Beyond the Barricade: Les Miserables (2012)

I'm a massive theatre geek. I even flirted with the idea of making my living in the performing arts at one time (instead I've decided to go the much safer route of writing... ha). Les Mis was one of my favorite musical scores growing up and I was excited to see how it would be brought to the main screen.
For those of you unfamiliar with the story, it's based off Victor Hugo's novel about the later years of the French Revolution. It follows the lives of impoverished people of France looking for a better life, for redemption. The main character is Jean Valjean, a convict who spent 19 years at hard labor for stealing a loaf of bread to save his sister's starving child. After he's released, an act of kindness makes him decide to turn his life around and he breaks his parole, changes his name, and starts again. Javert, a police inspector with a black and white view of morality makes it his mission to recapture Valjean.
The production had a very impressive cast on the whole. Stage and screen veteran, Hugh Jackman plays a sympathetic Valjean. He presents the aging of Valjean in a realistic manner. The sound of his voice seems to shift as time passes, especially in the finale of the film, you hear the sound of weakened, elderly man. Eddie Redmayne and Aaron Tveit are very strong as the young revolutionaries, Marius and Enjolras. Redmayne is not known for his singing, but has a clear voice deeply laden with emotion. The song "Heart Full of Love," (which isn't one of my favorite of the show due to its slightly cliche' lyrics) feels strangely genuine, giddy, and comical in Redmayne's hands. Tveit's theatre experience comes across in his commanding performance as leader of the students. I'm dissapointed he wasn't featured more on the posters and other press for the film.
The female cast was generally strong as well. Anne Hathaway was surprisingly adept at marrying emotion with vocal quality. Samantha Barks, familiar to Les Mis fans from her performance in the 25th Anniversary concert reprises her role as Eponine to good effect.
The only person who seemed miscast was Russell Crowe as Javert. Not a natural singer, he handles all his solo work decently, but at times it seems like he's putting to much focus on his singing. He has trouble balancing the acting in a scene while he's singing. Not that he's particularly bad, but when so much of the rest of the cast shines at that balance, it's easier to notice his deficit.
Overall, the film was very strong and emotionally resonant. There were many sniffles among the audience as early as a half an hour into the film. The score is extremely powerful. That's the quality that has brought theatre going audience to their feet for the past twenty five year and it continues to be effective in film. As the press for the film has made clear, the actors sang on set instead of pre-recording their music. It gives a more organic feel and allows for the actors to experiment and really perform the songs as they would in a theatrical setting.
The film medium allows them to explore the scale of the story more and even find some gritty moments about the poverty people live in. The death scenes (of course there are are death scenes) are handled well. One particular death of one of the barricade boys is done especially well, as he is draped out of a window like a flag.
Fans of the musical and of historical dramas will find many things to enjoy about the newest adaptation of Hugo's classic 19th novel.

Possession: The Book vs. The Film

Possession is a romantic novel that traces the love affair between two Victorian poets as well as the story of the modern academics piecing together the trail of letters they left behind. The novel is beautiful, full of the lush language A.S. Byatt was famous for. Though, there are some long passages of poetry that seem a little indulgent and unnecessary, you gradually get more and more drawn into the story of the Victorians, Randolph Henry Ash and Christabel LaMotte.
I saw the 2002 film last night with starred Gweneth Paltrow and Aaron Eckhart as Maud and Roland, the modern academics turned historical detectives. Jeremy Northam and Jennifer Ehle play Ash and LaMotte.
Of course the film makes many cuts so that it can fit in a 1 hour and 40 minute time slot. They trim down many things (like some of the epic poems) that don't effect the story too much, but the film seemed to be missing something deeper. The character of Roland, especially seems underdeveloped. Everything seems to happen very quickly and some of the slower, more character driven moments from the book are missing.
Filmmaker and playwright Neil LaBute does tap into a few highly emotional moments which came as a surprise to me. His plays are often rather cool and cynical, but he found his romantic side while working on this screenplay.
Even though it's not my favorite of Byatt's novel, it is certainly worth the reading, even if you've seen the film. If you've read the book, but haven't seen the movie, it's nice to see the story brought to life, but you may have the strange sensation of missing the characters you know from the book. As with nearly any book to film, the book is better, but it was a decent adaptation. Still interesting, intelligent, and romantic. It will never be the way I saw it in my head, of course, but that's always the problem with adaptations.

The Tempest (2010)

I finally had a chance to see Julie Taymor's adaptation of William Shakespeare's The Tempest. Taymor has previously adapted Shakespeare for the screen with Titus, her 1999 adaptation of the gory revenge tragedy, Titus Andronicus.
The first noticeable change Taymor makes to Shakespeare's play is that of making the dethroned Duke and part time sorcerer Prospero a woman, Prospera, played by Helen Mirren. People have complained about this, "But this doesn't fit the thesis I wrote about gender roles in The Tempest." However, Taymor wasn't writing a thesis, she was looking at the text with a fresh set of eyes. Mirren is incandescent in the role, full of rage and sorrow.
The rest of the casting is fantastic as well, Ben Whishaw as Ariel and Felicity Jones as Miranda stand out especially. Russell Brand appears as Trinculo, a jester sort of role. He plays Trinculo as Russell Brand, if you don't find him particularly funny, you won't enjoy his scenes very much. In my opinion, he was the one low point in the casting.
Djinmom Hounsou's portrayal of Caliban, like Helen Mirren's Prospera, add new shading to the roles and the play over all. In moments between Prospera and Caliban the sense of imperialism or western colonialism in general seems to be an undertone; the ruling invader speaking to the native, holding power over them. The role of Prospero as a woman brought in the idea the undermining of women's inheritance and legal power and, of course, the witch trials common of the era.
As usual, Taymor's visuals are stunning and artistic. Whishaw's Ariel, the airy spirit, transforms through many of the scenes. From a sheer, snowy white figure able to split himself into several portions, to a terrifying black crow, glistening and winged hovering over the King and his men, driving them mad, each scene presents a new visual landscape which Whishaw and Taymor fully embody.
Toward then end, some of the surreal visuals of the hell hounds chasing Stephano, Trinculo, and Caliban looks vaguely video game like. As one of Shakespeare's later comedies, it is very dark and Taymor struggles to bring out the moments of comedy from within the play with such visuals as well as a very modern sounding musical score under these parts. It is difficult for her to capture what is humorous about these characters in this sublot on film.
In typical Taymor fashion, nothing is completely straight forward. Though the costumes of the nobles that are shipwrecked on the island are grounded in the 17th century, there is a gothic, punk-rock feel. All of their doublets are black festooned with zippers and metal. The belts and boots also have buckles and marks that would make them more appropriate for the grunge movement than the late Elizabethan era. Her costumes are like wink to the audience, reinforcing her point; it's Shakespeare, but filtered through a modern lens.
Shakespeare is different from most literature you probably read in school. It is also (and in my opinion, primarily) theatre. Literature is a more stagnant art form, but theatre is constantly moving and shaping and being collaborated on. If you aren't going to add anything new to the conversation, why bother directing Shakespeare? Taymor is always brave and always willing to experiment which makes her a director worth watching. Some of her experiments are more successful than others, but The Tempest represents mostly success.

Jane Eyre 2011

I was finally able to watch this new adaptation of one of my favorite novels. Due to its limited theatrical release, I had to wait for the DVD to come out.

Unlike the novel, which is told chronologically, the film starts toward the end of the story with Jane's escape from Thornfield and discovery by St. John Rivers. This makes the story unfold through a series of memories. Jane thinks back to her childhood and her brutal schooling. Gradually then, we get to the main part of the story, Jane's life at Thornfield Hall. Time and events are extremely condensed due to the necessity of keeping the film short enough for theatrical release, but the emphasis on Jane's memory telling the story explains why passages of time seem to be missing. She is remembering the important moments in her time at Thornfield and in her relationship with Mr. Rochester.
The passage with St. John and his sisters takes on a different shade as well. The relationship is changed between Jane and St. John by their miraculous discovery of shared blood being removed from the story. It also credits St. John with more desire for Jane than he had in the original novel.
There are many important moments from the novel that are missing from this film. The character of Grace Poole is almost entirely missing and Mr. Rochester's house party only appears to last about two days, skirting over some important moments that occur between the characters during it. Having seen the deleted scenes, I believe that the veil ripping passage should have been included, it adds to the reason for Rochester's haste on the wedding day and also adds to the sense of menace and danger of the house's secrets.
Though it does lack many elements from the novel, it does still offer worthwhile qualities for Jane Eyre fans. This adaptation emphasizes the the gothic elements of the story, the other worldliness that Jane possesses and experiences, but also the fearful qualities of Thornfield. It also does an excellent job of illustrating Jane's youthfulness and inexperience. Though the 2006 mini-series adaptation preserves the story much better, due to the maturity exuded by Ruth Wilson, Jane seems to be older. Mia Wasikowska is a younger actress and better captures the fact that Jane is in her late teens, she has no experience with or knowledge of men. Though she is inexperienced, she is full of spirit and has a strong sense of self respect.
Michael Fassbender was an excellent choice for the role of Rochester. He has childlike moments of moodiness, but the deeper levels to his inner turmoil peek through, though still finding a sense of teasing to his behavior at times. Another level he brings to the character is that of desperation. He has an emotional vulnerability influenced by his past that tears the heart at moments.
Rochester is not supposed to be a pretty sort of hero, but he is given many moments of masculine strength, shown in his shirt sleeves working with his hands which makes him develop into a very attractive figure. His interactions with Jane are what make him endearing. He sees into her and appreciates her worth, he treats her with value. This exceeds all of his miserable moods, we see that with Jane he is better, and that helps Jane to blossom as well. They are perfect complements.
It is a very respectable adaptation and would be a good introduction to those unfamiliar with the story. The cast and the artistic development of atmospere is what takes it beyond the realms of mediocre and make it a piece that can hold its own against other adaptations.

Herman Melville Meets Dragons?

The Syfy channel is notorious for awful original movies. The Age of Dragons is no exception. While flipping through the channels the other night I came upon this movie. My father's a dragon buff so we paused to watch a few minutes.
It was an adaptation of Melville's famous novel Moby Dick. In a world where lamps and machinery are run on vitriol, a sort of inflammatory dragon oil, Captain Ahab hunts the great White Dragon who killed his sister and maimed him as a child. Ishmael and Queequeg soon join the crew after being recruited by Rachel, Ahab's daughter (an invented character that does not appear in the book). They travel in a sort of tank/ship across a vast terrain while commanded by Ahab who never shows his face to the daylight. Ahab was played dramatically by Danny Glover.
I did not watch the movie all the way through. Being familiar with the source material, I know that only one man would survive the voyage (and that adding a female character gives a romantic interest for Ishmael and lets there be two survivors.) It was not very well written and had poorly conceived CGI dragons.
Still, it was an intriguing oddity, a fantasy version of a classic nautical tale. If you love dragons or Melville, it may be worth a look. Just don't get your hopes up.

Sherlock Season 2 News

Sherlock fans have been clinging to a mere 3 episodes for almost a year now. Any crumbs of news about the next set help calm the manic frustration.
Most of you have probably heard the 3 major Holmes stories that Moffat has said this season is going to cover. It's an ambitious line up: A Scandal in Bohemia which introduces "The Woman," Irene Adler; The Hound of the Baskervilles, Doyle's best novel and one of the most adapted stories ever written; and The Final Problem where Holmes has his cross-country battle with Moriarty ending in Switzerland at the top of Reichenbach Falls. All of these stories have slightly adjusted titles for their episode names: A Scandal in Belgravia, The Hounds of the Baskerville, and The Reichenbach Fall.
The most recent bits of news have been about the anticipated air dates and the casting of Irene Adler.
Unfortunately the originally optimistic "Fall 2011" for season 2 has now been pushed back by the BBC to "Winter 2011." After a recent encore of all three episodes this date change was announced, but the hoped for season 2 trailer has not come to light yet. Word is that some American PBS stations won't be showing the new series until as late as May 2012. I find that absurd, British viewers shouldn't be surprised if American friends beg for them to mercifully upload it onto YouTube.
There has been a lot of speculation over the casting of the character Irene Adler for the first episode of the season. Emily Blunt, Rosario Dawkins, many American and British actors have been suggested as good possibilities. This week I've heard that Laura Pulver will be taking the role. Pulver is known for her roles on the American series True Blood and the recent British production of Robin Hood.
She is a very striking actress and I'm curious to see both her take and the writer's take on how the character adapts to a modern setting. She is a little older than many of the speculated actresses, but that may add interesting overtones to the character. I am a little disappointed that they didn't choose an American actress, as the character is from New Jersey in Doyle's original story.

The Romantics

A group of college friends is reunited over the wedding of Lila and Tom-- two members of the group. They were all inseparable and had a reputation for "incestuous dating" among themselves, hence the nickname "The Romantics." Now on the verge of thirty they have to face realizations about themselves and their relationships, most of which are not comfortable. For Laura, the maid of honor, it's especially difficult. She dated Tom all through college and on and off over the past few years. Not only does Laura have to confront her relationship with Tom, but her relationship with Lila.

This film has taken some serious hits from critics, but I believe there are worthwhile moments and performances. It does have some slow parts where the build-up within a scene seems to go nowhere. Unlike most movies that make it to the cinema, it moves at a novelistic pace (having been based on a book, this makes sense), allowing time for conversation and development of relationships.
The ensemble cast is fantastic. Katie Holmes, who I generally consider mediocre, puts a surprising amount of energy and emotion into Laura without becoming too theatrical. Anna Paquin plays the role of the repressed and slightly neurotic Lila. Josh Duhamel plays the conflicted, poet groom, Tom. Diana Agron, Malin Akerman, Jeremy Strong, Rebecca Lawrence, Adrian Brody, and Elijah Wood round out the group. The only performer that felt wasted was Candice Bergman, in the role of Augusta Hayes, Lila's mother.
After a long, strange night of searching, drinking, streaking, and poetic recitation, the friends must face the morning of the wedding. Though the ending is ambiguous, it has metaphorical overtones. It seems to represent the conflict that has dogged the characters. The fact is that sometimes not everything can be planned for and that the unexpected steps in. These "Romantics" like the romantic poets of old must appreciate the forces of nature. The setting of the film assists in that. Plenty of views of the sea and leaf strewn lawns create the backdrop for many key scenes.

Sherlock Holmes 2009 Rewatch

Now that I am not such a Holmes novice, I decided a re-watch of the 2009 film was in order. I have to say, my perspective has changed considerably.
I do still think the sets were lovely, and the idea of a steampunk Sherlock Holmes still has a lot of potential. The film makers were clearly trying to make Holmes into an action hero. With his boxing, single stick fighting, and mixed martial arts mentioned in the original stories, he was a Victorian action hero.
However, sometimes deductions took a back seat to explosions in this movie. The more I get to know Holmes through my readings, the less Robert Downey jr. seems to fit the character. His physicality aside, he's a bit too sloppy and more annoying, less ingenious. Though Holmes did have anti-social tendencies and chaotic living habits, he was 'cat-like' in his personal grooming and could be very charming and suave.
Though they included Adler's photograph kept from the end of "A Scandal in Bohemia," and had this take place after that story when she returns to England as a divorcee, they over-played the relationship between Holmes and Adler. I'm not against her being considered a possible romantic interest, but she seems to be completely in love with him and refers to Holmes as her 'weakness.' During "Scandal," they only met once briefly.
I still do enjoy Jude Law as Watson, he brings a more capable side to the character, showing him to be the soldier, the man of action he was in the stories. Though, I do think they overplayed his gambling, I suppose that was their way of making it their own.
It's a fun and enjoyable movie, but it's not Holmes. To get to know the character, I'd recommend the Jeremy Brett series. He fits the image of Holmes to perfection.

To The Ends of the Earth: A Review

To be perfectly honest, I only watched this because it was one of Benedict Cumberbatch's first staring roles. Of course when I was scouring the internet for the videos I couldn't find it. Today on Hulu I see they have the entire series uploaded. You know, now that I've purchased it. I also marched through the snow to go to the post office today only to stand in front of the locked door and suddenly remember it's a holiday. This happens to me.

At any rate, To The Ends of the Earth is the story of Edmund Talbot, a young man travelling to Australia to take up a governmental position secured for him by his influential godfather. Along the way he begins to understand that privilege and influence also comes with responsibility. The story takes its form from Edmund's journal that he keeps to give to his godfather at the end of the journey.
On the long voyage he interacts with the crew, and begins to understand the politics that run through the ship. He also makes the acquaintance of a parson, a governess, a family that is actually an artist and his two mistresses, and a radical free thinker. All of the characters have fears and secrets that are touched on during this voyage and Edmund must confront his own ways of thinking about life and society. He even falls in love when their ship meets with another after a storm.

Though To The Ends of the Earth had a lot of potential it falls sadly short. Structurally the episodes are messy, the transition from the first to the second episode is particularly poor. Certain events seem to occur randomly- especially in the final episode, and without much meaning resulting. Perhaps it is because they tried to cram an entire trilogy into three ninety minute episodes. Though Cumberbatch and the rest of the cast add dimension to their characters, a satisfying conclusion is never reached and many plot lines are left somewhat flapping in the breeze.
The romance plot is rather uncomfortable as well. Instead of coming across as sweet, it comes across as slightly creepy and possibly the symptom of head injury. At one point it seems that this is going to be another point of learning and maturation for Edmund, but it falls somewhat flat and insists upon a love-at-first-sight story with an inexplicable ending.
If you are a hardcore Cumberbatch fan you may enjoy watching it to chart the progression of his work (and, as some will no doubt watch it for, a love scene and a showering scene where there is a rather full on shot of his butt). Still, I can't say that it is a series I will watch again or recommend. For an excellent historical film featuring Cumberbatch, I would suggest Amazing Grace, though not without a few structural difficulties, it is engaging and inspiring and has cast with well known, respected, and talented actors.

The Great Gatsby... in 3D?

Subtitle: WHY BAZ LUHRMANN? WHY?
I just read this article and I am appalled. I am a fan of Baz Luhrmann, his decadent, surrealist style usually works quite well and the man is not afraid of a metaphor or two. The idea of him directing the jazz age tragedy that has recently become one of my favorite novels could be an intriguing one. It could really be a great fit.
Then I found out that he is planning to do it in 3-D.
My issue with 3-D movies is that has it become a cheap gimmick to make audiences pay more without really adding to the quality or thematic messages of the film. By breaking that fourth wall it doesn't make the movie more real to the audience, it emphasizes the un-reality of the event. The movie points out its own artificiality (and not in a poignant post modern way). Besides that, those stupid glasses give me a headache.
I just don't see how making The Great Gatsby in 3-D will add anything to the story or characters. Ideally, an audience's investment in the characters, the movement of the plot, and the effect of the theme should be why people watch movies, not just to see when something pops out at them next. For kid's movies and such, sure it can be fun, but ultimately it can dumb down the movie and muddle a fantastic story. Gatsby is compelling enough, it doesn't need flimsy tricks. Fitzgerald would not approve.
In a way, it's ironic because I feel like one of the main messages of Gatsby is how meaningless decadence and cheap modern window dressing are- life, and in my argument, film needs a solid foundation of something other than spectacle to make it worthwhile. I'm sorry if you like 3-D movies, to each their own, but in this case, it feels wildly inappropriate.

Review: Sense and Sensibility (1995)

I don't want to get beaten up... but in many ways I prefer the 2008 film to this version of Sense and Sensibility, this is no comment on the acting- the cast is fabulous- simply the fact that the longer, episodic form of the 2008 version gave the story breathing room and allowed for more of the book to be adapted. There were many moments where I thought "Yes, but then in the book ____ happens" or "They didn't ____."

Emma Thompson is dazzling as the quietly struggling Elinor (one of my favorite Austen characters played by one of my favorite actresses), and her screenplay does use a lot of Austen's own lush language to her advantage. Even though her screenplay is limited by the time allowance for the feature film format, she gives great characterization to all the characters. Kate Winslet is excellent as Marianne, very young, which is perfect for the character. There are also some moments where she seems a little bratty, especially toward Elinor, but that fits well and helps create and interesting dynamic between the sisters. Gemma Jones is also admirable in the role of Mrs. Dashwood. She is, as the book describes her, very similar to Marianne in many ways and seems almost half in love with Willoughby herself.

As far as the menfolk go (oh no, I'm getting to the shallow part of my review quicker than I had intended...), Greg Wise is believably dashing as Willoughby and very likable. There are slight hints of his hiding something, but for the most part it is very unexpected in the film when his previous indiscretions come to light. Hugh Grant is classically awkward, but it works very well for the character of Edward Ferrers and his bumbling attempts at communication with Elinor are very sweet and endearing. Alan Rickman is by far the most fabulous of the men in this film. He is passionate, long suffering, and so darn honorable. His facial expressions tell so much emotion, though he is reserved. He is also very pretty, in a totally manly way.

The supporting cast was also very strong. Hugh Laurie makes a brief, but humorous appearance as Mr. Palmer and Imelda Staunton plays his ever chatting wife, Charlotte. Imogen Stubbs as Lucy Steele comes across as calculating and slightly evil- I like this interpretation. Her little chick fight with Fanny, played by Harriet Walter is highly amusing. James Fleet is a good fit as John Dashwood, Elinor and Marianne's hen-pecked half brother. However, I will always prefer Mark Gatiss in the role. Perhaps it is because I like gingers, perhaps it is because I like Mark Gatiss. Who can tell?

Overall, a good adaptation, even if it is a little too condensed. There are some very lush outdoor scenes and some nice interiors as well for those that enjoy historical buildings and furnishings. The only thing it lacked that I so enjoyed in the 2008 version is a sense of darkness and bleakness in the visuals in the beginning. The atmosphere of uncertainty wasn't as obvious, nor was the desperation of the Dashwoods' financial situation. Still, it was enjoyable and is definitely worth the watching, especially if you don't have the time to dedicate to the 2008 mini-series.

However- I must say that in the movie poster Kate Winslet's hair looks like a weird curl helmet, it's much prettier than that in the movie.

Jane Eyre 2011 Trailer

I just saw this was out... it doesn't look bad actually.



They also seem to have Blanche as a brunette- yay!
I can't say I don't look forward to another chance at seeing Michael Fassbender, although the more I read feminist literature from the late 19th and early 20th century, the more uneasy I feel about Rochester. Stories like "The Yellow Wallpaper" and essays about these "mad women" diagnosed with hysteria (code for a misbehaving female in that era), the less heroic he seems. Within the world of Bronte's book he is wonderful, but looking at him in a broad cultural context, he is less so.

Review: Sherlock, The Blind Banker

“The Blind Banker” opens with a sequence that proves why Sherlock makes a terrible roommate. It soon proceeds with a classic Holmsian mystery: how could someone get into a high-security bank and leave a cryptic message? How can murders take place in a room locked from the inside? This leads to an adventure surrounding ciphers, smuggling and murder. There’s an awkwardly hilarious fight at a circus (chalk that up as another reason why Sherlock’s a bad roommate- he tags along on first dates).
This episode allows for the relationship of John and Sherlock to develop further and gives Martin Freeman as Watson a lot of material to work with in this installment. His moments of dealing with the domestic side of life and meeting a girl he likes is really endearing to watch. Benedict Cumberbatch also had the opportunity to show the fighting side of Holmes at several moments in this episode (he was a boxer, a sword/cane/riding crop fighter and a bit of a martial artist in the stories). He has several close calls in the episode- mostly unnoticed by poor John standing outside.
A running gag this episode was Sherlock’s going off to investigate and leaving Watson locked out of wherever he’s broken into. Throughout the stories, Watson is often following Sherlock, waiting to be let in on something that inevitably, Sherlock discovered two pages ago. In this episode it also facilitates a case of mistaken identity. A dangerous gang of Chinese smugglers believes that John is Sherlock and puts his new girlfriend, Sarah, in peril.
Call me over-analytical, but the mistaken identity seems symbolic of the way John and Sherlock are fusing into a single unit. To the criminals of London, they may as well be one person because they function together so perfectly. True, Holmes can work on his own, but not as well, and probably not for as long.
Also, Sherlock consulting the vandal doing graffiti art on the gallery and sending him on a mission could be a bit of a throwback to the Baker Street Irregulars (I just finished The Sign of Four this week, so their on my mind- perhaps why I’m making the connection).
Overall, intelligent, entertaining and it left off with a menacing mention of Moriarty lurking nearby.
Gemma Chan (from Doctor Who “The Waters of Mars”) as Soo Lin is a very sympathetic character, one we regret the fate of although we know what it will be. Paul Chequer (Eugene from the “Random Shoes” episode of Torchwood) appears as the detective in charge of the case while Lestrade is engaged elsewhere.
I was a bit disappointed that they had to cut some scenes from within the story again this week to fit the time slot more exactly. Now, will the Region 1 DVDs also be cut up because that always ticks me off- no programming slot to fill, due to an invention called *the internet* we are aware of the cut scenes- just put them on the DVD, seriously.

Review: Sherlock, A Study in Pink

Finally, finally, finally, Sherlock has made it to the US (though some American viewers found ways of watching it previous to this premiere...), it is being shown as a part of the current Masterpiece Mystery season. The first episode was shown last night and the literary club and I got together to watch it- yes, watching Masterpiece Theatre and drinking tea is our idea of a party, thank you.
In spite of my initial skepticism about a modern Sherlock Holmes, it worked really well. He was a very modern figure, which is probably why the character and stories are still so popular today. Moffat and Gatiss almost seamlessly update all aspects of the setting and methods of Sherlock's deduction. Very clever use of screen text to let the audience glimpse inside Sherlock's thought process, I enjoyed that.
The dialogue was clever, well paced and highly quotable. There were also many references to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original stories and characters, some of them even a little tongue-in-cheek, acknowledging some of the changes made in the update.
Now on to the shallow part, I know you were all waiting for it: Benedict Cumberbatch is extremely attractive. Sherlock has always been in the realms of literary crush despite his prickly lack of social skills and level of asexuality- something about that gigantic brain of his is extremely attractive. The funny thing is, I've never found Cumberbatch to be particularly attractive in any of his other roles (he tends to play creeps), but while watching Sherlock I realized how amazing his bone structure is, and his hair is lush as well. Now I can't decide who the sexiest Sherlock is: Cumberbatch or Jeremy Brett, it'll be a struggle.
Martin Freeman as Watson is fantastic in the role and also very cute. The two of them have a great working chemistry, making them a believable team. Although there seemed to be a few purposefully "slashy" moments, I will always feel that they are simply the perfect example of best friends. Sherlock doesn't have any friends, so it's an extremely significant relationship for him even without there being a romantic component.
Overall it was a very good start to the series with some good references to the first Holmes and Watson story, "A Study in Scarlet," though it was an original story. Though updated, in many ways I think it was closer to canon than the recent Robert Downey jr. film, though I didn't have the issues with that film that many did.
Next week episode two, "The Blind Banker" will be shown and I'll review that as well.
Oh, and incidentally, if you Google Sherlock's website in the series, "The Science of Deduction" you'll find this. You may also want to check out Dr. John Watson's Blog, if you're feeling very nerdy and fan-ish, which I was.
Once again, a bit of media I import eats my sidebar. Oh well.

Not Another Jane Eyre Movie

2011 is supposed to see the release of another Jane Eyre adaptation. Fortunately talk of one that was supposed to come out around 08/09 starring Ellen Page never amounted to much, but I'm still nervous. After the 2006 Masterpiece series, it seems a little soon. That adaptation was excellent and long enough to fully develop the novel.
The US release date is slotted for March 2011 according to IMDB (and we know they're always accurate about everything....)
Here's the cast and my pithy commentary about them:
Mia Wasikowska (Jane Eyre)- You probably know her as Alice from the recent Alice in Wonderland. She's just turned 21, which puts her close to the age of Jane in the novel. She's very pixie-ish and I just don't see her as Jane, hopefully they'll have her go brunette for the film, a blonde Jane would bother me.


Michael Fassbender (Rochester)- I had no idea who this guy was, until it hit me: 300, he's Irish/German and beautiful. Maybe too beautiful for Rochester. He was also in the recent Inglorius Basterds (yes, that's how it's really spelled).

Jamie Bell(St. John)- 10 years ago he gained fame in Billy Elliot and has done little of note in recent years, excepting perhaps Flags of our Fathers. Apparently Wasikowska studied ballet, so perhaps the two of them can act out their scenes as an interpretive dance. How cracktastic would that be? He's a little pouty for my taste.


Imogen Poots (Blanche)- I enjoyed her in Miss Austen Regrets, but she's also appeared in movies such as 28 Weeks Later. I'm sure she's capable of playing the part, but someday I would like an adaptation that has Blanche look the way she's described in the book- dark hair and eyes. I guess no director believes we can handle a non-blonde being the prettiest girl in town.


Sally Hawkins (Mrs. Reed)- Known to me from the recent (slightly dissapointing) adaptation of Persuasion, she was also in the US released film Happy Go Lucky. I can't imagine her playing such a witchy character, she always seems so nice and happy and meek in all her roles


Judi Dench (Mrs. Fairfax)- I love Judi Dench. I harbor secret dreams that she will one day adopt me. Her sit-com from the 90s As Time Goes By is probably my favorite PBS import. I hope they don't waste her.


Of course I'll go see it, but I will try not to be too excited or too cynical. All that engergy could go into more amazing puzzles.

Banned Book of the Day: Rebecca

A classic tale full of lush language and suspenseful mystery; the story of a young woman haunted by the ever present reminders of her husband's first wife. Clearly this needs to be banned. Though my research has yielded little in explanation as to why Du Maurier's novel is found on the ALA's top 100 Banned or Challenged classics list, I'd like to put forth my theory. As nonsensical as most challenges are, I'm probably completely off the mark. There will be spoilers for those that haven't' read the novel, so tread with caution.
Last fall I took a film and literature class where we studied the novel and Hitchcock's adaptation to film. We discussed much about the fact that according to the movie codes of 1940, ~here come the spoilers~ according to the codes, no killer could go unpunished. in Du Maurier's novel, it is revealed that Max shot his first wife, Rebecca. For the adaptation this had to be changed and her death made accidental. Perhaps some readers also disagreed with the narrator's rejoicing over her husband's murder and his escape from punishment. ~End of spoilers~
Incidentally, in my research I found that Rebecca was the source for codes in World War II, but they were apparently never used due to the belief that security was compromised. Ah, the things you learn on Wikipedia.

Finally a Date for Sherlock!

Sherlock will premiere on the PBS Mystery! programming October 24th. The literary society on campus wants to do a screening party for the first episode.
<"">
Once again, it seems that I cannot include a video without it devouring my sidebar.

Another Book I Have to Read

I just saw the first two episodes of Pillars of the Earth on the Starz website (I'm a poor college kid- I can't afford any special channels). Unfortunately it seems like they aren't going to put up any more episodes, and I can't find any websites to watch it on that don't involve me taking some sort of invasive quiz that asks for all of my personal information. So, I'll be anxiously awaiting (and saving up) for the DVD release.
Historical fiction or semi-fiction has always been one of my favorite, especially stories regarding the English monarchy in the medieval to renaissance period. It takes me back to my days at the Ren. Faire. So far it seems like a really interesting story with wonderfully varied characters. So, here's another book to add to my list. As you undoubtably know, I'm way behind on my reading list.
However there is one vital thing that the mini series has that the book won't:


Ah, Eddie Remayne, cutest male ginger ever. There is something utterly heartbreaking about him no matter what role he plays.
My seamstress persona has also found inspiration for some projects from the beautiful costumes in the show.

I Always Knew Lizzie Was a Renegade

Austenblog has already posted about this, but I heard about it on the Robin Hood 2006 discussion board of all places. Though I am sick of the cackling frat boys and their Austen monster mash-ups, this is a Jane Austen parody I can get behind.


In all seriousness though, Austen's heroines do go through journeys of rebellion and struggles to find themselves and their place in a messed up society just as the characters of Fight Club. They just do it through relationships, not roundhouse kicks, and with less mental illness. Yeah. ~steps off soapbox~
No matter what I do I can't seem to keep this video from eating half of my side bar. Oh well.

Everything Austen 2

I know I barely scraped in under the wire for my "All About the Brontes" Challenge, but this is Jane, I quote her daily, I've read all of her novel... except Mansfield Park, which I've never finished, and a few sequels, some of which were atrocious, and seen film adaptations of all her novels.
So, I'm going to do it. I missed the Challenge 1, but I'll come in strong in this second one. Here are the six reading/watching/crafting tasks I will tackle between July 1 and January 1:
1.Mansfield Park by Jane Austen (I will finish it this time, in spite of Fanny)
2. The Lost Memoir of Jane Austen by Syrie James
3. Cassandra and Jane by Jill Pitkeathley
4. Sense and Sensibility 1995
5. Lady Susan by Jane Austen
6. I will be designing and sewing a regency style reticule based off of period sketches (I think it's really cool that crafts are an option for the challenge)

Who knows, maybe I'll pick up a few more along the way, but these are what I'm committing to.