I’ll grant you Glenn Close looks like a man, I’ve always thought so since she last played a man in “Sarah, Plain and Tall”.
Her turn as a “sexy” femme fatale (literally) in “Fatal Attraction” never really clicked for me because, regardless of the supposed wild sex on the kitchen sink (unlikely and uncomfortable, but they got the visual of her turning on the taps and that was what was important, I guess) I never found her believable as an attractive women. I find her less attractive playing a man, but equally sexy, which is not at all.
But finally, yes, she LOOKS like a woman. However, after playing this part, I guess, for years on stage, she doesn’t have a man’s movements nor walk down. She doesn’t even pass as a fussy, fey man. She works from her hips, her center of gravity is her ass, as in most women, and she can’t “shake” that. She attempts to hide it by moving awkwardly and in an unnatural, stiff manner, but I’d pick her out as a woman in a minute.
Dustin Hoffman did a lot better moving as a woman, and the attendant mannerisms as well, and you’d think that would be harder, but I think it’s really not. Men’s movement are much more subtly specific.
Other than the gimmick of her playing a man, the movie doesn’t have much going for it. It’s slow moving, bland and dull.
Lastly, Hollywood always has a way of projecting our values and mores on the past. Nothing I’ve ever read leads me to believe women of the time period were as militantly feminist as the characters in this movie. The writers and actresses and producers would like to think so, but it just doesn’t ring true.
Which leaves us with a useless movie. You don’t have to dress Close up in a men’s suit and put face powder and a ginger wig on her to make her plain and unattractive.