Woody Allen has always been something of an enigma to me - in fact sometimes he seems like a riddle wrapped in an enigma. His films are an acquired taste, and sometimes appear to have no discernible plot, but there is always the direction of his camera which draws the eye and pulls one into the film regardless of whether or not Allen has anything to say. It is rare in this era of blockbusters to find someone who makes films purely for the love he has of the process.
Allen has always been regarded as the portrayer of New York, with his works being love letters to that city. Now, with his latest film 'Midnight in Paris' he appears to have transferred his affections and sets about showing his audience how truly beautiful the capital city of France is - especially in the rain.
This is a film with a message which doesn't truly present itself until almost the end. At first you are simply presented with an American couple about to be married, the man a Hollywood script writer with desires to be a 'proper' writer. Here he is, in this beautiful and inspiring city only to find himself stifled by his fiancee and her pedantic friend (played brilliantly by Michael Sheen) who appears to be an 'expert' on everything.
Only when, slightly drunk and declining to go dancing, he stumbles off into a nighttime Paris and is 'picked up' bu a vintage car full of champagne quaffing revelers does the adventure begin. For suddenly, as the clock strikes midnight, this man finds himself thrust quite unexpectedly and implausibly into 1920s Paris keeping company with F. Scott Fitzgerald, Picasso, Gertrude Stein, Hemingway and Dali. This midnight era becomes a refuge for him, as his relationship with his fiancee breaks down and he becomes drawn to a beautiful woman (captivatingly played by Marion Cotillard) the muse of Picasso and who is in thrall to an earlier 'golden era'.
And here is the central theme of the film: this artistic yearning for a lost time which has come through the years to inspire and enthrall. For Gil, it is the 1920s, for Adriana, the woman he is falling in love with, it is the belle epoch. As with the 1920s, this earlier time opens itself to these tow, and there they are in the Moulin Rouge, deep in conversation with Toulouse-Lautrec and Degas, who declare the Renaissance to be the golden era. Enthralled by what she has seen, Adriana decides to stay in her ideal time, but Gil cannot bear to leave the 20s behind. Returning to modern day Paris, he loses the woman he loves, but gains the determination to change his life.
This idea of an era holding special significance for people except those that live in it is fascinating. I cannot imagine anyone sighing with desire to live in 2011 and calling it a golden age - but given time it will surely happen. It is an impossible dream - to go back and experience life as one's role models and heroes have done and yet Woody Allen makes it happen. And he treats the dream with such a cavalier attitude - shrugging his shoulders at almost every scene, seeming to say 'well, you've met the Fitzgeralds and Hemingway, why not T.S.Eliot, why not Dunja Barnes or Matisse, and hey! meeting Man Ray is perfectly possible in this best of all possible worlds!
I hesitate to say this is Woody Allen's best work, because I've not seen everything he's done, but I think this has to be my favourite!
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Sunday, 16 October 2011
Sunday, 4 September 2011
The chicken or the egg
It's an age old question a book worm/film buff often finds themselves grappling with - which should come first: the book or the film?
It's a conundrum that has divided opinion since the first film adaptation was made (and it was probably a silent Shakespeare play or Jane Austen novel) and which shows no sign of being settled in the near future.
I am, for the most part, firmly in the camp of 'book comes first' (although I did need to see the films of The Lord of the Rings before the books made any sense), which is why I spent three evenings tearing my way through 'One Day' before the film came out.
It's a charming concept for a plot line - following Emma and Dexter through twenty years of friendship on the same day every year. They don't necessarily have to be in the same room, or indeed see each other at all, but it is clear that each feels the others' presence keenly.
I could have quite easily read the entire thing in one hit, but it's a bit too depressing to do so comfortably. Dexter is not the nicest of characters and seems intent on ruining his own life. As he spirals out of control into an alcoholic haze, the reader struggles to find any sympathy to give him at all. Indeed his only redeeming feature seems to be Emma, and even she appears determined to waste the talent she has at first. As one star falls the other begins to rise, and it's debatable whether they ever truly end up parallel.
The film sticks very closely to the book, which is inevitable, as there's not much point in any real deviation. If you've read the book, of course, you are aware of how the story will end, and I think that in this case - with such a focused plot line - it has a negative impact for the viewer. Of course, the same effect would be had if the film were viewed first.
Anne Hathaway, as Emma, has come under a lot of negative criticism for her portrayal, or rather her accent has ..... I didn't think it was that bad: yes - she is supposed to be Yorkshire, and that wasn't in much evidence, but there were some nice moments in the Scottish section, where she had a slight Scottish lilt.
Anyway - coming back to the point: I don't think in the case of 'One Day' it really matters whether you read the book or see the film first, because they are both so true to each other ..... There are many instances, though, that a book can greatly enhance the film. I recently discovered that one of my favourite Ingrid Bergman films 'Goodbye Again' was in fact based on a novel by Francoise Sagan - 'Aimez Vous Bhrams ...'. The way that young woman wrote about love and how the need for it causes those in its grip to act in the most foolish and destructive of ways is truly remarkable, and I greatly prefer the book.
There's never going to be a definitive answer to this question, because it shifts with every new adaptation.
It's a conundrum that has divided opinion since the first film adaptation was made (and it was probably a silent Shakespeare play or Jane Austen novel) and which shows no sign of being settled in the near future.
I am, for the most part, firmly in the camp of 'book comes first' (although I did need to see the films of The Lord of the Rings before the books made any sense), which is why I spent three evenings tearing my way through 'One Day' before the film came out.
It's a charming concept for a plot line - following Emma and Dexter through twenty years of friendship on the same day every year. They don't necessarily have to be in the same room, or indeed see each other at all, but it is clear that each feels the others' presence keenly.
I could have quite easily read the entire thing in one hit, but it's a bit too depressing to do so comfortably. Dexter is not the nicest of characters and seems intent on ruining his own life. As he spirals out of control into an alcoholic haze, the reader struggles to find any sympathy to give him at all. Indeed his only redeeming feature seems to be Emma, and even she appears determined to waste the talent she has at first. As one star falls the other begins to rise, and it's debatable whether they ever truly end up parallel.
The film sticks very closely to the book, which is inevitable, as there's not much point in any real deviation. If you've read the book, of course, you are aware of how the story will end, and I think that in this case - with such a focused plot line - it has a negative impact for the viewer. Of course, the same effect would be had if the film were viewed first.
Anne Hathaway, as Emma, has come under a lot of negative criticism for her portrayal, or rather her accent has ..... I didn't think it was that bad: yes - she is supposed to be Yorkshire, and that wasn't in much evidence, but there were some nice moments in the Scottish section, where she had a slight Scottish lilt.
Anyway - coming back to the point: I don't think in the case of 'One Day' it really matters whether you read the book or see the film first, because they are both so true to each other ..... There are many instances, though, that a book can greatly enhance the film. I recently discovered that one of my favourite Ingrid Bergman films 'Goodbye Again' was in fact based on a novel by Francoise Sagan - 'Aimez Vous Bhrams ...'. The way that young woman wrote about love and how the need for it causes those in its grip to act in the most foolish and destructive of ways is truly remarkable, and I greatly prefer the book.
There's never going to be a definitive answer to this question, because it shifts with every new adaptation.
Sunday, 10 January 2010
Zuleika Dobson
There are a great many books that have been written that use Oxford as a centrepiece. Colin Dexter is the most obvious choice and in latter years Philip Pullman's trilogy have shown us the Oxford that is known and the one that lives just beyond reach in that other world.
There is another novel that has the backdrop of Oxford, and that is Zuleika Dobson by Max Beerbohm. It tells the story of a young woman (not strictly beautiful 'Her eyes were a trifle large ... The mouth was a mere replica of Cupid's bow ... she had no waist to speak of') who manages to capture the hearts of the entire host of undergraduates. Zuleika inspire affection in all but one, The Duke, and seeing this she instantly falls in love. However, the Duke realises this, declares his love and is promptly rejected by his amour. This causes him to declare he will throw himself in the river for love of her.
Now - this is all very well, one man dying for love, and you'd hope the woman being 'honoured' in such a way would immediately recant, or persuade him to change his mind. Not Zuleika. She sees it as the highest compliment, and The Duke accidentally manages to incite all the undergraduates to drowning with him. Thus ends Zuleika's brief spell in Oxford, and what does she feel at this this calamity? Remorse? Sadness? The need to sequester herself in a nunnery? None of these, I am afraid, rather an overwhelming desire to go to Cambridge ....... oh dear.
It has been a long running conversation over on Justine Picardie's blog about who would be the best person to play this inscrutable Miss Dobson should the book ever be filmed. I've been casting my mind over this problem, and feel that the following people would be great.
Katharine Hepburn or Bette Davis: If this film had been done in the 40s, then these two wonderful actresses could have swept off with any number of undergraduates they chose. Bette Davis would probably been harder hearted at the mass drowning.
Helena Bonham-Carter: Can't you just see her inspiring adoration everywhere she went? It's also a very eccentric role, which she would do to perfection.
Carey Mulligan - although perhaps to conventionally beautiful
Anna Maxwell-Martin
Anne-Marie Duff
There was a general thought that Lily Cole could do it very well, but personally I think she is too frail, a quality Zuleika definitely doesn't have! It's an interesting book, mad in places, but I love it. Has anyone else out there read it, and if so - who do you think could play the fascinating Zuleika?
There is another novel that has the backdrop of Oxford, and that is Zuleika Dobson by Max Beerbohm. It tells the story of a young woman (not strictly beautiful 'Her eyes were a trifle large ... The mouth was a mere replica of Cupid's bow ... she had no waist to speak of') who manages to capture the hearts of the entire host of undergraduates. Zuleika inspire affection in all but one, The Duke, and seeing this she instantly falls in love. However, the Duke realises this, declares his love and is promptly rejected by his amour. This causes him to declare he will throw himself in the river for love of her.
Now - this is all very well, one man dying for love, and you'd hope the woman being 'honoured' in such a way would immediately recant, or persuade him to change his mind. Not Zuleika. She sees it as the highest compliment, and The Duke accidentally manages to incite all the undergraduates to drowning with him. Thus ends Zuleika's brief spell in Oxford, and what does she feel at this this calamity? Remorse? Sadness? The need to sequester herself in a nunnery? None of these, I am afraid, rather an overwhelming desire to go to Cambridge ....... oh dear.
It has been a long running conversation over on Justine Picardie's blog about who would be the best person to play this inscrutable Miss Dobson should the book ever be filmed. I've been casting my mind over this problem, and feel that the following people would be great.
Katharine Hepburn or Bette Davis: If this film had been done in the 40s, then these two wonderful actresses could have swept off with any number of undergraduates they chose. Bette Davis would probably been harder hearted at the mass drowning.
Helena Bonham-Carter: Can't you just see her inspiring adoration everywhere she went? It's also a very eccentric role, which she would do to perfection.
Carey Mulligan - although perhaps to conventionally beautiful
Anna Maxwell-Martin
Anne-Marie Duff
There was a general thought that Lily Cole could do it very well, but personally I think she is too frail, a quality Zuleika definitely doesn't have! It's an interesting book, mad in places, but I love it. Has anyone else out there read it, and if so - who do you think could play the fascinating Zuleika?
Wednesday, 5 August 2009
Coco Avant Chanel
I've never been a 'dedicated follower of fashion'. I know what I like, and what looks good on me, but because I don't have the figure equivalent to a pencil, I've never been one to fawn over the fashion parade.There's something different about Chanel though, and I think it's partly to do with the woman behind the creations. The mystery of her, and how she was so different from the other women of her time.
Tonight I went to see 'Coco Avant Chanel', which seems to be kicking of a great Coco fest - there are at least two more films, a biography, and another book from none other than Justine Picardie (she of my 'Daphne' inspired raves). Justine is keeping her cards very close to her chest, but if the passages in 'My Mother's Wedding Dress' are anything to go by, it should be fascinating to say the least.
Sorry - where was I?
I don't want to talk too much about the plot - as the title would suggest, the film focuses on the early period of Chanel's life, before she became a renowned designer. I think I'm developing a passion for French film - there is a simplicity to the dialogue and cinematography that seems to be lacking in most 'blockbusters' at the moment. Audrey Tautou captures the fragility of the young woman, yet also manages to portray the fire that drove her to reach for what she wanted, and not settle for what she was offered. The supporting cast are all well chosen too - I've not heard of any of them, but none of them detracts from what the story is trying to tell you. Costumes, are of course, key; and it's wonderful to contrast the plainly dressed Coco with the opulence that characterised the late Victorian and early Edwardian eras.
The final scene is almost a piece of iconic history. Coco Chanel was (I think) well known for watching her creations go out during shows from the curve in the staircase. When Katharine Hepburn starred in a musical about the woman, she recreated this pose, and now it has come full circle, with Audrey Tautou sitting, in the final shot, on a staircase, whilst her clothes waft past her. That's the way icons are remembered, and this film deserves all the audience it can get. It's like the person it portrays. Simple. And chic.
Saturday, 28 February 2009
The cycles of my bookshelf
I am sure people will understand the thoughts I am about to express. You can't call yourself a true bookaholic without experiencing this at least once!
Sometimes one reads in cycles. I don't mean consciously making lists on the same subject, actively seeking out works that will relate to the previous book and form a bridge to the
next; sometimes we finish a book, ponder what we will turn to next and without really thinking about it, choose a book that directly, or indirectly, relates to the one before.
This, I have realised, has just happened to me. Last week I finally read 'The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society', won last year, and absolutely loved it. The humour at the start, which slowly turns somber as the full extent of the Nazi occupation of Guernsey is realised. I love the fact it's told through letters, that strangers can reach across and touch one another. It's beautiful. I wish it happened more often.
I knew little of the Guernsey occupation, and neither does Juliet Ashton, although this is swiftly rectified. As I read it, I kept thinking that it was real, that it was the kind of book Jan Struther (of 'Mrs Miniver' fame) might have put together if she had had the opportunity.
I've been fortunate enough never to have had to live through a war, but it's still a book that resonates deeply with me, perhaps because of the simple love of literature that echoes from the letters. How Isola rants against the Bronte men ('Dear Miss Ashton, Oh my, oh my. You have written a book about Anne Bronte, sister to Charlotte and Emily ... To think all five of them had weak chests and died so young! What a sadness. Their Pa was a selfish thing, wasn't he? He paid his girls no mind at all - always sitting in his study, yelling for his shawl. He never rose up to wait on hisself, did he? Just sat alone in his room while his daughters died like flies. And their brother, Branwell, he wasn't much either. Always drinking and sicking up on the carpets.'), or how one letter writer sums up the arrival of the Nazis with the simple Shakespeare line 'The bright day is done, and we are for the dark.' I want more books like that. Consider this a commission!
So, today (Friday), when I was scanning my shelves for something to take with me into town in case I got bored of writing (which I did), I bypassed all the books that have been gathering dust for years and went immediately for 'The Reader'. You see what I mean about cycles and links?
I've seen the film already. Indeed, I wouldn't have known of the books existence without it. Some people will tell you that the order is wrong. Books should be read before films are seen. And, to a certain extent, I agree with them, but it really does depend on the quality of both. Some books make fantastic films, but are an utter chore to read, whilst the reverse can also be true. In the case of 'The Reader', both are such gems, and use the visual in such distinctive ways, that I don't think it particularly matters which order the process takes. (However, I did find that a certain Ms Winslet's face popped into my head whenever I thought of Hannah Schmitz - although this is no bad thing!).
As I write this, I've only just finished reading the book and therefore am still digesting what I devoured in a little over six hours, but my primary feeling is one of beauty. I realise this is an odd choice of word, considering the underlying theme of the book, but as I said earlier, the use of visual in the novel is a very strong part of it, and you can't help but be drawn to the images being conveyed. The novel is not long, but there are a lot of ideas to take in, the notion of guilt, and love, and whether we are right to love people, even after their actions prove them to be false, seem to be of real import to Schlink. It's not a novel I can easily dismiss in quick sentences, and at this point in time, I don't think I'm even going to try!
So, there we are - two different books on one similar period, both of which have come together to help inform my understanding on how writers deal with that big monster under the bed, Nazi Germany and the after effects the war had on everyone at the time.
Sometimes one reads in cycles. I don't mean consciously making lists on the same subject, actively seeking out works that will relate to the previous book and form a bridge to the
next; sometimes we finish a book, ponder what we will turn to next and without really thinking about it, choose a book that directly, or indirectly, relates to the one before.
This, I have realised, has just happened to me. Last week I finally read 'The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society', won last year, and absolutely loved it. The humour at the start, which slowly turns somber as the full extent of the Nazi occupation of Guernsey is realised. I love the fact it's told through letters, that strangers can reach across and touch one another. It's beautiful. I wish it happened more often.
I knew little of the Guernsey occupation, and neither does Juliet Ashton, although this is swiftly rectified. As I read it, I kept thinking that it was real, that it was the kind of book Jan Struther (of 'Mrs Miniver' fame) might have put together if she had had the opportunity.
I've been fortunate enough never to have had to live through a war, but it's still a book that resonates deeply with me, perhaps because of the simple love of literature that echoes from the letters. How Isola rants against the Bronte men ('Dear Miss Ashton, Oh my, oh my. You have written a book about Anne Bronte, sister to Charlotte and Emily ... To think all five of them had weak chests and died so young! What a sadness. Their Pa was a selfish thing, wasn't he? He paid his girls no mind at all - always sitting in his study, yelling for his shawl. He never rose up to wait on hisself, did he? Just sat alone in his room while his daughters died like flies. And their brother, Branwell, he wasn't much either. Always drinking and sicking up on the carpets.'), or how one letter writer sums up the arrival of the Nazis with the simple Shakespeare line 'The bright day is done, and we are for the dark.' I want more books like that. Consider this a commission!
So, today (Friday), when I was scanning my shelves for something to take with me into town in case I got bored of writing (which I did), I bypassed all the books that have been gathering dust for years and went immediately for 'The Reader'. You see what I mean about cycles and links?
I've seen the film already. Indeed, I wouldn't have known of the books existence without it. Some people will tell you that the order is wrong. Books should be read before films are seen. And, to a certain extent, I agree with them, but it really does depend on the quality of both. Some books make fantastic films, but are an utter chore to read, whilst the reverse can also be true. In the case of 'The Reader', both are such gems, and use the visual in such distinctive ways, that I don't think it particularly matters which order the process takes. (However, I did find that a certain Ms Winslet's face popped into my head whenever I thought of Hannah Schmitz - although this is no bad thing!).
As I write this, I've only just finished reading the book and therefore am still digesting what I devoured in a little over six hours, but my primary feeling is one of beauty. I realise this is an odd choice of word, considering the underlying theme of the book, but as I said earlier, the use of visual in the novel is a very strong part of it, and you can't help but be drawn to the images being conveyed. The novel is not long, but there are a lot of ideas to take in, the notion of guilt, and love, and whether we are right to love people, even after their actions prove them to be false, seem to be of real import to Schlink. It's not a novel I can easily dismiss in quick sentences, and at this point in time, I don't think I'm even going to try!
So, there we are - two different books on one similar period, both of which have come together to help inform my understanding on how writers deal with that big monster under the bed, Nazi Germany and the after effects the war had on everyone at the time.
Thursday, 11 December 2008
Advent and other festive things
For the first time in my life I've not got an advent calendar. When I was young, I had the traditional picture one, and then I moved onto chocolate (which my parents weren't unduly happy about, and in later years made me feel slightly guilty).
So this year I've decided to do something different - I decided to read a book.
'The Christmas Mystery' by Jostein Gaarder is perfect as a pseudo advent calendar, because it's split up into twenty four chapters, and tells the story of Christmas, albeit from a slightly different angle. I've read it before, but this time, only reading a chapter a night, I've found it more magical and more real. It's definitely a good Christmas read.
Another thing that spells Christmas to me (and I'm wondering how many times I can get that word in this post) is the festive film. There are many different sorts of Christmas film, but to me the best ones are either in black and white, or have a lot of singing in them.
'White Christmas' - the epitome of class and joy. What more could one want than Bing Crosby crooning with Rosemary Clooney and Vera Ellen Dancing with Danny Kaye?
'It's a Wonderful Life' - Man oh man - this film! What good acting can do to change the way we look at things. James Stewart is a wonder!
'In the Good Old Summertime' - er, yes, I know the title seems a little odd, but in actual fact the final part of this is all winter wonderland, and has Judy Garland singing.
'Meet me in St Louis' - Oh Judy, Judy, Judy - singer of the most perfect Christmas ballad ever. You just have to play the first few chords for me to start bawling my eyes out.
'The Lion in Winter' - the PERFECT family movie for the festive period. You think your family has problems at this time of year? Watch this, and be staggered - Henry II had much bigger arguments than anyone else could ever imagine!
'The Muppet Christmas Carol' - 'Oh, there goes Mr Humbug, there goes Mr Grim, if they gave a prize for being mean, the winner would be him' - Muppets, Dickens and Christmas, how fantastic!
There's so many more: 'Little Women', 'Desk Set', 'Home Alone', 'Love Actually', 'Miracle of 34th Street', I could go on and on, but I won't bore you all.
Does anyone else have an absolute must see film for this season? Also, who else has a cold? I'm coughing and sneezing like my life depends on it!
So this year I've decided to do something different - I decided to read a book.
'The Christmas Mystery' by Jostein Gaarder is perfect as a pseudo advent calendar, because it's split up into twenty four chapters, and tells the story of Christmas, albeit from a slightly different angle. I've read it before, but this time, only reading a chapter a night, I've found it more magical and more real. It's definitely a good Christmas read.
Another thing that spells Christmas to me (and I'm wondering how many times I can get that word in this post) is the festive film. There are many different sorts of Christmas film, but to me the best ones are either in black and white, or have a lot of singing in them.
'White Christmas' - the epitome of class and joy. What more could one want than Bing Crosby crooning with Rosemary Clooney and Vera Ellen Dancing with Danny Kaye?
'It's a Wonderful Life' - Man oh man - this film! What good acting can do to change the way we look at things. James Stewart is a wonder!
'In the Good Old Summertime' - er, yes, I know the title seems a little odd, but in actual fact the final part of this is all winter wonderland, and has Judy Garland singing.
'Meet me in St Louis' - Oh Judy, Judy, Judy - singer of the most perfect Christmas ballad ever. You just have to play the first few chords for me to start bawling my eyes out.
'The Lion in Winter' - the PERFECT family movie for the festive period. You think your family has problems at this time of year? Watch this, and be staggered - Henry II had much bigger arguments than anyone else could ever imagine!
'The Muppet Christmas Carol' - 'Oh, there goes Mr Humbug, there goes Mr Grim, if they gave a prize for being mean, the winner would be him' - Muppets, Dickens and Christmas, how fantastic!
There's so many more: 'Little Women', 'Desk Set', 'Home Alone', 'Love Actually', 'Miracle of 34th Street', I could go on and on, but I won't bore you all.
Does anyone else have an absolute must see film for this season? Also, who else has a cold? I'm coughing and sneezing like my life depends on it!
Friday, 17 October 2008
We Read to Know We Are Not Alone
That sentence has to be one of the best descriptions of why we read that I've ever heard. It's from the film 'Shadowlands' and if you've not seen it, then I advise you all to rush out and get a copy for it is the most beautiful portrait of the relationship between C.S. Lewis and Joy Gresham. Oxford doesn't come off to badly either.
Anyway, back to those words. They've set me thinking about the nature of reading and whether that sentence actually holds true when you set it against different genres.
Ok, so I know I read Jane Austen's works with a sense of wonder that it's not just me who has relationship difficulties, or an annoying mother, and that these things have passed down through the centuries. I read murder mysteries not because I've committed murder, but because the thrill they give me has thrilled others before me and I know that. Do I read anything by Douglass Adams because I'm supremely interested in science? Do I heck! I read them because they are funny.
So what does this sentence really mean? I suppose it might be better to say we WRITE to know we are not alone, because what else is a blog for except to share the wealth we have acquired and pass it on and infuse others with that sense of 'I MUST read that'.
It's an interesting puzzle, but one I do understand (despite the way I've expressed myself here).
Reading gives me the freedom to explore, to take a part of myself and let it grow through fiction. It amuses me (and worries me at the same time) how much I can relate to fictional characters. To quote another film (this time not quite so lofty, but none the less lovely for that: 'You've Got Mail', in fact) 'So much of what I see reminds me of what I've read in a book, when shouldn't it be the other way around?'
I read for the pleasure. I read for the experience. I read so that I can share with those who have read the same thing. I read with the confidence that there are others out there who have had the same, almost indescribable, feelings I have had.
I read to know I'm not alone. Do you?
Anyway, back to those words. They've set me thinking about the nature of reading and whether that sentence actually holds true when you set it against different genres.
Ok, so I know I read Jane Austen's works with a sense of wonder that it's not just me who has relationship difficulties, or an annoying mother, and that these things have passed down through the centuries. I read murder mysteries not because I've committed murder, but because the thrill they give me has thrilled others before me and I know that. Do I read anything by Douglass Adams because I'm supremely interested in science? Do I heck! I read them because they are funny.
So what does this sentence really mean? I suppose it might be better to say we WRITE to know we are not alone, because what else is a blog for except to share the wealth we have acquired and pass it on and infuse others with that sense of 'I MUST read that'.
It's an interesting puzzle, but one I do understand (despite the way I've expressed myself here).
Reading gives me the freedom to explore, to take a part of myself and let it grow through fiction. It amuses me (and worries me at the same time) how much I can relate to fictional characters. To quote another film (this time not quite so lofty, but none the less lovely for that: 'You've Got Mail', in fact) 'So much of what I see reminds me of what I've read in a book, when shouldn't it be the other way around?'
I read for the pleasure. I read for the experience. I read so that I can share with those who have read the same thing. I read with the confidence that there are others out there who have had the same, almost indescribable, feelings I have had.
I read to know I'm not alone. Do you?
Monday, 8 September 2008
To be that free ...
She doesn't look that free, the Duchess of Devonshire, does she? To be so imprisoned in her stays and laces, petticoats and fripperies. To be so weighed down by the weight of her clothes and even her hair, as though fashionable society had decreed that a woman's position must be mirrored in the manner in which she dressed.
I have just returned from watching The Duchess. Anyone who has chanced to read this blog before, will no doubt have come across a vitriolic post against Keira Knightley and the dismal hopes I had of her making even a passable attempt in the film. I find, now, that I am in a different frame of mind.
A few years ago, I wrote an article for my then university newspaper, completely ripping to shreds a certain adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. It was not just Keira Knightley who annoyed me, I think only Judi Dench and Brenda Blethyn escaped unscathed. However, it was Keira who bore the brunt of my anger, because I felt she had been unable to remove her own presence from the role she played. The smirky, pouting, stick thin young girl of the red carpet was the person we saw, not Elizabeth Bennett.
In The Duchess, Keira Knightly has, at least for the most part, managed to become someone else.
It's an outstanding film. The script is a gem - multi-faceted and not weighed down with other adornments. The romantic elements of the plot intermingle well with the political and social elements, and neither feel overdone. There are some costume dramas that attempt to make too much of the political setting in which characters find themselves, and end up simply dull. The costumes too were wonderful. In an age when what one wore mattered a great deal, it was clear that the wardrobe department had gone to a great deal of expense. If someone would drop a hint to Keira Knightley that curls suit her extraordinarily well, I'd be grateful!
Casting is always a tricky thing to get right. Charlotte Rampling was well chosen as Georgiana's mother - strict and loving by turns, with the iron edge of desiring social respectability dominating her dealings with her daughter's feelings. Hayley Atwell was good as 'the other woman', and Ralph Fiennes as the Duke was inspired.
We all know him best for his 'evil' roles, for the manipulative games he plays with many of his counterparts. From what you can glean from the trailer, if the actual story is unknown, you could be forgiven for thinking that he would be playing to type and I was thusly prepared for evil personified.
The Duke is nothing of the sort. In point of fact, I would say he was essentially a dull man who requires an heir and will do everything within his power to get it. With little screen time, and with even less script to work with, Fiennes makes the role his own, and even perhaps allows a touch of sympathy into the viewers perception of him.
Dominic Cooper as Charles Grey I did not care for. I understand the need for a complete opposite to the Duke, but in my humble opinion, Dominic Cooper is simply a bit wet. You cannot believe that one day, this man will become Prime Minister. I have been wracking my brains for another young actor that could have filled this role with a bit more grit - it's all very well to be in love, but not to look like a puppy whilst doing it - but I confess I am unable to. Are we so lacking in young British actors as all that?
Keira Knightley as the Duchess is an interesting role to watch. She still has the occasional tendency to pout, but only when not entirely sure what sort of emotion she should portray. She is by turns enchanting, devastated, in love and heartbroken, and portrays them all with great ability. One could wish that she had a fuller figure, there were times that I felt, like the reviewer of The Telegraph, a great desire to feed her chips, and she is hampered by her walk - altogether too bouncy for a woman of the eighteenth century - but these are trifles (something I never thought to write!) in comparison to the vitality and emotion of her performance. There is an innocence to her portrayal - a young woman who cannot understand why she has to suffer the slight of her husband's mistress and not be allowed to behave the same way herself. She grows up fast in the wake of her affair with Grey, and there is a scene where the sheer force of Keira's emotion caused tears to spring up, but still the innocence and knowledge of the unjust set of double standards are there to the end.
As you can probably tell, I was greatly impressed by this film. It really makes you think about the severe differences between relationships in that era and this. For once, Keira Knightly turns in a performance that manages to capture the essence of the person she is portraying, rather than who she is personally.
It deserves awards. I won't go so far as to suggest a best actress, but if the costumes don't win things, then I shall be shocked. It's a film that should be seen, no matter what your opinion of Keira Knightley - who knows, she may even surprise you!
Thursday, 21 August 2008
La Vie En Rose
Fear not - I am not about to launch into a great ream of French ... although I suppose it might be a good idea if I spoke a bit more than I actually do. I am off to Paris for Bank Holiday, and I'm slightly nervous, as I will be on my own, but I'm looking forward to walking along the banks of the Seine, prowling around the Louvre and spending at least a couple of hours in the Shakespeare and Co bookshop!
What have I been doing with myself that has meant that I havn't posted at all in the last week or so? Well, apart from seeing a couple of films and having high tea at the Randolph (an experince I will repeat as long as my bank balance permits), I have of course been reading.
I finished The Behaviour of Moths on Wednesday, which I loved. It's a fantastically woven story, although I did feel that the description of moth procedure was slightly overdone in parts, but that is a big part of the narrator, so it does fit well.
I am usually loath to liken books to others, because I feel it detracts from the authors achievements, and might even in some cases put others of reading it, if they have not liked the other book. However, I had an underlying feeling as I was reading this that it was quite similar, in tone at least, to Engleby.
I'm now reading A Long Long Way, which is good, but isn't really grabbing me.
I must go pack. Apart from not knowing what clothes to take, I am again struggling over books. I have decided upon The Phantom of the Opera, but need to decide on one or two more, as I'll probably finish Phantom on the train!
Au revoir for now!
What have I been doing with myself that has meant that I havn't posted at all in the last week or so? Well, apart from seeing a couple of films and having high tea at the Randolph (an experince I will repeat as long as my bank balance permits), I have of course been reading.
I finished The Behaviour of Moths on Wednesday, which I loved. It's a fantastically woven story, although I did feel that the description of moth procedure was slightly overdone in parts, but that is a big part of the narrator, so it does fit well.
I am usually loath to liken books to others, because I feel it detracts from the authors achievements, and might even in some cases put others of reading it, if they have not liked the other book. However, I had an underlying feeling as I was reading this that it was quite similar, in tone at least, to Engleby.
I'm now reading A Long Long Way, which is good, but isn't really grabbing me.
I must go pack. Apart from not knowing what clothes to take, I am again struggling over books. I have decided upon The Phantom of the Opera, but need to decide on one or two more, as I'll probably finish Phantom on the train!
Au revoir for now!
Sunday, 22 June 2008
Emotions in the 1940s
Today has been an odd day, in the sense that I seem to have spent most of it in the cinema.
Oxford has the usual range of big corporation style cinemas - Odeon dominating the centre of town, whilst Vue offers cheaper tickets if you can be bothered with the drive. There is, however, a little cinema in Jericho called The Phoenix which specialises in art house, foreign language and smaller budget films that might not make it on to general release. I remember seeing 'Mrs Brown' there, before the world caught on and recognised it for the gem it is.
At the moment the cinema is having a David Lean phase, and on Sundays is showing double bills of his films. Today I watched Celia Johnson admirably repress her emotions in 'This Happy Breed' and 'Brief Encounter'. Sigh - I do love her so, she expresses more in a single move of her head than almost anybody else of that era. It's such a joy to be able to watch these old films in the place they were meant for. I often feel I was born in the wrong decade, as all my favourite films were made in the 30s - 60s - although I suppose I wouldn't have appreciated them as I do now (although I swear if a grandchild of mine starts raving about Keira Knightly the way I do about Katharine Hepburn or Judi Dench, I will disown them so fast, it'll make their heads spin!)
Which leads me nicely on to the other film I watched today (at the same cinema) which was 'Edge of Love', a biopic of a portion of Dylan Thomas' life, and his relationships with Sienna Miller and Keira Knightly.
Let me make something quite clear about Ms Knightly. I greatly dislike the woman. This, I will freely admit, is partly to do with jealousy (she's my age, she's world famous, she's beautiful - if you think tall, gangly, rather thin women beautiful), but it also has a lot to do with the fact that I think she's a terrible actress. She does this thing with her lips (which I've noticed Renee Zelwegger do too) whenever she's trying to be particularly sexy, that makes her look like she's pouting whilst dealing with a rather heavy cold. When in doubt over an emotion, pout - this seems to be her motto. (I won't go into the travesty of the 2005 Pride and Prejudice ... that's a rant for another post).
Having said all this, I watched 'Atonement' and loved it. This might have something to do with the fact that it wasn't her film, she didn't have to carry it. But the 1940s seems to reflect the best of her. It suits that slightly repressed, Celia Johnson quality her voice has, and the fashion suits her boyish frame too (because like Grace Kelly before her, no matter what the film is, Keira will always be a good person to show clothes off on. And 'The Edge of Love' is set in the 40s, and to help matters she has to produce a Welsh accent - which she does rather well, and somehow manages to detract from the pout (which I saw rarely, although she still manages to move her lips without moving her teeth a millimeter).
'The Edge of Love' is an interesting film - directed by a man (John Maybury) who would love, should he ever get the chance, to direct silent films. This shows. The best parts are the parts between the language, when it's looks that say more. And he uses cracked glass to shoot through, so we see a distorted and messy image that so well reflect the emotions in the film.
This is a world away from the lives that Celia Johnson portrayed in those films designed to bring a touch of happiness to the lives of people in the grip of war. Well worth watching should you find yourself with a couple of hours free!
Wednesday, 14 May 2008
Books in 2008
My father issued me with a challenge just after new year: 'Thou shalt read one hundred books this year'.
Now, to those whose blogs I have just started reading, this may not seem like a huge number, but I'm used to reading a big pile during term time, and then hopelessly slacking through the holidays. Now I am in full time employment, I spend every spare minute reading - apart from those times when I'm writing my undoubtably unpublishable novel!
To start this blog off on the right foot, I am going to list the books I have read this year so far (February was by far the best - I read 15 that month - and then something happened and I read very few). Anyway, without further ado, here we go. I've split them into books I own and those borrowed from the library.
Mine:
Denny, Joanna: Anne Boleyn
Diamant, Anita: The Red Tent
Faulks, Sebastian: Human Traces *
Faulks, Sebastian: Engleby
Ferguson, Rachel: The Brontes Went to Woolworths
Gardam, Jane: A Long way from Verona
Garfield, Simon: Mauve
Graeme Evans, Posie: The Innocent
Greene, Grahame: The End of the Affair *
Gregory, Philippa: Earthly Joys
Gregory, Philippa: The Boleyn Inheritance
Jones, Lloyd: Mister Pip
Lovell, Mary S.: A Scandalous Life
Lustig, Arnost: Lovely Green Eyes *
Mills, Mark: The Savage Garden *
Ondaatje, Michael: The English Patient
Picardie, Justine: Daphne *
Picardie, Ruth: Before I say Goodbye*
Rilke, Rainer Maria: Letters to a Young Poet
Suskind, Patrick: Perfume *
Weir, Alison: Innocent Traitor
Weldon, Fay: Letters to Alice on Reading Jane Austen
Williams, Kate: England's Mistress
Library's:
Harris, Joanne: Chocolat
Delaney, Frank: Ireland *
Lewis, C.S.: Surprised by Joy
Fforde, Jasper: The Well of Lost Plots
Fforde, Jasper: Lost in a good book
Fforde, Jasper: Something Rotten
At the moment I'm reading 'Jamaica Inn' and 'The Infernal World of Branwell Bronte' both by Daphne du Maurier. I'm struggling a bit with the latter, because it's such fantastic weather out, and one simply cannot read about the wilds of Yorkshire in such heat. It's supposed to rain tomorrow, perhaps that will set me in the mood!
I was thinking of writing my thoughts on some of these books (especially those with *'s - which are my favourites so far) ... but I shall see how it goes!
I'm watching '84 Charing Cross Road' at the moment. I adore both the film and the book - in fact I have two copies of it, and am seriously tempted to buy the new Virago Modern Classic birthday edition. But I won't. I couldn't possibly. Methinks the lady doth protest too much!
Now, to those whose blogs I have just started reading, this may not seem like a huge number, but I'm used to reading a big pile during term time, and then hopelessly slacking through the holidays. Now I am in full time employment, I spend every spare minute reading - apart from those times when I'm writing my undoubtably unpublishable novel!
To start this blog off on the right foot, I am going to list the books I have read this year so far (February was by far the best - I read 15 that month - and then something happened and I read very few). Anyway, without further ado, here we go. I've split them into books I own and those borrowed from the library.
Mine:
Denny, Joanna: Anne Boleyn
Diamant, Anita: The Red Tent
Faulks, Sebastian: Human Traces *
Faulks, Sebastian: Engleby
Ferguson, Rachel: The Brontes Went to Woolworths
Gardam, Jane: A Long way from Verona
Garfield, Simon: Mauve
Graeme Evans, Posie: The Innocent
Greene, Grahame: The End of the Affair *
Gregory, Philippa: Earthly Joys
Gregory, Philippa: The Boleyn Inheritance
Jones, Lloyd: Mister Pip
Lovell, Mary S.: A Scandalous Life
Lustig, Arnost: Lovely Green Eyes *
Mills, Mark: The Savage Garden *
Ondaatje, Michael: The English Patient
Picardie, Justine: Daphne *
Picardie, Ruth: Before I say Goodbye*
Rilke, Rainer Maria: Letters to a Young Poet
Suskind, Patrick: Perfume *
Weir, Alison: Innocent Traitor
Weldon, Fay: Letters to Alice on Reading Jane Austen
Williams, Kate: England's Mistress
Library's:
Harris, Joanne: Chocolat
Delaney, Frank: Ireland *
Lewis, C.S.: Surprised by Joy
Fforde, Jasper: The Well of Lost Plots
Fforde, Jasper: Lost in a good book
Fforde, Jasper: Something Rotten
At the moment I'm reading 'Jamaica Inn' and 'The Infernal World of Branwell Bronte' both by Daphne du Maurier. I'm struggling a bit with the latter, because it's such fantastic weather out, and one simply cannot read about the wilds of Yorkshire in such heat. It's supposed to rain tomorrow, perhaps that will set me in the mood!
I was thinking of writing my thoughts on some of these books (especially those with *'s - which are my favourites so far) ... but I shall see how it goes!
I'm watching '84 Charing Cross Road' at the moment. I adore both the film and the book - in fact I have two copies of it, and am seriously tempted to buy the new Virago Modern Classic birthday edition. But I won't. I couldn't possibly. Methinks the lady doth protest too much!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)