julie Andrews created, the subtle motions and expressions, the way she said those brilliant lines… Besides, her musical numbers definitely are the hardest, which is demanding, too. What's more, it's not the usual type she did as in her other musicals and TV shows. Sadly that they didn't show her dancing talent-- if you had known her more, you would know she was really a good dancer, not just as show femininty as Lesley Ann Warren, but could really do many demanding parts. After all she's a woman who had danced with Gene Kelly in TV shows. However, they didn't give the opportunity to her to show her great dances in this movie, maybe still for the neutrality she should created. Victor/Victoria actually carried many thoughts and discussion, though diluted in audience's eyes by so many other entertaining roles. She was a soprano-- she even couldn't find a job as a soprano, but when she was a "man pretending a woman", she was the hit in whole Paris; She wanted to keep the work when she fell in love with King, but the only way she could do is to talk with King patiently, couldn't release her temper and sadness in a violent way like King, a real man, but also couldn't sing or dance or cry like a real woman. When watching the opera, she couldn't help to sing along with tears, as the last tribute to the late poor Victoria… When other characters are smiling, laughing, and make audience laughing at any time, "Victoria" always smiles in a depression, and "Victor" only smiles when she was on the stage… Sadly, maybe for the form of comedy and the neutrality, all Victoria's moments flashed very fast, giving no time to the audience for thinking. But please don't think Julie Andrews didn't know how to cry and act a tragedy-- watch her in Hawaii (1966) and Duet For One (1986). It's a fault of the production of Victor/Victoria (1982), which is they didn't give much time and space for the leading role Victoria herself, though she's a character deserved more exploration. It's also a waste of Julie Andrews' acting talents, because she's an actress who can carry both comedy and tragedy very well. Most of you know Mary Poppins, The Sound of Music, and The Princess Diaries; I also recommended Hawaii (1966) and Duet For One (1986) with Max Von Sydow before. Besides, actually That's Life! (1986) with Jack Lemmon, The Americanization of Emily (1964) with James Garner, STAR! (1968) with Daniel Massey, The Tamarind Seed (1974) with Omar Sharif (I'm not a fan of this movie but many people said it's great) deserve watching, too. Especially Hawaii, it's an underrated, sweeping epic… In conclusion, "Victor/Victoria" is a role who is demanding, needing actress' great efforts, but sadly can't please the audience. I thought it's the deficiency of the production of the movie, in which the crew didn't give their leading actress a strong clarming characteristic, or some comic function in this comedy, or more time and space to touch the audience's heart to make them moved and thinking… However, Julie Andrews still finished her part brilliantly. Her image in this musical is iconic and Let Jazz Hot is classic. After the re-watch of Victor/Victoria, the most impressive line in my mind is-- "You're a man, and I'm another." Yes, Victoria was still pretending at that time, but it's really a lesson for King, making him realize whether "Victor" is a man, there's diversity of men, women, people. It's also inspirational to a woman like me, who likes watching documentaries and many other hobbies didn't belong to stereotypes of women… Maybe whether you're a man or woman, when finding you're different from others, just know that, like "Victor"/Victoria-- "You're a man, and I'm another. One doesn't prove it, to myself, or anyone." You're a kind of person, and I'm simply another. That's all.。

。