Announcing Celebrate Jeremy Brett Month

The brilliant actor of Sherlock Holmes fame, Jeremy Brett's birthday falls on November 3rd. Because I seem to be in a let's-binge-watch-Jeremy-Brett frame of mind, doing a month-long celebration of his work seems like an excellent idea.

This won't be a blog party unless anyone else wants to participate and then I can do a link-up blog post. If you would like a blog button, there are a couple at the bottom of the post so be my guest.

My motivation for doing this is purely selfish. I love Jeremy Brett, plain and simple. In my nostalgic meandering through his work, I want to remind others about this amazing performer. Maybe find others who love him, or introduce him to someone who has never yet encountered him. Sort of like my goal when I hosted the Anthony Andrews Blog Hop all those years ago, or my Frank Langella Celebration. These men are all lesser-known actors who deserve incredible praise.

I won't be delving into Jeremy's private life unless it intersects with a movie or series in a fascinating way. Since he was so strongly affected by the role of Sherlock Holmes, I may make allowances and discuss a few aspects of his personal life at this time. However, respecting the privacy of performers has always been my modus operandi, and I would rather not know everything about them. In Jeremy's case, he shuffled off this mortal coil in 1995 (far, far too soon), and I wish to offer him the respect and honor that he deserves without indulging myself in idle gossip.

He is also, apparently, a man who can wear hats, judging by the photos I've used.

Some of the entertainment I shall review will be officially available on DVD or Blu-Ray. Some of it will only be available through recordings that some compassionate soul uploaded to YouTube for like-minded fans. Unfortunately, the latter is much more common than the former, and my heart grieves that reality just a little bit. But I must be grateful that his entertainment is available at all, even if it's not in the film quality that I would prefer.

Let's gear ourselves up for a month-long remembrance of Jeremy Brett, a performer who stole my heart for more reasons than just his portrayal of Sherlock Holmes.

When you've written your blog post (thank you to my participants!), feel free to link up on the Celebrate Jeremy Brett Month Link-Up Post.

      

      

Read More

Valentine's Day Period Drama Tag

Here are my answers to Heidi's tag for her Valentine's Day Period Drama Blog Party at Along the Brandywine. It was immensely fun to fill out and made me stop to think and remember some of my favorite period dramas. That was exciting.

My main blog post for her blogathon is about Christine and Raoul from The Phantom of the Opera, in case you're interested.

1) Your current three (or up to five!) favorite period dramas?

I'm not watching very many period dramas at the moment but if I were to pick, it would probably be the following:

Sense and Sensibility from 1995 because the film is just so pretty to look at and I just love Emma Thompson as Elinor Dashwood. It's stunning.  It's also rather funny seeing Hugh Grant bumble about so awkwardly in Regency clothes. Poor soul, he's much more suited to films like Music & Lyrics or Paddington 2. 

The Personal History of David Copperfield from 2020 with Dev Patel because the casting is so remarkably clever and it's just a truly excellent film, and very clean, practically no objectionable content. My favorite adaptation so far and that's saying something since Maggie Smith is hard to beat. I wish it had gotten half the acclaim as that heinous miniseries Bridgerton. 

And then the 1982 film adaptation of The Scarlet Pimpernel with Anthony Andrews and Jane Seymour. Because no one can beat this adaptation and the lead couple is darling. It's a truly stunning film and it just makes my heart happy.

2) What would you recommend to someone who’s never seen a period drama as a starter?

Probably something that's Jane Austen, maybe the 2005 Pride and Prejudice with Keira Knightley, or the 1996 Emma with Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeremy Northam. They're film length so nothing too intimidating and they're extremely pretty, plus, they star fairly well-known actors and that can be a help when people are first starting out in the period drama realm.

3) A favorite couple that wouldn’t be included in answer #1 (cause I’m figuring those are already top favorites ;)) and/or a favorite secondary character romance? 

Oh the tragedy of it all, poor Ivanhoe and Rebecca, doomed to fail before they ever got started. And why you ask? Because he is a Christian knight and she is a Jewess. It crushes my very soul. As you may have guessed, I'm not a fan of the main romance in Ivanhoe (specifically the 1982 version with Anthony Andrews), but instead, I wish it could have been different and Ivanhoe and Rebecca could have been together. They were so clearly drawn towards one another, but alas, it was not meant to be. Pardon me while I go weep in a corner.  I wrote in greater detail about Ivanhoe and Rebecca in my Sacrificial Love: Ivanhoe and Rebecca blog post.

4) What do you consider foundational qualities for a healthy romance? 

The ability to respect boundaries, have mutual interests, and mutual political and religious associations. The ability to still maintain and even grow other relationships in addition to the romantic one, that's a biggie. So in other words, not Edward and Bella from Twilight. They're the antithesis of a healthy relationship.

5) Worst villain/antagonist?

I truly despise Mr. Grandcourt from Daniel Deronda. He absolutely makes my skin crawl. He's just horrendous on so many levels, but especially for forcing his wife to have intimacy. It was just so bad. It's a wonder I can stomach Hugh Bonneville in anything else, but I'm actually very fond of him as an actor, just not in Daniel Deronda. I guess it means he did his job right.

6) A favorite proposal scene?

I'm sorry guys, but I LOVE the absurdity of Mr. Darcy's first proposal. He muffs it, big time, and I always laugh in every single version I've seen.

I'm especially partial to the proposal in the 1938 version where Laurence Olivier's eyes pretty much pop out of his head in astonishment at her refusal, which you can see above. Ignore the inaccurate costuming, I know they're off in era, but for me, it doesn't matter.

7) Favorite period drama characters based on a real-life couple?

I don't really watch a lot of biographical type period dramas, but if I were to take a stab in the dark, I would go with Victoria, meaning Victoria and Albert. I only watched the first season, but it was very good and I enjoyed their relationship.

8) Any classic b/w period dramas you like?

I love the 1938 Pride and Prejudice with Greer Garson and *flutters eyelashes* Sir Laurence Olivier. I know, I know, it doesn't match the Regency era and the fashion is all wrong. But I LOVE it anyway. It was my first introduction to Jane Austen when I was a teenager, and I have loved it ever since.

Laurence Olivier does this thing with his gloves when he takes them off. It just makes me giggle every time. Seriously.

9) Most mature romance in a period drama? (mature as in age and/or characters who are consciously and wisely ripened by life experience, etc.)

Mmmm, I would say Doctor Thorne and the American heiress Martha Dunstable. I love the miniseries Doctor Thorne, and this couple truly made me happy. I realize she's not that old, but Doctor Thorne has charming grey hair. Their attraction is downplayed by the younger couple, but it's quite real and quite charming.

10) Most excruciatingly long, slow-burn romance in a period drama?

Margaret Hale and John Thornton in North & South. It takes them FOREVER to get ANYWHERE. It's a beautiful miniseries, but it does drag on endlessly. And then even more endlessly beyond that. It is an endless trail of endlessness.

11) A story that has multiple film adaptations where you love more than one of them?

I'm partial to 3 versions of Jane Eyre.

The 1943 version with Orson Welles and Joan Fontaine is excellent, although his Mr. Rochester terrifies me the most of all of them. Then there's the 1983 version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. That one's my personal favorite. And, of course, the 2006 version with Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens.

All 3 of them have their merits and considering I've never gotten past 100 pages in the novel, I'm not busy comparing film to book, just film to film. And I happen to love Timothy Dalton as Mr. Rochester and I adore Zelah Clarke's unbridled spunk. They're brilliant.

12) A book you think needs to be made into a film (or a new adaptation)?

Would somebody please remake Jane Austen's Northanger Abbey and do it RIGHT, without all of the stupid visions and imaginings that they love to put Catherine Morland through? Could she please be allowed to just be an innocent girl who enjoys reading who falls in love with a charming and slightly snarky vicar? That's all I ask. Just do it RIGHT, with the proper casting (a feat they haven't managed yet), without adding any politically correct nonsense or rewriting the story to be just shy of absurd. It shouldn't be so hard to do a proper adaptation!

Read More

Childhood Friends: Raoul and Christine in The Phantom of the Opera (2004)

Written for the Valentine's Day Period Drama Blog Party hosted by Heidi at Along the Brandywine.

And many thanks to my blogging buddies who helped me choose my topic! As you can tell, PotO had the most votes. 😉

There has always been and will always be the age-old battle of the love triangle in The Phantom of the Opera.

Do we love the Phantom and Christine or Raoul and Christine? 

I was on the side of the Phantom and Christine for many, many years. Erik (the Phantom) is a pitiable character and there's something appealing about being worshipped. He's desperate for connection and relationship and we can all relate to that reality. 

But approaching relationships in such an obsessive way is dangerous. Especially when people start dying. Erik is a terrifying figure, lonely or not, and Christine is more afraid of him than in love with him. A relationship built on fear is bound to fail.

Somewhere along the way, my loyalty shifted to Raoul. 

Not every Raoul, mind you, but Patrick Wilson's Raoul possesses a tenderness that is sometimes lacking in the character. I don't know if it's simply because his costar, Emmy Rossum, was so young, or if that's the approach the director wanted, or if it was his own idea. But whatever the reason, it works.

Here is their rendition of All I Ask of You. It's sometimes easy to miss the importance of Christine's desire to not live in the night, and Raoul's desire to be light for her. It's a deeply moving moment in the film and any of the stage productions.

What it really comes down to is Christine's choice. One man is her choice and the other is not. Raoul could be the nicest man in the world, but if Christine had chosen Erik? It would have been her choice, foolish, but still, her choice and Raoul wouldn't have really had a right to interfere.

Christine's only hesitations to develop a relationship with Raoul openly are born out of fear. Fear that she would upset her Angel of Music, that he would turn against her, and even that he might hurt someone if she disobeyed him. Her requests to keep her engagement with Raoul a secret until the right time, even her reluctance to go with Raoul after the performance because she knows her Angel will visit, none of those moments speak of trust or respect to the Phantom, simply of fear of repercussion.

I adore their reunion scene (minus Raoul's not listening, but we'll get into that later). Christine is sitting at her dressing table, brow furrowed, afraid, and then Raoul comes and her smile lights up the room. The relief on her face when they embrace is palpable. It's beautiful, the banter, and the shared memories they possess from a sweeter, more innocent time.

As it stands, Raoul and Christine move from reunited childhood friends to an affianced couple super quickly. Raoul never gives the impression of being a playboy. He recognizes Christine from when they were children (I'm guessing an age gap of maybe 4 years). He remembers Little Lotte and when he renews their acquaintance, he's reminded of all the reasons he liked Christine to begin with. He's not wooing a theatrical ingenue. He's wooing the girl he grew up with.

The downside to Raoul is that he doesn't listen. He doesn't listen when he wants to take Christine out for dinner after her first performance and she tells him it will anger the Angel of Music. And he doesn't really listen when they're trying to coerce her into performing in Don Juan Triumphant in order to trap the Phantom and she's completely terrified and begs him not to put her through this. Unfortunately, this means he's a Victorian man and Victorian men rarely listened to the feminine concerns or worries or reluctances of their women. 

Does this make Raoul any less in my estimation? Maybe a little bit, but his ultimate nobility makes up for the lacking, or what we see as a lacking from our very modern perspective. Regardless he treats Christine gently as if she's precious to him. There is no roughness or harshness in him and that's the main reason why I adore Patrick Wilson's Raoul. 

Raoul is the light and Erik is the dark. In the end, all Christine truly wanted was the light. Erik's attempted corruption of her innocence is horrifying as I view it now through older, more mature eyes. And Raoul's attempts to preserve her innocence endear him to me tenfold.

I would have included the confrontation scene at the end of the film buuuuuuut, I think it might be a little much for this post. So, to sum up, for both Raoul and Christine, romantic love was hovering just out of reach, waiting for them to meet again. And when they do, love awakens.

Many thanks to Heidi for hosting the blogathon and I'm glad I could participate.

Read More

Dev Patel in The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019)

The Personal History of David Copperfield

(based on the novel David Copperfield by Charles Dickens)

Starring: Dev Patel, Jairaj Varsani, Ranveer Jaiswal, Peter Capaldi, Hugh Laurie, Tilda Swinton, Ben Whishaw, Rosalind Eleazar, Morfydd Clark, Gwendoline Christie

Year: 2019

My Rating: ★★★★★

I'm an avid lover of Charles Dickens' work. So the moment I saw the trailer 6 months ago at a showing of the last movie I saw in the theater, Emma, I knew that as soon as possible, I wanted to watch The Personal History of David Copperfield. Whereas Emma didn't fully work for me, this movie did, in so many glorious ways. So I braved the theater with my sister for the first time since March 2020. We had popcorn and soda and social distanced from the other attendees and thoroughly enjoyed seeing a movie on the big screen.

The story begins with David, as he tells his youth and upbringing himself. Dev Patel as grown-up David Copperfield joins his mother, her housekeeper Peggotty, and his aunt Betsy Trotwood played by Tilda Swinton at the moment of his birth. This is a unique plot device having Dev Patel there, but it worked because of the way the story is narrated. After all, this is David, telling his own story, so why wouldn't he, grown-up David, be there at the moment of his birth?

For those unfamiliar with the Dickens' story, young David (played brilliantly by Ranveer Jaiswal) lives happily with his mother and Peggotty until his mother marries again when he's still a lad. His stepfather, Mr. Murdstone, and the man's sister Jane Murdstone are tyrants of the first order, a fact David realizes the first time he talks back to Mr. Murdstone and is cruelly horsewhipped for his insubordination. David (now played just as brilliantly by Jairaj Varsani) is then sent away by Murdstone to work in Murdstone's bootblack factory and live with an impoverished and silly man by the name of Micawber (Peter Capaldi) and his family. Inevitably, David's mother dies and David (now Dev Patel) leaves the factory to seek out his only living relation, his Aunt Betsy Trotwood who did not want him when he was born because he was a boy and not a girl, and her cousin Mr. Dick, played by the marvelous Hugh Laurie of Jeeves & Wooster and House fame.

Dev Patel as David Copperfield

David inevitably attends school where he meets and befriends a young man named Steerforth, meets a steady and faithful girl named Agnes (played wonderfully by Rosalind Eleazar) who he does not yet love, and ends up falling in love with Dora (Morfydd Clark who will apparently be in the new The Lord of the Rings that I'm very hesitant about), the lovely and foolish daughter of his future employer. Ben Wishaw plays Uriah Heep, a scoundrel version of Mr. Guppy from Bleak House.

The story of David Copperfield is always about the ups and downs, highs and lows of life. David starts life happy for about 8 years, then is miserable in the bootblack factory for about 10 years, until he's adopted by his aunt and goes to school, then his aunt loses everything, and so on and so forth. This is life as we know it. It's not always going to be a happy experience. There will be a combination of good times and hardships. I love that Dickens wrote his stories based on this premise, but always with such a ray of hope, and as we know, the story of David Copperfield is very nearly an autobiography of his own life.

There were many many moments where it felt like I was watching a story about Charles Dickens with Dev Patel as the great man himself. I LOVE that. It was a brilliant bit of directing. Let's just stop and talk about Dev Patel for a minute. He was born to play David Copperfield. I love him in this role. He attacked it with zeal and fervency and just made David come alive on the big screen. This brings me to Jairaj Varsani and Ranveer Jaiswal both playing young David Copperfield. I adore child actors. They have so much spark and pizzazz and both of these little boys are remarkable. I couldn't have asked for better child actors to take on the role of David Copperfield in his youth. There's a striking moment at the end of the film where grown-up David and young David (I believe it's Jairaj Varsani) see each other and grown-up David encourages him that it will all turn out right in the end. It's such a great moment.

Read More

Harrison Ford in The Call of the Wild (2020)

The Call of the Wild (2020)

Starring: Harrison Ford, Dan Stevens, Omar Sy, Cara Gee

My Rating: ★★★★

Harrison Ford is one of those pillars of my life. He's just always been there, ever since I saw Star Wars for the first time when I was four-years-old. He's also one of those actors that people aren't really on the fence about; they either like him or they don't. I happen to like him.

The idea of him being in The Call of the Wild fascinated me because I've never read Jack London's book and I'd also never seen a single adaptation of it into a film. So watching this movie was a brand new introduction for me to the story and Harrison's presence in the film piqued my interest to make me try it.

There's a lot of heart behind The Call of the Wild.

I feel like Harrison just wanted to make this movie. That he's reached an age where he can sort of do what he wants, and unapologetically be who he is. I admire that about him now, and so there's a relaxed comfortableness he exhibits while playing John Thornton. There's very little artifice, but a tired, older man who's running from his demons and nightmares until his fate intertwines with the fate of this dog, Buck.

Animal movies have never really been my thing, which is weird because most people LOVE them. I guess they make me sad in some ways? Buck goes through a hard time. He's kidnapped from his home and shipped off to the Yukon because they're short of sled dogs. He's abused by his kidnappers to train and tame him. His first owner in the Yukon runs the mail sled and he and his female partner (possibly his lover/wife?) are very kind to Buck and the other sled dogs, as kind as you can be in the Yukon. His second owner in the Yukon is a cruel man named Hal, played by Downton Abbey's Dan Stevens as it happens, but John Thornton rescues him. Buck's journey to finally being at John Thornton's side is not an easy one.

Read More

Period Drama Review: Emma (1996)

Were you expecting the much beloved version of Emma starring Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeremy Northam? That's fine if you were. I didn't know until this year that a second version of Emma also came out in 1996, this time starring a remarkably young Kate Beckinsale as the leading lady.

I have a confession to make. 

Emma Woodhouse has always been my least favorite of Austen's heroines, with Fanny Price as a close second. No actress has been able to make Emma remotely likable to me, not even Gwyneth who is pretty much everyone's favorite rendering of this officious busybody. To my amazement, Kate Beckinsale impressed me, more than impressed me, blew me away with her performance as Emma.

I had pretty much lost hope that an actress existed who could convince me that Emma had a heart beating in her breast. She always seems such an arrogant person, holding low opinions of everyone while having very little status other than being a Woodhouse. If she were to travel to London she would be nobody, which is why she is content to stay put in her little hamlet where she is the queen.

But I digress.

Read More

Northanger Abbey (1986, Jane Austen Film Adaptation)

I'm going to do something dangerous. I'm going to assume that anyone reading this post already knows Jane Austen's plot and may have even read Northanger Abbey. If you have no knowledge of the plot, this Jane Austen website has a tolerable summary although even they assume Catherine was already reading gothic novels before traveling to Bath and that is not mentioned anywhere in Jane Austen's book.

Now, on to the 1986 film adaptation of Northanger Abbey. What happened? I'm just pretty much agog with confusion and disappointment and a smallish modicum of malicious delight. Not that I had high hopes to start with, but I at least had some hope that it wouldn't be so HORRIFIC.

Peter Firth as Henry Tilney

My first issue is Henry Tilney. I've never liked Peter Firth, will never like Peter Firth, and every time I see him I see Pilate from the biblical movie Risen. He's a rather gross-looking man and his youth did not improve him. He plays Henry Tilney with arrogance, a twisted lip, and when he shows up at the end of the film to reunite with Catherine, I rolled my eyes and fought a gag reflex. Poor man. He didn't deliberately make me hate Henry Tilney, but his performance managed it. Henry Tilney doesn't take much seriously, certainly not himself, but I suspect that when he speaks, all of his witticisms are supposed to be just that, spoken in a light, teasing tone that Peter Firth simply could not manage.

Also, Henry Tilney is a minister, as in a pastor, as in a vicar. He is nothing of the kind here but keeps his own estate separate from his family. Why make this change? Part of Catherine's original reason for liking him is because her father is also a minister and she admits she is partial to the profession.

Crazy French Court Lady and General Tilney

Next. What is with the crazy lady in the French court makeup that makes her look like a gaunt corpse fresh from the grave? And what is she doing as a friend of General Tilney and staying at Northanger Abbey? Super, super creepy, and not at ALL in the book.

A boating scene with saxophone music in the background

Then we have the music. Oh dear, no. I love jazz. I do. But it has absolutely no place in random scenes in a Jane Austen movie. There should be violins or piano or cello or flute or something else, ANYTHING else, other than a SAXOPHONE! This isn't Ladyhawke, a movie I love and actually have come to love the odd 1980s music permeating that film. So the music was a big thumbs' down.

A mixed bathing scene in Bath

Since when did "taking the waters" in Bath include putting on little brown outfits and hopping in a swimming pool with other people in a MIXED BATHING situation? Not sure about the floating plates. People have been musing over those for years, but I suspect they're either herbs for the waters or they're lovely little snacks in case the bathers get hungry. It doesn't make sense either way.

Catherine Morland sleeping at Northanger Abbey

I get it. Northanger Abbey was filmed in 1986. But their Catherine Morland looks more like Christine Daae than Sarah Brightman in the musical The Phantom of the Opera. A favorite of mine, true, but that look does not translate well to a Catherine Morland, at least, not for me.

Unfortunately, actress Katharine Schlesinger, who plays Catherine portrays her almost as a flirtatious and seductive heroine. There are suggestive glances that I suspect are supposed to be naivete, but it doesn't translate well. This makes sense because there are some insane imaginary scenes she indulges in. Running in a bedsheet and being kidnapped by two men. Say WHAT?

Catherine's vivid kidnapping imaginings

See, the thing with Catherine Morland is that she never really started reading novels until she met Isabella Thorpe in Bath. Isabella was the instigator. But in this version, Catherine was already deeply steeped in novels and unhealthy romantic imaginings before she ever traveled to Bath, which is not how her character is designed in the book. Catherine does have an active imagination. But she never has visions and suggestive dreams that are something out of a vampire gothic horror story.

Catherine and Miss Tilney

To sum up, the 1986 Northanger Abbey is dreadful. If it had a different musical score and a totally different actor as Henry Tilney, it might have been palatable. I could have forgiven the rest of the weirdness if they had simply gone a different route with those two items. The costuming is very Georgian so it's passable. This was Jane's third novel, written in the late 1790s, and I liked seeing more of a Georgian aesthetic in the film since it made for a change from the usual straight-on Regency period.

I will say that if you want a really good laugh, watch it. My sister and I laughed through much of it and then laughed so hard we cried when we read through reviews on IMDB. There are some AWESOME and clever reviews for this adaptation that are totally worth reading. Laughter is good for the soul and those reviews will make you LAUGH. ❤

Read More

The Pale Horse - Yet Another Non-Masterpiece by Sarah Phelps

The Pale Horse

miniseries released 3/13/20

written by Sarah Phelps

starring Rufus Sewell, Sean Pertwee, and Kaya Scodelario

Since I've never read Agatha Christie's novel, I can't speak into the adaptation's accuracy. All I can speak into is whether I enjoyed it, and . . . I didn't.

Sarah Phelps just rubs me the wrong way with her cold, impersonal writing.

This is supposed to be Agatha Christie, but I already know that it probably isn't a faithful adaptation because it doesn't feel like Christie. It feels like Sarah Phelps and is the reason why I'm not calling it Agatha Christie's The Pale Horse, other than in this sentence.

Why she doesn't just write her own stories is beyond me, but then that would be a challenge because she wouldn't be able to mooch off anyone else's ideas. Instead, she just steals from Agatha Christie, changing the entire tenor of the woman's writing style to something that just doesn't fit.

To give Rufus Sewell credit, he did what he could with the leading role. 

He's an excellent actor that I've loved for quite a few years now and he never fails to disappoint. But what am I supposed to do with a leading man who's cheating on his second wife with a burlesque dancer? It made him very cheap and tawdry. Maybe he's that way in Ms. Christie's work, I don't know. I'm on hold for the ebook; we'll see how long that takes to come in for me. I'm supposed to care about Rufus Sewell's character (see, I can't even remember his name!). It's supposed to matter to me that his first wife was electrocuted in a bathtub. But I just was never fully engaged in the story enough to care.

Then you have his second wife, the marvelously talented Kaya Scodelario. I love her, but her character obviously has some sort of mood disorder, bouncing from normal to violent in the span of two seconds. Maybe it's Ms. Phelps's attempt at showing us the emotional oppression women were under in the 50s and 60s? They can't allow themselves to genuinely express what they're feeling and so they bottle it up until they explode? I don't know, but if that was the message, I couldn't really relate to it because it didn't fit the story.

Of course, Sean Pertwee is one of my absolute favorite actors, so it's always a delight when he pops up in a British miniseries now and then, even though I didn't enjoy The Pale Horse.

Here's the thing, though. If you're going to use Sean Pertwee then please give the man something to do! He was the police inspector and pretty much walked into scenes and out of them again with nothing resolved. That is a terrible use of his talent.

I just expect more. Don't give me cold, icy people speaking cold, icy dialogue in impersonal rooms. 

Overall, The Pale Horse just bored me.

These are good actors, some of the best, really, and the script fell painfully flat. Pairing that script with the filming style of Leonora Lonsdale (whoever she is) was a mistake. There needed to be a livelier script and a director with a bit more life in their style to make the miniseries at all memorable.

As it is, I've watched it once and will never watch it again because I have no incentive to do so. The story isn't interesting, the filming style isn't interesting, and I'm pretty sure that Agatha Christie never wrote f**k in any of her books. That last bit is really just disrespectful of the originator of the story.

Despite my disappointment and boredom with Sarah Phelps' The Pale Horse, I am excited to read Agatha Christie's book.

I may just break down and buy it since it will take weeks for my library hold to come in. We'll see. 

UPDATE: I've now read the novel, and you can read my thoughts in my blog post Classics Club: The Pale Horse by Agatha Christie (1961).

If you've watched The Pale Horse, what did you think?

Read More

What Worked and What Didn't in Emma 2020

Emma

directed by Autumn de Wilde

starring Anya Taylor-Joy, Johnny Flynn, Bill Nighy, Rupert Graves, Miranda Hart

I attended this movie with my eyes wide open. There was no chance of shocking me because I knew what was coming, at least, in terms of disagreeable content. So we might as well start there.

What Didn't Work

Nudity.

This, in my opinion, is a big, fat no-no for any Jane Austen film.

But, since I realize it was thrown in simply for shock value, I'm not going to linger too long on it.

You will see a full length, from the back, view of Mr. Knightley in his birthday suit, blessedly brief. I find it difficult to maintain my respect for one of my favorite Austen heroes after I've seen him naked. Weird how that works.

And you will see a side view of Emma's legs (be thankful it's just a side view) when she hikes her dress up to warm her shockingly bare legs and behind. Where did her undergarments vanish to? Your guess is as good as mine.

Music.

The soundtrack threw me a bit. My sister, bless her, brought up that the operatic songs are musical cues for the transitions to characters of different social status. Yay! I wish my brain had been capable of grasping that concept when I saw the film.

All I know is that I'm not really keen on, what I consider glaring, musical transitions from a fairly nice soundtrack to blaring operatic versions of hymns? Yeah, I don't know. 

Frank Churchill.

Who? Oh, was he supposed to be important? You mean that random dude who really doesn't have much to do when he's on the screen and isn't really impacting Emma's decision making all that much? 

Sadly, Frank Churchill was a non-character.

He's not verbally cruel to Jane Fairfax, which would have been an improvement because at least then we would have some sort of reason to hate him. As it is, he's lukewarm. You don't like him, you don't dislike him, he's just blah.

I will say that his most memorable moments are when he and Mr. Knightley encounter each other during parties, each eyeing the other as if he's intruded on the other's personal space bubble. Now that's funny.

Yellow.

I could have said costuming, but actually, I liked quite a bit of the costuming, especially the spencers which have the most gorgeous pleating!

So instead, let's just stick with yellow. There is nothing worse for a blonde than wearing an entire outfit in YELLOW. I don't know if it's Ms. de Wilde's favorite color, but there was far too much of it to suit anyone's tastes. 

It's jarring and just doesn't work with the fashion.

Ringlets.

Oh dear.

What WERE the hairstylists thinking?!

If they were going to show us Emma with her hair up in the little rags to obtain the curls, then they absolutely CANNOT go with this teeny, tiny ringlets that will never, ever be a resulting end product of said rags.

Those curls are a physical impossibility and are, therefore, ridiculous.

Even worse, they don't suit Anna Taylor-Joy's face. She was the cutest when her hair was actually up in the rags. Explain that to me, if you can!

What Worked

And so we transition to what worked because I truly like a shocking amount of this film.

Mr. Woodhouse.

Bill Nighy is a genius.

I adore him and his portrayal of Mr. Woodhouse. He's far more agile than some of the other interpretations that I've seen, and it's entirely suitable to giggle when he and the footmen are chasing an elusive draft around the dining room.

He also plays a smallish role in getting Emma and Knightley together at the end of the film by deliberately having his footmen enclose Emma and Knightley in screens to protect them from that same elusive *cough* non-existent *cough* draft. 

Bill Nighy is now my favorite actor in the role of Emma's father and I can hardly wait to see him again.

Apologies.

This might seem a strange thematic element, but it also happens to be true.

I never liked how, in other versions and the book itself, Emma never actually apologized to anyone.

This version has Emma realizing the error of her ways and actually making amends. She approaches Mr. Martin's farm with a basket of goodies and a sincere apology for her interference between him and Harriet. She also apologizes to Miss Bates (played by the memorable Miranda Hart of Call the Midwife fame). 

This version of Emma is far more self-aware and capable of human sentiment and regret, and I admire that in her. She shed some sincere tears and then pressed on to make things right.

Emma and Knightley.

There are a few superficial things with each of them that I dislike.

Mr. Knightley has the most ghastly sideburns you've ever seen and his collar is so high that the sideburns are constantly ruffled by it. It just seems ungroomed and disheveled.

And Emma's curls and penchant for wearing yellow are absurd.

HOWEVER, when they are together, it's a winning match.

No, they're not Gwyneth Paltrow and Jeremy Northam.

They don't need to be because we've already had that pairing.

Instead, we're left with a slightly rawer romantic attachment. I feel like Johnny Flynn's Knightley is younger since they didn't ever declare the difference in their ages. He feels like the younger brother if that makes sense. He also suffers his emotions far more intensely than any other Knightley I've seen, which I ended up appreciating after giving his responses some thought.

There are moments during the one and only ball where you can tell his feelings for Emma are so strange and new and strong that he just doesn't know quite what to do with them. Little brushes of the hand awaken his love for her while they dance and it's enchanting to watch him come alive in that way. He responds in a shockingly physical way by chasing her carriage down to Highbury, a very un-Knightley like action, but it works for this version of Mr. Knightley.

Emma too finds herself in quite a state of shock after the ball, and if not for an interruption, when Mr. Knightley comes charging in, I believe they might have kissed then and there. But alas, they're interrupted, and we're given another scene with Knightley where we realize his romantic frustration. It's rather entertaining.

Overall Thoughts

This version of Emma is by no means a perfect adaptation.

There are elements that should have been added, like Harriet's collection of poems which the vicar adds to in his attempt to court Emma. And I may never recover from the oddity of having Mr. Knightley sing with Jane Fairfax.

But on the whole, the important additions made, like Emma's acknowledgment of her poor behavior and Mr. Knightley's obvious increase in affection for her, were both important and made the story more clear than it might have been otherwise.

I also appreciate and admire Harriet for looking Emma in the eye, in deep disappointment, and declaring that she had refused Mr. Martin because of Emma's insistence she could do better. I never imagined a version of Harriet Smith could be so self-aware.

While I wish they had done something different with his collar and sideburns, I like Johnny Flynn as Mr. Knightley. He is a rougher interpretation, but deeply genuine in his care of people. And I don't envy him following in Jeremy Northam's footsteps, even if it is 25-years since that film hit the big screen. Janeites have long memories.

I'm glad to admit that I enjoyed Anya Taylor-Joy's representation of my least favorite Austen heroine (of the ones I've read). I don't like Emma. I never have, but I have always appreciated her journey, and I think that Anya Taylor-Joy brought her to vivid, spunky, and arrogant life.

Emma is Autumn de Wilde's full-length directorial debut, and I must give her kudos for such a charismatic interpretation. I have no doubt that she will continue to grow and learn as a director and hopefully deliver more films that I'm interested in seeing. 

Will I purchase this version? Yes, undoubtedly. I enjoyed myself immensely, and it's a simple enough matter to close my eyes for 4 seconds to avoid seeing too much of Mr. Knightley or Emma.

If you get a chance to see it in the theaters, I hope you enjoy it. The scope is marvelous.

Read More

Movie Review: The Greatest Showman (2017)

After spending 2 glorious hours in the theater today watching The Greatest Showman, one thing struck home. Nobody should care whether the movie is a true representation of P.T. Barnum’s real life. That’s not what The Greatest Showman is all about; rather, the movie is the embodiment of believing in impossible dreams and of loving yourself despite what the world says.

My sister cosplays and depending on what she’s wearing and where she is, it’s hilarious watching people try desperately to not look at her. To pretend they don’t see her and that she isn’t dressed in full Victorian garb, bustle, corset, and all. Why? Because she’s different and people do . . . not . . . like . . . different.

P.T. Barnum was different.

And The Greatest Showman represents him as the glorious type of different that ignites the imaginations of the people around him. This movie tells you that it’s okay to be different because you still have the right to happiness, to family, to love, despite anything that anyone may say to the contrary.

So I pretty much spit on the Rotten Tomatoes critics that are complaining about everything from The Greatest Showman not being true to history (Really? You mean Barnum didn’t sing and dance modern show tunes through his life story?), claims about it being formulaic (Hmm, I’m pretty sure Sing got some pretty serious praise and The Greatest Showman is waaaaay superior), and containing some of the worst songs in show tune history (Ummm, you're going to try and teach me about music, now? I know what I like).

Honestly, it really just feels like modern critics have the exact same approach to the exciting and fantastical as the humbug critic in The Greatest Showman. Awww, did the poor wittle babies take offense at such an accurate representation of themselves? To steal a quote from George Gilbert, a favorite radio character of mine from Father Gilbert, modern film critics are "narrow-minded and prejudicial."

You put Hugh Jackman and Zac Efron in starring leads in a larger-than-life musical about chasing dreams and you’ve got a winner. I haven’t fallen this hard for a film since Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them hit theaters, and it’s disappointing to find the same critics who praised the lackluster LaLa Land being so boorish about this fresh, invigorating and just plain fun musical. Just when I really needed a toe-tapping good time, The Greatest Showman popped up to surprise and impress me, so much so that I wished I'd had the time to buy another ticket, turn around, and see it twice in the same day!

Hugh, it’s good to see you back doing musicals again and not bulked up to the nines playing Wolverine. You’re so much better than just an X-man and The Greatest Showman proves it.

And Zac, WOW. I have so totally missed you, dude! Not that you haven’t been in movies because you have, but, come on now, do obnoxious frat boy roles really match you? You’re better than those characters, and I LOVED you as Philip Carlisle. I miss hearing you sing and that number you and Hugh perform together is AMAZING. My advice for what it’s worth and that’s very little is to shelve any future frat boy films and stick to the classier roles. They suit you. Just own that you're a classy gent and run with it.

Read More

Period Drama Challenge: Risen (2016)

Written for the Period Drama Challenge hosted by Laurie over at Old-Fashioned Charm. ❤ 

Risen (2016, PG13)

starring Joseph Fiennes, Tom Felton, and Peter Firth

I'd been anticipating Risen since I saw the trailer in a showing of Captive (a film well worth watching) last year. I honestly thought I'd missed Risen in theaters because they changed the 2016 release date from January to February, but I did uncover the new release date, and in the span of that first weekend release, saw Risen twice in the theater. No, that's not my usual habit, but I loved it so much when I saw it on the 18th that I went with my sister and a friend on the 20th and then sent my parents to the theater for their own viewing on the 21st.

The premise is this. It is the resurrection story as told from the perspective of a Roman Tribune, one of Pilate's most trusted officers, one Clavius by name. When the body of the Nazarene goes missing, Clavius is tasked by Pilate specifically to find it before it decays and put an end to the rumors that Yeshua (or Jesus) has risen from the dead. Clavius conducts interview after interview, his interest piqued by the unswerving loyalty of the followers of Yeshua. He is certain that the body was, in fact, stolen, that is until he encounters Yeshua himself, sees the wounds on his arms and the hold in his side. Where then can his loyalty lie? What decisions must he make based on what he has seen?

I talked with a gal at work on the Monday following opening weekend. She was a chaperone for her church's youth group at a showing on Sunday, the same showing my parents attended as it happens, but she also took unbelieving neighbors with her. Risen made them think. At the end of the film, Clavius must make a choice. Can he continue on with his life, on the same path as before, or must he make a decision to change based on what he's seen and experienced? You can't just go along in life without making a decision and proclamation of faith, be it one way or the other. You have to decide. I love that Risen has the capability to make people think.

As for Risen being a period film, it undeniably is one, and one of the better Biblical films I've ever seen. My sister, the historic clothing fiend, absolutely LOVED the historic garments. And I admit, there was a definite aura of authenticity surrounding them. Like these people lived in their clothes, which they would have. 

I think that's one of the things I liked so much. I bought that these men and women were from the era of Jesus. They're grimy and careworn, with ragged and dusty clothing just like you would have found back then. The disciples were the same, especially Simon Peter who's a rugged Jewish man with a ring of grizzled hair that sticks out under his cap. They owned the roles and made me believe I was in ancient Judea.

I'll get it out of the way right now. Yes, Draco Malfoy is in this movie. No, it doesn't bother me, and no, I didn't see Malfoy every time that I looked at Tom Felton's character, Lucius. Just like I wasn't thinking of Shakespeare in Love every time I looked at Joseph Fiennes. However, having these actors in this movie elevated it to a level that most Christian cinema never reaches. Throw Peter Firth into the mix and you cannot ask for a better cast of British actors.

I'm mildly frustrated that I couldn't find a picture of Cliff Curtis as Yeshua when he isn't hanging on the cross. Oh well, the internet isn't infallible after all. But I will say that he is the first Jewish Jesus I've ever seen. Most of them, if you'll be honest, feel like they're Catholic. With perfect hair hanging down their back and almost white skin. Cliff Curtis is of Maori descent in New Zealand, with olive skin, dark hair and rich, dark eyes. He plays a very sympathetic Yeshua, compassionate and good-natured and one of the many highlights of this film.

A clever stylistic tool was casting British actors as the Romans then more exotic actors as most of the Judeans. It created terrific continuity for the film that my sister noticed and praised and I agree with her.

Read More

Period Drama Challenge - January Tag Questions

Yes, I confess to being a good, ohhhh, 11 days late in responding to this, but better late than not at all with these types of things. Plus, I thought it would be fun, which it was rather!

January Tag Questions:

1. What period dramas did you view in January?

I watched Beyond the Mask and Oliver Twist. Both of which I liked very much.

2. What is your favorite Charles Dickens film adaptation?

Mmm, I'm extremely fond of Little Dorrit with Matthew MacFadyen, but I also love A Muppet Christmas Carol. It's hard to beat Kermit as Bob Cratchit!

3. Would you rather visit Pemberley (Mr. Darcy's residence) or Downton Abbey (Crawley family residence)? Why?

I'd rather visit Downton Abbey simply because Pemberley can be any one of numerous houses depending on the version of Pride & Prejudice that you're watching. But Downton is formidable and stays absolutely the same through the entire series. Plus, it's gorgeous.

4. If you could be any character in a Jane Austen novel for a whole day who would you be and why would you want to be that character?

Surprisingly, I would like to be Emma Woodhouse. I'm not all that fond of her, to be completely honest, but she at least speaks her mind and doesn't really let fear dissuade her from doing something. It would be interesting to be her for a day and just experience the fortitude that must come with knowing one's own mind so completely. It's weird disliking a character somewhat and yet admiring them too.

5. What period dramas are you looking forward to viewing in February 2016?

Mmmm, I haven't actually given it much thought. Probably Murder Rooms and The Picture of Dorian Gray.

Although I am going to watch Risen on the big screen next Thursday, the ONLY night that it's playing in a theater near me. I've already blogged about Risen HERE, if you're curious. ❤

Read More