#john martin rare book room

[uispeccoll]

Guest post from John Martin Rare Book Room at Hardin Library for the Health Sciences!

HEISTER, LORENZ (1683-1758). A general system of surgery in three parts. Printed in London for William Innys, 1743. 26 cm tall.

Hello friends. I am excited to present you this month with a book from the 18th-century physician Lorenz Heister. Not only because Heister was a snappy dresser who could really rock a powdered wig, but because his book was considered the gold standard surgical work of the time.

Lorenz Heister was born in 1683 in Frankfurt am Main, Germany, and became one of the most famous German multihyphenates. Never one to pass up an opportunity to learn something new or teach it to others, Heister was an incredibly accomplished physician-anatomist-surgeon-botanist-teacher.

Heister was the first to perform a post-mortem examination of appendicitis and suggest that cataracts were caused by changes in the crystalline lens rather than the cornea. He performed the first successful thyroidectomy and introduced the term "tracheotomy" in medicine. The plant genus Heisteria and the spiral valves of Heister (anatomical folds of the cystic duct) are named after him.

Heister's library contained over 12,000 volumes and 470 surgical instruments, most made of silver. In recognition of his work, Heister was a fellow of the Royal Society of London and the Royal Academy of Paris.

His most important book, Chirurgie [Surgery], was the first to systematically present surgery, detailing all surgical instruments, bandages, and operations step by step, including possible complications. Published in German in 1719, it was catered to students with limited Latin knowledge.

The book was popular for its detailed copperplate illustrations and was soon sold out, leading to new editions. It was later translated into Latin as Institutiones Chirurgicae and into English, French, Italian, Dutch, Spanish, and Japanese.

All in all, Hesiter's masterpiece includes 38 plates of multiple illustrations and 814 pages across two volumes bound together. Our first English edition copy is in fantastic condition. The calfskin cover has held up remarkably well, with only minor scratches here and there. The paper is in great condition, including the illustrations, all printed separately from the text and sewn in when bound. Because the illustrations are almost all wider than the textblock, they are folded to fit, sometimes multiple times. In summary, this beautiful and influential work on surgery is ready for action!

---curator Damien Ihrig

[mllemaenad]

Tim provided his statement to Martin and not the Archivist and used the same grammar and tone that people typically use when speaking to John. Maybe it's a tiny plot hole, like why Georgie is able to be compelled by John even though she's incapable of feeling fear, but maybe you have a point

I ... don't feel like that's a plot hole, though? At least, it's not inconsistent with the way I think it works.

For one thing, the process of drawing out a story is more about presence and intent than it is about the Archivist looming over someone and turning on the static. For another, as you say, Tim's talking to Martin and the Martin situation is complicated.

For a not insignificant portion of Gertrude's tenure, people mostly sat in a room by themselves and wrote out the statements. They even reference it, sometimes.

John/"Antonio Blake" But I recognise you. As I write these words I can see you in the other room, eyes locked on whatever book you’re diverting yourself with; I recognise you from my dreams. They said at the front desk that you review all the written statements, so I can only hope that you take the time to read through this one fully. – The Magnus Archives: Dreamer

But that works too: it produces the same fluid, descriptive style that you get from the spoken statements. Everyone who walks into The Magnus Institute immediately transforms into a capable writer of late 19th to early 20th century style ghost stories.

The Doylist explanation for that is that the creator enjoys that style. The Watsonian explanation is that the presence of the Archivist produces it.

While I Guess You Had to Be There is mostly played for humour, there are more serious examples of how this works.

Martin/Adelard Dekker I do envy you your gifts sometimes, Gertrude. His account of their pursuit through the mirror-maze was honestly so disjoint that I was unable to follow it. Even after he tried to take me through it two, or even three times. Without the Eye’s clarifying influence, panic can make details… difficult to remember. – The Magnus Archives: Reflection

Dekker is intelligent and knowledgeable, and dealing with a willing interview subject. But none of that allows him to draw a coherent description from a guy who is just too terrified to be a reliable witness. Get Gertrude to stand next to him while he does this and the problem goes away.

The Archivist doesn't actually have to take the statement, but something about their presence or influence greases the wheels.

Sneak Preview takes place during one of those rare moments in season three when they actually know where John is. He's in China, sure, but he's in contact and not kidnapped right this second. Things go off the rails for the assistants specifically when he has been taken, and is under the power of other avatars.

And yeah – it's Martin. Martin spends a lot of the story inhabiting a weird grey area between Archivist and not-Archivist. The question of whether someone is an avatar or not is clearly more than a simple binary. There's a process here. John is "the Archivist" from day one, but he can't do most of the stuff he can by season four at that point.

Everyone who reads statements does that thing where they lapse into a kind of trance and take on the persona of the storyteller. It happens with Melanie and Basira too. But only Martin consistently reads the statements, and reads them explicitly with the intent of "filling in" for John. He takes other statements in person too, intentionally and otherwise – the unnamed woman in Scrutiny, Simon Fairchild in Big Picture, and Simon calls out the fact that Martin has the same ability to draw out a tale.

Simon No wonder I’m so sympathetic to the Lonely! You know, this really is a place for self-discovery, isn’t it? (chuckles) Statement ends, I suppose. Martin Er – I’m sorry? Simon Oh, nothing, just my own hubris. I should have known. When I came here, I said to myself, “Simon,” I said, “You’re going to answer this young man’s questions, but you’re not going to give the Watcher a statement. You’re better than that.” But it’s a hard one to resist, isn’t it? You get in the flow of talking about yourself, and it all just… tumbles out! – The Magnus Archives: Big Picture

Obviously the path Martin walks is not the same as John's, but one of the prerequisites of that path was that he be a little bit Archivist.

And in Sneak Preview, Martin is very much encouraging Tim to tell his story to John.

Martin Please, Tim. Tim No. Martin He needs to hear it. Tim I don’t care. Martin He can’t help if he doesn’t know. Tim I don’t want his help, Martin. – The Magnus Archives: Sneak Preview

So yeah – Tim is very much telling his story to the Archivist. It's just that it's better if he doesn't do that when said Archivist is physically present, in order to avoid unnecessary bouts of fisticuffs in the break room. And Martin is deliberately acting as John's proxy here, a role that he also grows into over time.

There's a lot of stuff going on with the tech in The Magnus Protocol, to the point where I'm reasonably convinced that "network protocols" is an important interpretation of the name.

The Magnus Archives dealt largely with stories that had been written down with pen and paper, and it was a significant plot point that they actually couldn't use anything more advanced than a tape recorder. The laptop failed to produce useful recordings.

In The Magnus Protocol everything is online, either because it was created as such originally, or because Freddy has packaged it up and delivered it to the OIAR. It's the tech that produces the stories and thus I would contend that it is also the tech that produces the style of those stories.

The characters talk like that because their apps, their phones, that bloody tape recorder, produce the same effect as the presence of the Archivist.

[maccamaniac1]

Music documentaries are hardly a rare occurrence these days, particularly when focused on The Beatles. Over the years, the Fab Four have been at the centre of countless different documentaries, books, and films, all aiming to give a little more insight into the life and times of the biggest band of all time. ⁠

⁠

However, it is not often that these films feature such a star-studded production crew, including the likes of Martin Scorsese and David Tedeschi, who are set to collaborate on the upcoming Disney+ documentary Beatles ‘64. ⁠

⁠

Focusing on The Beatles’ first visit to the United States back in 1964, the documentary film aims to capture the spirit of a particularly important period in the band’s history. By the time they visited the USA, John, Paul, George, and Ringo were already household names in their native United Kingdom, but the intense popularity they witnessed in the States set the band on a path to global domination. Not only did their trip to America represent the absolute pinnacle of Beatlemania, but it ushered in an entirely new era for the group.⁠

⁠

Beatles ‘64 will aim to capture the unparalleled cultural moment of The Beatles touching down at JFK Airport in New York, before appearing in living rooms nationwide through their performance on The Ed Sullivan Show. The importance of this event within the history of American music cannot be overstated, a fact which Beatles ‘64 will explore in-depth. ⁠

⁠

The documentary will reportedly be compiled of archival clips and famous footage of the band, in addition to footage originally shot by documentarians Albert and David Maysles, newly remastered in 4K. What’s more, the iconic film of The Beatles performing on The Ed Sullivan Show have been extensively remastered, too. This mixture of new and recently remastered footage will likely make Beatles ‘64 essential viewing for fans of the band.

[mappingthemoon]

Books Read 2023

Good Talk: A Memoir in Conversations / Mira Jacob

A Grief Observed / C. S. Lewis

Grit Lit: A Rough South Reader / ed. Brian Carpenter & Tom Franklin

Two or Three Things I Know for Sure / Dorothy Allison

Weather: Air Masses, Clouds, Rainfall, Storms, Weather Maps, Climate (A Golden Nature Guide) / Paul E. Lehr, R. Will Burnett, Herbert S. Zim ; Harry McNaught (ill.)

Improbable Memories / Sarah Moon

Endless Endless: A Lo-Fi History of the Elephant 6 Mystery / Adam Clair

The Difference Between / Billy McCall

The Submissive (The Submissive #1) / Tara Sue Me

Last Night at the Casino [v. 1] / Billy McCall

The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up: The Japanese Art of Decluttering and Organizing / Marie Kondo ; Cathy Hirano (tr.)

Pnin / Vladimir Nabokov

My Heart Is a Chainsaw / Stephen Graham Jones

"Waltz of the Body Snatchers" / Alfred Bester, in Andromeda I: An original SF anthology / ed. Peter Weston

Blue Highways: A Journey Into America / William Least Heat-Moon

The Stars My Destination (The Gregg Press Science Fiction Series) / Alfred Bester

Laughter in the Dark / Vladimir Nabokov

Man and His Symbols / Carl G. Jung

Mysteries of the Unexplained / ed. Carroll C. Calkins

The Westing Game / Ellen Raskin

The Seven Ages / Louise Glück

The Wild Iris / Louise Glück

Vita Nova / Louise Glück

Doctor Who: Impossible Worlds: A 50-Year Treasury of Art and Design / Stephen Nicholas & Mike Tucker

Where's Waldo? (Where's Waldo #1) / Martin Handford

Where's Waldo? The Fantastic Journey (Where's Waldo #3) / Martin Handford

Doctor Who 50 Years #3: The Doctors / ed. Marcus Hearn

Rabbit, Run / John Updike

Mother Night / Kurt Vonnegut

Descriptive Cataloging of Rare Materials (Books) / Bibliographic Standards Committee, Rare Books and Manuscripts Section, Association of College and Research Libraries, in collaboration with The Policy Standards Office of the Library of Congress

"Descriptive Bibliography" / Terry Belanger, in Book Collecting: A Modern Guide / ed. Jean Peters

The Essential Doctor Who #2: The TARDIS / ed. Marcus Hearn

Speak, Memory: An Autobiography Revisited / Vladimir Nabokov

Chicago: City on the Make / Nelson Algren

Gustav Klimt, 1862-1918 / Gilles Néret

American Gods: A Novel / Neil Gaiman

Marcel Duchamp, 1887-1968: Art as Anti-Art / Janis Mink

The Empathy Exams: Essays / Leslie Jamison

Let Us Now Praise Famous Men: Three Tenant Families / James Agee & Walker Evans

Hallucination Orbit: Psychology in Science Fiction / ed. Isaac Asimov, Charles G. Waugh, Martin H. Greenberg

Dream Street: W. Eugene Smith's Pittsburgh Project / W. Eugene Smith ; ed. Sam Stephenson

Twilight / Gregory Crewdson ; Rick Moody

Magic Eye: A New Way of Looking at the World / N.E. Thing Enterprises

Bowie: Stardust, Rayguns & Moonage Daydreams / Steve Horton & Michael Allred ; Laura Allred (ill.)

After the Ecstasy, the Laundry: How the Heart Grows Wise on the Spiritual Path / Jack Kornfield

The Gin Closet: A Novel / Leslie Jamison

The New Kid on the Block / Jack Prelutsky ; James Stevenson (ill.)

A Book of Common Prayer / Joan Didion

Mariette in Ecstasy / Ron Hansen

Camp Damascus / Chuck Tingle

The Mass Production of Memory: Travel and Personal Archiving in the Age of the Kodak (Public History in Historical Perspective) / Tammy S. Gordon

Unfathomable City: A New Orleans Atlas / Rebecca Solnit & Rebecca Snedeker

Other Voices, Other Rooms / Truman Capote

Fabulous New Orleans / Lyle Saxon ; E.H. Suydam (ill.)

Weird Pennsylvania: Your Travel Guide to Pennsylvania's Local Legends and Best Kept Secrets / Matt Lake

Griffin & Sabine: An Extraordinary Correspondence (Griffin & Sabine #1) / Nick Bantock

Sabine's Notebook: In Which The Extraordinary Correspondence of Griffin & Sabine Continues (Griffin & Sabine #2) / Nick Bantock

The Golden Mean: In Which The Extraordinary Correspondence of Griffin & Sabine Concludes (Griffin & Sabine #3) / Nick Bantock

Breath, Eyes, Memory / Edwidge Danticat

Last Night at the Casino, v. 2 / Billy McCall

What If? Serious Scientific Answers to Absurd Hypothetical Questions / Randall Munroe

Collection-Level Cataloging: Bound-with Books (Third Millennium Cataloging) / Jain Fletcher

Speaking Pittsburghese: The Story of a Dialect (Oxford Studies in Sociolinguistics) / Barbara Johnstone

My Misspent Youth: Essays / Meghan Daum

Slender Intuition: Essays on Artist's Block / Brian Hitselberger

The Mister / E L James

Crapalachia: A Biography of a Place / Scott McClanahan

The Transcriptionist: A Novel / Amy Rowland

Explanations/Opinions below the cut:

Ok so I have several reading lists/stacks that I rotate through: my to-read spreadsheet (which has almost 300 titles listed in chronological order by date added, with the oldest being from 8/22/2014), my to-read bookcase/nightstand (which holds ~50 books I’ve acquired over the past few years but haven’t yet read), a stack of oversized unreads that don’t fit on the nightstand shelves (this gets its own list bc I need to read them and find a permanent home for them before the stack gets too tall), and “interruptions” (books that override the list order bc I didn’t want to wait to read them, for whatever reason).

Maybe it’s weird that I’m so attached to reading things “in order”? Idk. I’ve always been like this. It’s only a mild compulsion – obviously, I am perfectly capable of ignoring what’s supposed to be next on the list, in favor of reading something that catches my interest more strongly in the moment, but in general, I like to read things either in the order I added them to the list, or the order I personally acquired a physical copy (if I went by the list only, I’d be drowning in unread books [yay, college town thrift stores], so I gotta stay on top of that pile pretty regularly). So that is why I am often reading things that I first became aware of/added to my list nearly 10 years ago. Sometimes this practice results in feelings like, “Dang, I wish I would’ve actually read this 10 years ago,” but also sometimes, “WOW, I’m so glad I’m reading this RIGHT NOW, as opposed to 10 years ago when I first heard about it!”

I think my favorites this year were Mariette in Ecstasy; Other Voices, Other Rooms; Crapalachia; and Speak, Memory.

Mild disappointments were the essay collections by Leslie Jamison and Meghan Daum, two authors I’m pretty sure I discovered via popular and relateable quotes reblogged on tumblr ca. 2014, but the collections taken as a whole just had too many moments of cringe – casual classism, arrogant self-absorption, and other annoying and unrelateable qualities typical of privileged 20-something writers (this tone definitely appealed to me when I was a naïve and melodramatic snotty 20-something, so there’s that).

As a kind of memorial, Rachael and I read David’s three favorite books: The Stars My Destination, Mother Night, and American Gods. In all the time I knew him, including all the times we used to sit on the porch together, reading quietly while he drank whiskey, I never thought to ask him his favorites. I kept looking for pieces of him in the stories, wondering what lines stood out, what made a book memorable, what did it say about him that these were his favorites.

Being an elder Millennial, I’m in the stage of nostalgically re-acquiring important artifacts from my childhood, so that’s why there are some children’s books on my list. Where’s Waldo? was one of the most coveted books in my grade-school library! There was always a list of people waiting to check it out, but usually, whoever actually had the book that week would let the other kids gather around and look together.

My Heart Is a Chainsaw was a recommendation from my goth teenaged birthdaughter <3 which I probably read too much personal symbolism into but maybe not!

I thought John Updike was overrated, lol.

Favorite photography book: W. Eugene Smith’s Dream Street. His pictures made me so homesick, and it was wild because he took them from 1955-1957 but they still really, REALLY, to me, looked like the Pittsburgh of my ‘80s/’90s memories (bc Pittsburgh doesn’t change, and also the “idea” or “brand” of Pittsburgh in the ‘80s/’90s was ofc consciously referencing its industrial working-class past). He took over 10,000 photos but was never able to “finish” the project to his intense, obsessive standards of perfection (I KNOW THAT FEEL) and felt it failed to capture the multifaceted essence of the city. WELL, not in my opinion at least!

PS I'm moonmoth on LibraryThing.

[the-mechanica]

book ask

what is the best book you have ever read? Hardboiled Wonderland and the End of the World by Haruki Murakami

what is the worst book you have ever read? the bible

what is your preferred genre? mystery/thriller

what is your least favorite genre? true crime (I hate it)

what book do you think everyone should read? Fahrenheit 451

do you track the books you read? if so, how? nope

how many physical books do you own? too many, my exes have stolen some

how many digital books do you own? too many on audible and I don't pay for it anymore

do you have a favorite author? Tamora Pierce for YA and Caitlin Starling now

what book are you reading right now? Sugar People by Oliver Ferrie @oliverferrie

what book do you want to read but haven’t? Manhunt by Gretchen Felker-Martin

which book will you read next? The Last to Leave the Room by Caitlin Starling

what was the last book you read? The Final Girl Support Group by Grady Hendrix

how many books do you read in a year? 2-3

have you been/are you in a book club? no

do you write in the margins of your books? yes

do you highlight in your books? yes

do you have any rules if you loan someone a book? give it back

do you fold the pages or use a bookmark? fold

what is your go-to bookmark? receipt for book

do you prefer to read or listen? either or depending

would you want your favorite book to be a movie? depends on which book and who directs it

what book to movie adaptation do you love? Hamlet (2000) starring Ethan Hawke (Maya Hawke's dad)

what book to movie adaptation to you dislike? Hamlet Unabridged by Kenneth Branagh

do you frequent your local library? no

do you use libby? (or other) no

is there a book that scared you? several RL Stein books

is there a book that made you cry? Hardboiled Wonderland and the End of the World

is there a book that made you laugh out loud? The Final Girl Support Group

is there a book that changed your life? WoW's book about some OC druid

how many books are on your current tbr? 3

what is the first book you remember reading? Harold and the Purple Crayon

what was your favorite childhood book? The Pale Green Pants (With Nobody Inside Them) by Dr Seuss

do you read more than one book at a time? no yes

what’s a book you read over and over? Grendel by John Gardner

what’s the most you’ve reread a book? 4 times

do you always finish a book even if it’s bad? no

have you ever met an author in real life? yes we're friends

favorite quote from your favorite book?

do you own any “rare” or “collector” books? no

do you prefer paperback or hardback? paper

do you buy new or secondhand books? either

do you donate books when you are finished or keep them to come back to later? keep

did you read more as a child or now? less now

thoughts on separating the author from the work? depends on context

share a pic of your bookshelf! no thank you

what book do you feel most connected to? The Death of Jane Lawrence by Caitlin Starling

what book would you give someone if they wanted a glimpse into your psyche? Grendel by John Gardner

do you still subscribe to or read magazines? no

do you subscribe to a newspaper? no

[night-unfurls-its-splendour]

The Critique of Manners, Part II

~Or~

A Candid Review of ITV's Emma (1997)

Disclaimer: I do know that both this and the Miramax version were released in 1996, but to avoid confusion, I refer to this one as the “1997 Emma” in reference to the US release date.

The bones of this review were written some six years ago after my initial viewing. I’ve watched it three or four times since then, two very recently (Within the past year). I’d started to soften on it in the most recent watch. So many people love it so much I thought surely maybe I’m just crazy or even wrong; until I found this blog post from 2008 (a year before my favorite version was released) that hit on almost EVERY SINGLE thing that skeeved me out about this version when I first watched it.

Like my previous review of Emma. (2020), I’ll be covering the cast and overall handling of the script in comparison with what I know from reading the book. I will also be commenting on my thoughts about the costumes (Whether they are attractive or accurate, or both, or neither) which will be a bit more in depth than it was for the 2020 version, and this will set a pattern for the costumes section going forward.

Directed by Diarmuid Lawrence with screenwriting by Andrew Davies (Or should I say “Written by Andrew Davies with direction by Diarmuid Lawrence”?), this version was  a fan-favorite among Janeites for many years for … well, reasons I’ve never been entirely certain of. I’ve read the book twice through and referenced pertinent passages MANY times besides, and really I don’t see what they’re raving about.

Let’s dive in.

Cast & Characterization

I’d known about this adaptation for a while, but I held off on watching it, largely for one reason: my apprehension about Mark Strong playing Mr. Knightley.

     I was concerned because when I watched this I had already seen Mark Strong as Sir John Conroy in The Young Victoria and as Lord Blackwood in Sherlock Holmes, both very unpleasant characters. But there have been several occasions when I expressed displeasure with casting choices only to eat my words when I actually watched the movie. So I entered into watching this with an optimistic outlook, sure that Mark and Kate would surprise me with brilliant performances. And I would like to say that they did, but that would be an untruth.

My biggest fear about Mark Strong playing Mr. Knightley was that his rebuking of Emma was going to be a watered down version of ‘RAAAWWWRRR’ that I was familiar with, specifically because of The Young Victoria. It’s very hard for me to see Mark Strong point his finger in Emily Blunt’s face and shout at her, and then watch him do the same thing with Kate Beckinsale (only somewhat less aggressively) and expect to feel all warm and fuzzy about their romance. I expected that to be a tall order. And it was. Whenever he raises his voice, the right side of his face pulls up into a snarl. Now since it does this no matter what role he’s playing I’m guessing that’s just how his face is. It’s not his fault really and it’s almost certainly unintentional, but I’ve seen that snarl before and it does NOT belong on Mr. Knightley’s face.

   Don’t ever think I don’t LOVE Kate Beckinsale, and I don’t necessarily think that my problems with this interpretation of Emma are her fault; these things very rarely fall on the shoulders of the actual actors, but those of the screenwriters and directors who guide them. However – and I am aware that this might sound a bit harsh – I would say that at points, Kate Beckinsale’s performance in this movie (In my opinion) barely outstrips community theatre or even very good high school drama club level acting. It seems to me that there’s burden on her here to sound historical or period. This lends to this interpretation of Emma feeling at once both cold and childish (more on that later.)

Her best moments are when she runs into Jane as Jane is leaving Donwell and when she speaks with Robert Martin at the end of the film. I always like scenes where Emma tacitly apologizes to Mr. Martin, and her feeling when she invites him to Donwell is Kate’s finest moment in this movie.

I found Raymond Coulthard’s Frank Churchill insignificant at first, but on repeat viewings I really started to hate him. I don’t think Austen intended Frank’s caddishness (to use more modern vernacular I’d say he’s an utter “Douche”) to be quite this obvious on first glance. He’s a creep in this version and Raymond Coulthard is just not at all attractive to me, from his big nose to his little shark teeth.

Olivia Williams was a good, even great, Jane Fairfax, and in my opinion does a much better job of portraying Jane’s vexation than, say, Polly Walker did (more on that next time), while still quietly looking like she’d like to arm-bar Frank rather than take his vulgar teasing lying down.

She also has the distinction of being the only Jane Fairfax who’s singing REALLY blows Emma’s out of the water, and I like that all of the songs she sings are in languages other than English (primarily Italian I think?). This achieves the double whammy of showing how much more accomplished she is than Emma by emphasizing that not only does Jane sing and play better, but she knows languages too.

Samantha Morton is a superb actress whom I love and I was sort of appalled at how she looks in this movie. Is she dying of a wasting illness? She looks like a gust of wind will carry her away, although since she looked the same in the 1997 Jane Eyre (In which she played the title role under similarly appalling direction) perhaps that was just her look that year?

Dominic Rowan, as Mr. Elton, is… there’s a perfect word to describe it and I just can’t think of it right now. Like every other young man in this movie (other than Robert Martin) he’s got this feeling of skeeviness to me but it’s more than that. It’s a dweebie-ness as well. This is so dissatisfactory to me because Mr. Elton is supposed to have every appearance of charm and agreeableness, with his only obvious fault being his over-eagerness to ingratiate himself to Emma and some rather vulgar locker-room type talk about marrying for fortune. He’s just so… (I’ve hit upon it now after some discussion with my sister) dingy. He looks less like a “very handsome young man” who “knows the value of a good income” and more like the kind of guy that scrubs up okay, but still you can tell from the rumple of his clothes and the pizzaroni odor wafting from him that he lives in his mom’s basement.

The shining star for me in this production was Alistair Petrie as Robert Martin. I love him as an actor and especially after watching him in Cranford, I think he was an excellent choice for Harriet’s Mr. Martin.

Davies wrote the character to be a little more romantic (Actually buying Anne Radcliffe’s The Romance of the Forest, where originally Mr. Martin was supposed to forget to – something Emma uses as a mark against him to prove how he will age into an “gross vulgar old farmer” who is “obsessed with profit and loss”.)

I especially like an inserted scene where Mr. Martin, working in his field, sees a distressed Jane Fairfax from afar as she is walking home (I think from Donwell). I thought it drew an interesting parallel between two emotionally wronged characters that otherwise would have no interaction.

What’s with Mrs. Elton (Lucy Robinson)? I don’t think nearly enough people question this. I’ve seen it explained away as her being from Bristol and trying to make herself sound more hoity-toity to hide the fact that she’s New Money. I’m not positive on what a Bristol accent sounds like (For that is where Augusta Hawkins is from) but… this sounds like an American trying to sound posh. At some points she almost sounds Texan. It’s all very confusing, because the actress is British.  

Prunella Scales lists among her achievements being an outstanding actress and comedienne, as well as bringing into the world Samuel West, one of my all time favourite British screen crushes. She's probably best known for her work on Fawlty Towers, so its interesting to see her range as much less inscrutable Miss Bates. Her performance is by the book, but so much more engaging than Constance Chapman's 1972 offering, although i find her perhaps a shade too placid. She lacks a certain nervousness that I associate with the character (for more information, see my previous review.)

As for Bernard Hepton as Mr. Woodhouse, I can only say I. Didn’t. Like. Him. I have every consciousness of this being a personal bias. I have seen him play too many insufferable characters in too many things to like him as Emma’s lovable if tiresome father. This isn’t a knock on him or his performance; his reaction to Mrs. Elton is some great subtle visual comedy, this is just a me thing.

Another one of the better characterizations, though a relatively small role, is John Knightley. Played by Guy Henry, he is shown to be a good father, and an “Gentleman-like man”, with just the right blend of good humor and caustic comments.

Sets & Surroundings

I’d never paid MUCH attention to or questioned the houses and interiors used for estates in Austen adaptations until the 2020 version of Emma used such ridiculously lavish houses for relatively provincial gentry it forced me to sit up and pay attention. I think the houses used in this version are mostly suitable.

The part of Donwell Abbey’s exterior is played by Sudeley Castle in Gloucestershire. The Key words for Donwell from the text are “rambling and irregular” and while perhaps not as big as the Former Claremont House (Which, it is believed, was Austen’s inspiration for Donwell Abbey) it definitely is a suitable architectural style and situation and furthermore, having been purchased in the 19th century by a glove manufacturer and having been up to that point left in a little bit of a state of disrepair, fits the “neglect of prospect” Austen describes as well. Its interiors are a cobble-work of the Great Hall at Broughton Castle (Oxfordshire), various rooms at Stanway House (Gloucestershire), and the Strawberry beds at Thame Park (Oxfordshire)

(Top, left – Sudeley Castle; Bottom left – Trafalgar Park; Right – Dorney Court)

Trafalgar Park in Wiltshire and its interiors (a minty sage-green drawing-room fitting in perfectly with the mint-chocolate – primarily chocolate – color palette of the production) played the role of the Woodhouse’s home, Hartfield. A typical Georgian style house in red brick, I believe is consistent with Austen’s description of a “well built, modern house”.

Dorney Court in Buckinghamshire was used for Randalls, Mr. Weston’s recently purchased estate. It’s a Tudor style red brick house and it looks pretty on the mark from the front facade, but I think it’s still too big for a “small estate” with only two guest rooms (Although there’s no panic about the snow in this version – perhaps because it’s already snowing when they set out.)

My biggest problem is the lighting of this movie. I understand natural lighting and I LOVE it when you can even it out – but it is so dark in the evening scenes that it adds to the colorlessness of an already colorless production.

Fashion

Oh Jenny Beavan. You are a well-respected costume designer with good reason. However, I know that most of these costumes are rentals, but why is every-fucking-thing in this movie a shade of brown, beige or green?

As you can see, a rich tapestry of brown and beige. And this isn’t selective. this is (just about) every day-wear outfit in the movie (barring repeats and a few exceptions that I’ll give mention to below.)

Emma’s outerwear is brought to you by Hershey’s Chocolate. Also I’m not certain but I think  that her light brown redingote is the same one as Elinor’s in the 1995 Sense and Sensibility? If anyone can confirm, drop it in the comments.

Perhaps the evening wear will be more colorful?

Barely – Mrs. Weston in a brownish orange; Mrs. John Knightley in an orange-ish brown; Emma gets a dark blue? Or is that just the wintery glow from the window on a dark green velvet? Green (either so dark it’s almost black, or washed-out mint) appears to be the only color Emma is allowed to wear other than brown or ivory/white. Even her gown for the Crown Inn Ball (upper right) is an underwhelming and rather dingy ivory. The champagne number she wears for Christmas at Randalls is not only lack-lustre, but also sports what I’m now calling a “Bridgerton Bust” (where the Empire waist comes up too high, with the seam apparently resting across her bust rather than under it.)

The pink frock (seen properly only from the back) on Mrs. Weston is as close to real color as a main character gets in this production, and can be recognized as one of Jane Bennet’s dresses from the previous year’s Pride and Prejudice.

Even Jane Fairfax doesn’t get a break. Rather than putting her in Jane Fairfax Blue ™ (honestly, Jane Fairfax being costumed in blue is so consistent at this point Crayola should just name a crayon in her honor - this is gonna come back in future reviews) she gets a black-green evening number with no trim at all, and a succession of what the Ladies over at Frock Flicks like to call the “Dumpy Regency Little White Dress”, or drab gray-blues.

Some of the background dancers in the Crown Inn Ball scene get to wear pink! Why not put Harriet in a nice pink frock for this scene?! Why is this so difficult?!

Strawberry picking at Donwell is the only time main characters are consistently wearing identifiable colors that aren’t brown or green: Mrs. Weston in pink, Miss Bates in (oddly the most colorful dress of them all) a nice refreshing lavender blue; Jane gets grey/blue and Mrs. Elton, a pastel mint. Harriet is also given a little break in Mrs. Elton’s introduction scene in a (very) pastel blue frock, while Emma sports white (with a trademark green shawl.)

So how about the...

Similarly dull. I almost screamed for joy when I saw that Frank’s jacket was actually blue, and a vibrant blue at that. (The red is too close to brown, I’m sorry.)

So yes, in short the costumes, while perfectly technically accurate (I didn’t get a lot of caps of them but the trousers sufficiently tight, not that I care to look), are drab as a peahen.

As always I’ll outsource any dancing critique by linking Tea With Cassiane on YouTube, since I find her insights on the approach to dancing in Austen adaptations just fascinating and I would like to share such witty and informed reviews.

The Andrew Davies of it All…

*Strong Opinions Ahead*

There are so many reasons why this adaptation isn’t for me. First of all the very idea of making Emma, one of Austen’s most socially complex works (certainly her most vivid) into a sparse 107 minutes is baffling to me. Perhaps I can understand if it’s a Theatrical release but this is a TV production. Why not at least make it a two part special?

And besides the issue that, in order to make this fit the time frame, the story is severely truncated, there’s… the Andrew Davies of it all.

I have some issues with Andrew Davies’ screenwriting for this adaptation particularly. A LOT of issues. Where does one start? I think Knightley is a good place.

It’s not just the casting I don’t like here; but it does say something to me that they chose Mark Strong for this role. It’s a casting decision I discovered with disbelief when I first saw clips from this version in a Period Drama men compilation video on YouTube. I mentioned above that I know Mark Strong as unpleasant characters with man-handling habits. That’s the kind of role Mark Strong is associated with because that’s just what he does well. And I think this played into the casting here, because Davies’ interpretation of Knightley is a bit… fierce. He shouts SO MUCH in this movie and in scenes like the Harriet Smith debacle (where Mr. Knightley of the book even gets a bit angry with Emma) I can understand this, perhaps. But in the book Mr. Knightley takes many pauses to collect and calm himself, because his goal is not to quarrel with Emma but to argue a point. 97 Knightley takes no such pauses and spends the whole scene in what some might call an escalating rage.

Knightley’s cheerful arrival to Hartfield to tell Emma that Robert Martin intended to propose to Harriet is cut out so we start right off with his indignant exclamation of “She refused him?!” and it’s all go from there. To make matters worse, Emma’s own arguments are crippled by Davies’ editing. Many of her more (what might even latterly be considered “feminist”) arguments are cut out. In fact once Knightley gets going, he juggernauts his way through all of his rebukes and speeches from the book, but Emma hardly gets a word in edgewise after arguing that Robert Martin is not Harriet’s equal. What Austen wrote as a heated debate is turned by Davies into a one-sided tirade. (By don’t take my word for it, watch the clip.)

The final cherry on top is having Emma, after Knightley leaves the room with the last word firmly in his grasp, childishly pout “You are wrong Mr. Knightley, and you will see you are wrong and then you will be sorry.” I half expected her to cross her arms and stomp her foot. Worth noting is the fact that Davies adds an additional “It was badly done. Emma,” in this scene where there was none in the book. Rather overkill to my mind. Is this his catchphrase?

At Box Hill, Davies has Knightley begin his climactic rebuke of Emma’s insulting behavior by grabbing her arm and hauling her aside, and concludes by leading her, still holding her arm, to the carriage. Well at least he doesn’t shout at her in this scene; but again, all but one of Emma’s responses are cut out and she stands there, pouting until Mr. Knightley leaves and then she bursts into tears.

When Mr. Knightly proposes to Emma I was feeling good about this scene, until he dropped the “I held you when you were three weeks old” line, and I immediately felt uncomfortable. Maybe you DON’T want mention how you held her when she was a baby after you asked her to MARRY you. But perhaps worse is Emma’s response to the line: “Do you like me as well now as you did then?”

Bringing up holding Emma when she was three weeks old at the proposal (A line which was not in the book) is bad enough but there seems to be a peculiar repeated emphasis on Knightley recalling Emma as a baby. He dragged it up previously when he and Emma make up after the Harriet debacle, as he holds John and Isabella’s baby daughter (whose name, I would mention, is Emma.) In this instance too, the line is a Davies addition.

Let’s talk about Knightley’s strawberry line.

This is delivered in voice-over as a transition to the strawberry picking party at Donwell, and is portrayed as a formal invitation: “Mr. Knightley invites you to taste his strawberries, which are ripening fast.”

At first I was confident that I was reading too much into this (but I think at this point I can safely say that I’m not). I can’t help bursting out laughing every time I hear that line. It was a questionable way to word that if you ask me, especially considering that this is (once again) NOT the line in the book, and it was NOT a formal invitation. It was said to Mrs. Elton and intended to be a joke.  

“You had better explore Donwell then,” replied Mr. Knightly “That may be done without horses. Come and eat the strawberries; they’re ripening fast.”

   ‘ If Mr. Knightly did not begin seriously, he was obliged to proceed so...’

   And here I thought Janeites hated adaptations that cut out “Miss Austen’s biting wit.”

To top it all off, we have Frank Churchill (Who I have already pointed out is a bit of a creep in this adaptation and even more detestable than he already was as Austen wrote him) praising Jane: this would be fine, if he wasn’t drooling into Emma’s ear about the turn of Jane’s throat, (He actually utters this line)

and how fine his dead aunt’s jewels will look against her skin. May I just be the first to say “Ehewhegaugh”.

I juxtapose this with the book where Frank's lines are almost exactly as Davies renders them, except Jane Austen never wrote the "have you ever seen such a skin?" Line. The difference i have highlighted in bold:

"... She is a complete angel. Look at her. Is she not an angel in every gesture? Observe the turn of her throat. Observe her eyes as she looks up at my father. --- You will be glad to hear that my uncle intends to give her all my aunt's jewels. They are to be new set. I am resolved to have some in an ornament for the head. Will it not be beautiful in her dark hair?"

Because talking about how pretty your fiancee's hair is, is normal and marginally less creepy than talking about what a fine skin she has or how lovely your (i cannot stress this part enough) dead aunt's jewels will look against it. Davies' script also makes no mention of having them reset, which makes me think he’s talking about the actual necklaces and bracelets Mrs. Churchill would have worn.

But hey, maybe its just a me thing.

Harriet Smith’s story suffers, primarily, I can with some candor admit, due to the time constraints. After Mr. Elton is married, we never see Harriet in any distress. It’s almost as though she’s forgotten all about it! Emma never has to appeal to her to exert herself or to move on. Perhaps this is better than Doran Godwin’s Emma gaslighting Harriet and manipulating her by constantly chastising her for… well general heartbreak (but that’s a bugaboo for a different review.)

My last complaint of note is that ludicrous harvest feast at the end of the movie. The whole concept of this scene just does not seem at all Janely to me. I was under the impression that I was meant to be watching an Austen. Not some bullshit Thomas Hardy knock-off. This is another Davies touch and I hate it more on the principal that it is one of his numerous, obsessive tweaks made solely to point out the existence of the lower classes.

If Davies wanted to show Mr. Knightley’s being an attentive landlord and gentleman farmer then I don’t see why he couldn’t just show Knightley actually running his farm?

“Okay’, you might say, “but I think the highlighting of the servants is to show how good Knightley is by treating them like real people compared to everyone else”, and I hear you. And in the situations where that is the case, like him greeting the Woodhouse’s butler and asking after his family I think that’s totally fine and in character. But things like the servants moving the knee cushions every time someone moves down the line at strawberry picking, to me, is AS ridiculous as the “servants clipping the lawn on their hands and knees with tiny scissors” trope. Like we get it, people took the lower classes for granted, but I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that it would be easier and more realistic to have Mrs. Elton have to move her own knee cushion. I don’t think Knightley would instruct his servants, who he treats so well, to do that kind of thing, but you could write in Mrs. Elton’s expectation of it if you wanted. It seems like the kind of thing she would expect the landed gentry to do.

Screenwriter for some of the best loved Austen’s (including the sacrosanct 1995 P&P Mini-series and my favorite Sense & Sensibility), I thought of Davies for years as untouchable; until Sanditon happened and left everyone who knows anything about Jane Austen really wondering where this mess came from. I put it to you now that it was there in Davies all along.

Davies admitted, when talking about the drastic “Sexing Up” he did in Sanditon that he felt Austen’s works could have done with a bit more sex appeal. I can hardly disagree and additions like Darcy’s little swim in the pond and Edward Ferrars’ angsty wood-chopping are welcome and beloved. But it seems that what he really wanted all along was what he gave us in Sanditon; and finally, without actual source material to stand in his way, he had a chance let his dirty old man show and gave “Austen” the sexing up he thought it needed.

And it gets more troubling as you look back.

In my opening paragraph to this review I mentioned a 2008 blog post that not only agreed with me that there’s something very off about this screenplay, but gave me some possible insights as to why. It points out numerous things that I have always questioned in this version but have never seen anyone else criticize (though I am informed that more recently it has gained its’ share of critics). In fact the post itself actually points out that almost no one in the Austen Blog-sphere had (at that point) criticized this version’s faults in any meaningful way, but my favorite thing about it is that it points out what you find in Davies’ screenplay if you pay careful attention to it “Rather than sitting there and cataloguing what is “technically faithful and whatnot”.

Many Austen bloggers have kind of been playing Miss Taylor to Davies’ Emma for some two decades and change.

The most troubling thing of all is Davies own comments on Mr. Knightley (and other things, more inferred in his screen play). All of the aspects of this interpretation of Knightley that I mentioned earlier seem to stem from the fact that, as quoted in Sarah Caldwell’s book on his works, Davies thinks there’s “Something odd going on with Knightley.”

Davies clearly reads foul, or at least questionable, intentions in Mr. Knightley but I find it interesting that, rather than cutting out material he may have found troubling about Knightley in the book out of his screenplay, he doubled down by adding MORE troubling lines and situations (that were never in the book at all, and imagined solely by himself) in a romantic story with a happy ending.

Perhaps there’s not so much something odd going on with Knightley, Mr. Davies, but with you.

Final Thoughts

At this point I might ask what it is that everyone sees in this version that makes them think it’s so perfect, but that would be a bit pointless since all I’ve read since I discovered this version is people on elaborating on just that and I don’t care to hear much more.

“The lines are verbatim!” textually, perhaps, but it’s the ones that added that trouble me.

“The leads have so much chemistry!” I’m glad you think so, but I can’t find it.

“The costumes are damn near perfect!” And brown. So, so very brown.

As a 90's TV period drama, this version is pretty standard. It sticks to the book (except in those places where the screenwriter saw fit to dabble with some subtle but troubling suggestions about the characters.) And if it floats your boat, as always I'm glad it gives you what you want from the story.

I know I hold unpopular opinions on Jane Austen adaptations, and perhaps this is one of them, but every time I watch this version I feel the need to read the book as a cleanse. Perhaps Davies’s ferocious Knightley was simply a pendulum swing reaction to Douglas McGrath’s almost too laid back interpretation in the Miramax film from earlier in 1996, but even if that’s the case it’s just uncalled for and is my biggest turn off for this film.

Tone: 3

Ribbon Rating: Badly Done! (40 Ribbons)

Casting: 5

Acting: 6

Scripting: 4

Pacing: 2

Cinematography: 4

Setting: 3

Costumes: 5

Music: 2

Book Accuracy: 6

[tothemaxxx]

My Favorite Films and Performances of 2020

“I wish I could’ve seen it on the big screen.”

It was a strange year, and even stranger year of movie watching. In 2020 I saw only one of my top films in a theater, which is crazy (like much else over these past months). But the experience of keeping up with the movies this year was a reminder that great filmmaking can transcend the specifics of the viewing experience. In your living room, in bed, projected onto the side of a garage, streaming on Twitch, broken up into multiple sittings, maybe even on your phone (desperate times)… if doesn’t matter as long as it connects with you. A great film has the power to soothe and transport, to alter your perspective, to re-wire your brain. So while I didn’t get on a single airplane last year, I definitely went places. And I’m grateful for these changes of scenery. For the time-travel as well; last year in my house, we found great comfort in revisiting a bunch of old favorites. It was also an opportunity to finally watch a number of those older films that had someone evaded us… a year of catching up, now or never. We were members of a weekly movie club for some months — that was cool. Another pleasant silver lining was the emergence of virtual film festivals, which have been a fantastic opportunity. I hope that they can continue in some form when this pandemic is in the rearview. Because, you know, getting to Park City is a real schlep. All this to say: like you, I’ll always remember 2020. In this truly crummy year, the movies really helped.

I’m including some of the film festival stuff that’s coming out a little later, because the boundaries between 2020 films and 2021 films feels blurry to me without proper theatrical releases.

TOP 5, loosely ranked. I love these deeply.

1. LOVERS ROCK, Steve McQueen

2. NOMADLAND, Chloe Zhao

3. ANOTHER ROUND, Thomas Vinterberg

4. TIME, Garrett Bradley

5. MARTIN EDEN, Pietro Marcello

--------------------

The rest of the Top 25, in alphabetical order. I loved these.

À L’ABORDAGE, Guillaume Brac

BACURAU, Kleber Mendonça Filho

COLOR OUT OF SPACE, Richard Stanley

THE FATHER, Florian Zeller

FIRST COW, Kelly Reichardt

I’M THINKING OF ENDING THINGS, Charlie Kaufman

JASPER MALL, Bradford Thomason and Brett Whitcomb

LUXOR, Zeina Durra

ALEX WHEATLE / EDUCATION / MANGROVE / RED, WHITE AND BLUE, Steve McQueen

THE NEST, Sean Durkin

NEVER RARELY SOMETIMES ALWAYS, Eliza Hittman

NEW ORDER, Michel Franco

THE PAINTER & THE THIEF, Benjamin Ree

THE PERSONAL HISTORY OF DAVID COPPERFIELD, Armando Iannucci

POSSESSOR, Brandon Cronenberg

PROMISING YOUNG WOMAN, Emerald Fennell

RELIC, Natalie Erika James

SAINT FRANCES, Alex Thompson

SOUND OF METAL, Darius Marder

THE TRUTH, Hirokazu Koreeda

--------------------

I also enjoyed (some more than others):

Apples, The Assistant, Babyteeth, Bad Education, Black Bear, Blow the Man Down, Borat Subsequent Moviefilm, Butt Boy, The Climb, Da 5 Bloods, Deerskin, Emma, The Father (Bulgaria), Greed, His House, The Hunt, I Used to Go Here, I'm No Longer Here, Impetigore, The Intruder, The Invisible Man, Kajillionaire, La Llorona, Let Them All Talk, Lost Girls, The Man Who Sold His Skin, Mank, Never Gonna Snow Again, News of the World, One Night in Miami, Palm Springs, Preparations to Be Together for an Unknown Period of Time, Rebecca, She Dies Tomorrow, Shirley, Slow Machine, Sorry We Missed You, Soul, Spree, Straight Up, A Sun, Swallow, Tenet, Tesla, Tommaso, The Traitor, The Trip to Greece, True History of the Kelly Gang, Uncle Frank, Under the Open Sky, The Vast of Night, Vitalina Varela, Wendy, The Whistlers, Wildland, Young Ahmed

--------------------

And these documentaries!

American Murder: The Family Next Door, The American Sector, Assassins, Beastie Boys Story, The Bee Gees: How Can You Mend a Broken Heart, Bloody Nose Empty Pockets, Boys State, Brainiac: Transmissions After Zero, Circus of Books, Class Action Park, Collective, Crip Camp, David Byrne's American Utopia, Dick Johnson is Dead, Fireball: Visitors From Darker Worlds, The Go-Go's, Gunda, Miss Americana, MLK/FBI, The Mole Agent, Mucho Mucho Amor: The Legend of Walter Mercado, My Psychedelic Love Story, Mystify: Michael Hutchence, Narrowsburg, On the Record, Other Music, Sisters with Transistors, Spaceship Earth, The Way I See It, Whirlybird

--------------------

And these shorts:

Bye Bye Body (which I edited), Fit Model, Friday Night Pizza for Daddy, Hard Cracked the Wind, The Human Voice, John Was Trying to Contact Aliens, Michael's Preference West, What Did Jack Do?, World of Tomorrow Episode Three: The Absent Destinations of David Prime

--------------------

My favorite performance of the year:

Frances McDormand as Fern in Nomadland

--------------------

Favorite ensembles:

À l’abordage, Another Round, Bad Education, Babyteeth, Bloody Nose Empty Pockets, Blow the Man Down, Emma, First Cow, Kajillionaire, Let Them All Talk, Lovers Rock, Mangrove, Mank, One Night in Miami, The Personal History of David Copperfield, Promising Young Woman, True History of the Kelly Gang

--------------------

More memorable (and in some cases under-discussed) performances:

Christopher Abbott as Colin Tate in Possessor and as Gabe in Black Bear

Idir Ben Addi as Ahmed in Young Ahmed

Riz Ahmed as Ruben Stone in Sound of Metal

Daniel Algrant as Kelvin Kranz in Let Them All Talk

Maria Bakalova as Tutar Sagdiyev in Borat Subsequent Moviefilm

Haley Bennett as Hunter Conrad in Swallow

John Boyega as Leroy Logan in Red, White and Blue

Rob Brydon as Rob Brydon in The Trip to Greece

Jessie Buckley as Young Woman in I’m Thinking of Ending Things

Nicolas Cage as Nathan Gardner in Color Out of Space

Salif Cissé as Chérif in À L’abordage

Sheyi Cole as Alex Wheatle in Alex Wheatle

Cleopatra Coleman as Trina in The Argument

Carrie Coon as Allison O’Hara in The Nest

Michael Angelo Covino as Mike in The Climb

Willem Dafoe as Tommaso in Tommaso

Charles Dance as William Randolph Hearst in Mank

Catherine Deneuve as Fabienne Dangeville in The Truth

Katie Findlay as Rory in Straight Up

Sidney Flanigan as Autumn in Never Rarely Sometimes Always

Johnny Flynn as George Knightley in Emma

Julia Garner as Jane in The Assistant

Robbie Gee as Simeon in Alex Wheatle

Chris Giarmo as himself in David Byrne’s American Utopia

Betty Gilpin as Crystal Creasey in The Hunt

Ethan Hawke as Hank in The Truth

Kris Hitchen as Ricky Turner in Sorry We Missed You

Anthony Hopkins as Anthony in The Father

Jonathan Jules as Dennis Isaacs in Alex Wheatle

Sandra Guldberg Kampp as Ida in Wildland

Joe Keery as Kurt Knuckle in Spree

Udo Kier as Michael in Bacurau

Orion Lee as King Lu in First Cow

Delroy Lindo as Paul in Da 5 Bloods

Peter Macdissi as Walid "Wally" Nadeem in Uncle Frank

Matthew Macfadyen as Wilcock in The Assistant

George MacKay as Ned Kelly in True History of the Kelly Gang

Yahya Mahayni as Sam Ali in The Man Who Sold His Skin

Luca Marinelli as Martin Eden in Martin Eden

Tuppence Middleton as Sara Mankiewicz in Mank

Mads Mikkelsen as Martin in Another Round

Wunmi Mosaku as Rial in His House

Elisabeth Moss as Cecilia Kass in The Invisible Man

Kelly O'Sullivan as Bridget in Saint Frances

Shaun Parkes as Frank Crichlow in Mangrove

Robert Pattinson as Neil in Tenet

Paul Raci as Joe in Sound of Metal

Kadeem Ramsay as Samson in Lovers Rock

Gayle Rankin as Marissa in The Climb

Tanya Reynolds as Mrs Augusta Elton in Emma

Tyler Rice as Detective Russell Fox in Butt Boy

Andrea Riseborough as Hana in Luxor

Cecilia Roth as Marta in The Intruder

William Sadler as the Grim Reaper in Bill & Ted Face the Music

Kenyah Sandy as Kingsley Smith in Education

Amarah-Jae St. Aubyn as Martha Trenton in Lovers Rock

David Strathairn as David in Nomadland

Michael Stuhlbarg as Stanley Edgar Hyman in Shirley

Swankie as Swankie in Nomadland

Tilda Swinton as Woman in The Human Voice

Kristin Scott Thomas as Mrs. Danvers in Rebecca

Steve Toussaint as Ken Logan in Red, White and Blue

Alec Utgoff as Zhenia in Never Gonna Snow Again

Jairaj Varsani as young David Copperfield in The Personal History of David Copperfield

Ben Whishaw as Uriah Heep in The Personal History of David Copperfield

Sharlene Whyte as Agnes Smith in Education

Letitia Wright as Altheia Jones-LeCointe in Mangrove

Ramona Edith Williams as Frances in Saint Frances

Kôji Yakusho as Masao Mikami in Under the Open Sky

Youn Yuh-jung as Soon-ja in Minari

Helena Zengel as Johanna Leonberger in News of the World

--------------------

Favorite pre-2020 films I saw for the first time in 2020:

Blood on the Moon, But I’m A Cheerleader, Crooklyn, Cure, Daughters of the Dust, The Death of Dick Long, Deep Cover, The Draughtsman's Contract, Eyes of Laura Mars, Give Me Liberty, Greener Grass, Hardcore, High Hopes, The Last Party, Long Day's Journey into Night, Maiden, One Day Pina Asked, Persona, Right Now Wrong Then, Right On!, The Seventh Victim, Slightly French, Synonyms, Tammy and the T-Rex, Variety, The Watermelon Woman... and a tip of the hat to Coppola's new The Godfather Part III recut, The Godfather, Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone

[aflyingcontradiction]

The Magnus Archives Relisten: Episode 92 - Nothing Beside Remains

And yet here, in this empty world, I cannot but spend these nights, these dreadful, silent nights, huddled and frozen in some terrible fear I find myself unable to name. I almost think I hear the mocking joy of my friends, but there is nobody here, and never shall be again. - Statement of Barnabas Bennett

Excuse me while I scream.

And it was not out of malice, or because he lacked affection for Barnabas Bennett: he retrieved those bones sadly enough when the time came. Bones that you can still find in my office, if you know where to look. No, it was because he was curious. Because he had to know, to watch and see it all. - Elias

a) Is this the text passage that spawned the Jonah/Barnabas ship I've been seeing around? Is it because he kept the bones for all those centuries? b) This is actually a really vivid and horrifying way to describe what the Eye does to its worshippers. No word wasted there and yet it makes it all so perfectly clear...

Tim: Oh, Christ, what is it now? Melanie: Er, yeah, same question, please.

Okay, this made me grin.

Elias: And I killed Jurgen Leitner because he was… an unnecessary complication. Likely to tell John too much, too early.

Why did I not ask myself harder what Elias meant by that, exactly...

Basira: Daisy, where do I know that name from? Daisy: Oh, the Yousuf case. An Introduction to Higher Anatomy. Basira: Ah… Oh, god! And you killed him? You sure we shouldn’t be giving him a medal?

Do I want to know what the Yousuf case was all about? I'm assuming some extensive body horror, just from the title of the book.

Jon: What about Michael? Elias: What about him? An irritant. Interfering because he’s bored, and he resents us. He has no purpose –

RUDE!

Elias: For someone who used to be a detective, you’re remarkably reluctant to think things through. You think you’re the only police officer eager to do violence and call it justice? No, there are plenty of other rabid dogs out there, mad with the hunt. And some of them have signed a Section 31. There are plenty of others your superiors can call on to clean up this mess. Basira: Er… they wouldn’t. Daisy: Yeah. They would.

a) No, I didn't get that when Elias says 'rabid dogs mad with the hunt' he's referring to one of the fears. I don't think the Hunt had been mentioned by name at this point and I just didn't notice the signs that were obviously there. b) Seems like a relatively realistic view of the state of the police... c) ... Daisy just casually going "Yeah, of course they would" is rather chilling.

Martin: Okay, wai-wai-wai-wait, that’s the police that you’re talking about! Okay, they… they wouldn’t… Would they?

Martin, on the other hand, is being a bit more naive than he really has any right to be.

Elias: A contract of employment. For Basira. (...) Jon: Oh, no…

That whisper, no, breath of "Oh no" from Jon in the background says so damn much.

Elias: You never wanted this, no. But I’m afraid you absolutely did choose it. In a hundred ways, at a hundred thresholds, you pressed on. You sought knowledge relentlessly, and you always chose to see. Our world is made of choices, Jon, and very rarely do we truly know what any of them mean, but we make them nonetheless.

I'm not even sure what to say about this. You could probably write entire analyses of the concept of choice and the lack thereof in TMA with this quote as a foundation. I'm not going to, though, I'm just going to leave this here as "highly notable quote".

Jon: Am I… Elias, am I still human? Elias: Jon, what does human even mean? I mean, really? You still bleed, you can still die. And your will is still your own, mostly. That’s more than can be said for a lot of the ‘real’ humans out there.

'What does human even mean' is also one of those things that TMA keeps coming back to, especially with regard to Jon's character arc.

Elias: Good. Well, I have work to be getting on with. I’ll send you a Return to Work form, but don’t worry about the doctor’s note.

Pfffff. Gotta keep the bureaucracy up to date!

My impression of this episode

So the issue with this episode is that I am REALLY, REALLY bad at telling voices apart. Like, comically bad. Basically all the female characters (aside from Gertrude) sound the same to me and among the recurring male characters, I can only consistently tell Martin apart from the rest of them. Up to this episode that wasn't a problem because context always made it immediately apparent who was speaking and the characters weren't ever all in the same room but this episode - well, I think I spent most of the non-statement part of the episode trying to play catch-up on who was actually talking, making it really difficult to actually have emotions aside from the desperate flailing of trying to keep up with the plot (which there is rather a lot of). It's a lot easier with the transcript in front of me as I listen. As for the statement, oh god, the concept of being stuck in the Lonely forever is fucking terrifying. The Lonely usually gets me but I think it gets me hardest when it's cut down to its essentials and it doesn't get much more essential than "You're alone in the world. There is nobody else and there never will be again." I somehow doubt Barnabas died of old age, I sure as hell wouldn't have.

[the-blind-assassin-12]

Mad About the Boy

Word Count: 1,345 Character: John Whittaker 

(ARTIST APPRECIATION SUBMISSION)

Hi friends! Juuuuust sneaking in before the weekend officially ends here on the East Coast so I can stick to my #WhittakerWeekend schedule. Really- whose demeanor is better suited for weekends than John’s? No one’s, that’s who. So this submission is admittedly a little different than the others that I have written for, because I am actually tying it to Let’s Face the Music & Dance (hope you don’t mind!!) as a sort of side piece, though you do not need to know anything about that story to understand this...or to understand that it is a SERIOUSLY stunning piece of art. When @alraedesigns​ sent me this submission by @pheedraws​ we both admitted to thinking it was a photograph the first time we saw it, and then we talked about how we each freaked out over the fact that no, it is not a photograph, but a painting- a flawless, intricate, beautiful painting. Of a flawless man with a stunning smile. 

So Phoebe, from @alraedesigns​ (and I) and let’s face it anyone who has seen your work: THANK YOU FOR BLESSING OUR EYES WITH THIS MASTERPIECE. YOU ARE TALENTED. YOU ARE APPRECIATED. YOU ARE OUT OF THIS DAMN WORLD. 

(His smile is everything that is good in this world. Prove me wrong, you cannot.)

Mad About the Boy 

There were certain books she read depending on the time of year. The majority of her literary consumption consisted of things she’d never read before, usually new works from her favorite authors, or else recommendations from friends with similarly discerning taste to her own. Mattie’s reliable, but I simply can’t get through the drivel that Angela enjoys. She ran her fingers over the spines of the leather and cloth bound titles that graced the shelf she’d deemed only for her favorites; Madame Bovary, Tess of the D’Ubervilles, A Doll’s House, A Room with A View. Each had their time to shine in her cycle of new and old reads. But she passed them all up in favor of another, one she always read in the final days of Summer, when golden sunlight melted and dripped from the sky to gild the leaves of trees instead, when she was reminded how quickly things can change and how important it was to live now. Lawrence understood. 

She found the book she’d been looking for and pulled it from the lineup. Lady Chatterley's Lover. A door closed somewhere in another room and she sighed, swiping one hand over the cover and greeting it with the sort of smile one would share with a close friend. He needs his time to himself, and I need mine. I don’t ask what he… where he goes. And he doesn’t ask what I… While some… let’s face it, most… women would find their arrangement deplorable, Larita found it quite agreeable, and so did Jim. 

She wasn’t sure if she loved him, and she honestly wasn’t sure if she wanted to. With him it was always more about being seen and heard and respected than it was about physical attraction or romantic feelings. The fact that they happened to have good chemistry was somewhat of a cherry on top of what they’d both come to accept was the best case scenario for a pair such as themselves. If I’m putting myself out to pasture at least the company will be good. She knew that the third time rarely was the charm, and he knew that whatever part of him might have made for a good husband the second time around never made it home from the front. No need to push our luck on love. 

Crossing the parlor, she curled herself into the tufted armchair in the corner, opened her book and began to read. With Jim, she never had to abide by the staunch rules that other men- American, English, I imagine it wouldn’t make a difference where they came from- would enforce on her through marriage. Long lists of expected skills and hobbies, none of them useful in any real way, and short lists of appropriate clothing styles; even shorter ones of acceptable reading material. If that was the price to pay for love, then perhaps love wasn’t what she needed anymore. 

She’d loved her first husband, deeply and completely and he’d loved her too, fiercely and unquestioningly, and it still ended in a heartache she’d never fully heal from. Affection, interaction, physical touch... they could all be had without-  Turning the page, she sucked in a breath as a photo slipped out and into her lap. Larita let the book fall closed against her thighs, thin fingers plucking the photo from where it had landed, unfolding the crease across the bottom from where it had been pressed against the book’s binding. Oh, John… 

It was a photo from their wedding day, his young face lit with excitement, his dark eyes shining like the small but clear diamonds that once graced her left ring finger.  His smile on any given day was the most genuine she’d ever seen, but the way he’d looked at her that day, when he naively promised her forever… No one will ever look at me that way again. She let her fingertips slide over his face in the photo, a wistful smile forming on her own lips. No one ever could. When he’d told her that he couldn’t have loved her more than he did, she knew that he was telling the truth, that he believed with all of himself that he was giving her all that a person could give, all that a person could love. She loved John- loved his light heart and free spirit, adored the wide-eyed wonder with which he viewed the world. She loved the way she felt when they were together and she loved him for making her feel it. But I was foolish to think that it would be enough- that she would be content with what someone else deemed all the love that they were capable of, but only a fraction of the understanding that came with that word. Oh, John, it wasn’t your fault, not at all. Whereas some women- no, most- might turn bitter in the face of a failed second marriage, Larita felt only well wishes towards her ex-husband. I hope you find someone to give all that light to, John, someone who your love will be enough for, someone who’s mad about you.

Unsure of what to do with the photo- I can’t put it back in the book...I’ll only be surprised by it again next year, but… she looked down at it...I can’t throw it away either- she tucked it into the pocket of her trousers just as she heard her name, Jim announcing his return and calling out to find her. “In here,” she responded, closing her book and setting it down on the cushion she’d just vacated. He stepped into the room, expression much more tense than it was when he left only an hour or so earlier. “Everything alright? You look-”

“Hilda’s engaged to be married. Did you know?” His hands went straight into his pockets, a deep frown cutting across his face and she stepped closer to lay a hand on his arm. Perhaps she wasn’t in love with him, but she cared for the man, cared about the things that upset him. 

“Of course I didn’t know, I wouldn’t keep that from you, you know that.” It was true and he knew it. And I know that he knows it. It was easier, avoiding tiffs when emotions could be de-escalated before they came to a head, and Larita saw that she was right, Jim’s brow unfurrowing. “How did you hear the news?”

“There’s to be a party next month at…” he sniffed, “Well at the estate. I’ve just run into Martin Horning and he relayed the message.” Larita winced at the hurt that only she would have caught in his tone- the hurt that he hadn’t warranted an invitation. “Larita? Do you think...should I, should we go?”

Blinking quickly she felt her lips drop open. It had been one thing to see John’s picture unexpectedly, but seeing him in person when things had been left the way that they had… that was something else entirely. She let out a breath and shook her head slowly. “No, Jim, I...that’s not a good-” 

“She’s my daughter! Don’t I...shouldn’t I?” 

“And she didn’t invite you.” She said it as calmly and as soothingly as she could, real empathy in her heart as she took his cheeks between her palms. “Maybe the best gift you can give her, give all of them is…” She thought of John’s face, smiling in her pocket and how he deserved a chance to find someone to bestow it on. She thought of Hilda’s innocence and charm and how she deserved the happiness that came with those things. “Is just to let them move on from…” She felt a tear in the corner of her eye and didn’t even try to blink it away. “From us.” 

Jim brushed his knuckle over the apple of her cheek, ridding the tear as she knew he would. He sighed, the sound sad and low, but his face softened. “As usual, darling,” another deep breath came from his lungs as he conceded, “I believe you’re right.” 

.

.

.

Thank you a million times to all of you fabulous artists! If you are an artist in the Ben Barnes fandom, or you want to surprise an artist with a quick drabble based on their art, send me a message and link me to the posted artwork. Let’s show these talented folks how much we appreciate them and the things that they create!

[likeawildthing]

Georgia + former English major that likes cookies (so possibly literary destinations and bakery destinations?)

So I nailed the author portion of this!

Columbus, GA

A native of Columbus, Georgia, Carson McCullers is best known for her first novel, The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, which was published when she was 23 years old. McCullers lived in several places during her lifetime, including North Carolina and New York, but her years spend in Georgia made an indelible mark on her life and work. http://mccullerscenter.org/

https://www.southernliving.com/travel/georgia-literary-road-trip

Atlanta, GA

Martin Luther King, Jr.: Preacher, essayist, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate; Atlanta, Ga.

1.The Civil and Human Rights Museum, 100 Ivan Allen Jr. Blvd., Atlanta, GA 30313-1807. http://www.civilandhumanrights.org/

Designated room contains selections from King’s papers owned by Morehouse University. Includes first pages (handwritten) of sermons; notecards for doctoral dissertation on Paul Tillich and Henry Wieman;

notes from Selma jail to Andrew Young ( a to-do list outlining ways to bring attention to Selma); annotated “Letter from Birmingham Jail” in Christian Century, 1963 (one of first published versions, basis for later revisions); Eulogy for Four Little Girls murdered in church bombing, Birmingham 1963 (typed and then revised by hand); hand draft “Why I Am Opposed to the War in Vietnam”; much more.

2. King’s birthplace, Ebenezer Baptist Church, tomb. National Park Service, tours available. (King Historic District, Atlanta) http://www.nps.gov/malu/index.htm

Joel Chandler Harris: Folkorist (The Uncle Remus Stories), Atlanta, Eatonton – he seems kind of shady??

The Wren’s Nest: Home of Joel Chandler Harris, Atlanta

http://www.wrensnest.org/ 1050 Ralph David Abernathy Blvd. SW, Atlanta 30310, 404-753-7735. See this earlier post on The Wren’s Nest: https://readersunbound.com/2013/11/20/the-wrens-nest-forty-years-later/

Located in Atlanta's historic West End, The Wren’s Nest is Atlanta's oldest house museum and has been operating for more than 100 years. The mission of The Wren's Nest is to preserve the legacy of Joel Chandler Harris and the heritage of African-American folklore. Docents provide tours Tuesday through Saturday, and storytellers tell every Saturday at 1 p.m. and by appointment. Admission is $9.

Robert Frost

See this earlier post on the Robert Frost Collection at Agnes Scott: https://readersunbound.com/2014/04/09/frost-in-springtime/

Athens, GA

The Georgia Writers Hall of Fame

Richard B. Russell Building Special Collections Libraries

University of Georgia Libraries

Has a collection and knowledge on African American Georgia writers, teaches classes, and is open certain days (check: https://georgiawritershalloffame.org/contact-us).

https://atlantadailyworld.com/2019/02/28/georgias-rich-heritage-of-african-american-writers-in-its-writers-hall-of-fame/#:~:text=Of%20course%2C%20there%20are%20many,Johnson%2C%20an%20Atlanta%20native%20and

Eatenton

Alice Walker

But the Hall also has honored the writings of Alice Walker, who grew up in Eatonton, Ga., the daughter of a sharecropper, who went on to write “The Color Purple,” for which she was awarded the Pulitzer Prize. Walker wrote six novels and three volumes of short stories. A self-guided driving trail includes the chapel where Alice was baptized, her childhood home, her birthplace, and the birthplace of her mother.

Georgia Writers Museum

While you're in Eatonton, visit the Georgia Writers Museum, which focuses on promoting the rich, literary heritage of the state. Permanent exhibits honor the three most famous local authors, Alice Walker, Flannery O’Connor and Joel Chandler Harris. Works and artifacts of the other authors are featured in the museum on a rotating basis. The museum is open Friday through Sunday.

Uncle Remus Museum

Gather around the fireside for the adventurous tales of Brer Rabbit, and learn about the life and writing of Joel Chandler Harris at the Uncle Remus Museum in Eatonton. The site of the museum was a part of the original home place of Joseph Sidney Turner, the "Little Boy" in the tales of Uncle Remus. The museum is open 7 days a week, and adult admission is only $5.

Flannery O'Connor's Homes

A short drive from Eatonton, you can tour Andalusia Farm in Milledgeville, where O'Connor lived with her mother from 1951-1964 and where she completed the bulk of her literary work. It was on this 544-acre estate that she wrote her last book. Admission is $7.

As a child, O'Connor lived on 207 E. Charlton Street in Savannah. In 1989, the property was restored and turned into a museum with a book collection, toys, family pictures of O'Connor and a tiny desk that was especially made for her. Admission to the Flannery O'Connor Childhood Home is $8.

The Mercer Williams House Museum

When journalist John Berendt visited Savannah, he was inspired to turn a local murder case into the acclaimed novel, “Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil.” The Mercer Williams House Museum, the location of the murder, is open to visitors daily. Admission is $12.50.

Savannah

Flannery O'Connor Childhood Home, Savannah

After seeing where the famed author spent her last years, travel to Savannah to learn about O'Connor's early years. Visitors to the home may view rare books in the library and tour the garden where five-year-old O'Connor famously taught a chicken to walk backward. Special 45-minute group tours, discounted to $4 per person, are available outside of normal hours with advance request. Groups are kept to 15 people or fewer to ensure a quality experience.

Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil Book & Movie Tour, Savannah

Join Savannah Heritage Tours for a glimpse into the life of this famed novel's main character, Jim Williams. The two-and-a-half-hour Midnight Book and Movie Tour includes Bonaventure Cemetery and several homes Williams owned and restored. The three-hour Grand Midnight Tour adds historic Mercer House, Williams' home and the setting of pivotal scenes in the story. Motor coach tours include the main book destinations, the Historic District, St. John The Baptist and other sites. Customized tours require a minimum of six guests and 48 hours notice. savannahheritagetour.com

Savannah – literary festival – maybe 2022?

https://www.savannahbookfestival.org/

A note about Native American authors:

I couldn’t find any contemporary sites for Native American authors, but two of the largest tribes before displacement were Muscogee (Creek) and Cherokee. Here are some authors I found, so please do a virtual road trip!

· Annette Arkeketa, Otoe-Missouria-Muscogee Creek

· Eddie Chuculate, Muscogee Creek Nation-Cherokee,[56] b. 1978

· Elizabeth Cook-Lynn, Crow Creek Lakota, b. 1930[60]

· Joy Harjo, Muscogee Creek Nation-Cherokee,[88] b. 1951

· Suzan Shown Harjo, Southern Cheyenne-Muscogee Creek

William Harjo LoneFight, Muscogee Creek Nation-Natchez, b. 1966

Janet McAdams, Muscogee Creek-descent[73]

Alexander Posey, Muscogee (Creek) Nation, 1873–1908

Cynthia Leitich Smith, Muscogee Creek, b. 1967

Owl Goingback, Eastern Band Cherokee-Choctaw-descent,[81] b. 1959

[aion-rsa]

Salma Hayek in Savages is One of the Most Underrated Movie Gangsters

https://ift.tt/3lSiG4h

“You thought I wouldn’t notice,” cartel boss Elena Sánchez (Salma Hayek) demands of her loyal caporegime Ludo (a physically and emotionally imposing Benicio del Toro). The brutal and effective killer does not defend himself when the head of his family, and boss of bosses, slaps him with the force of a bull whip. He doesn’t even flinch. That would mean death. Oliver Stone’s Savages may not be his most renowned mob movie offering, but Hayek’s drug lord is one of cinema’s most groundbreaking gangsters.

Stone is no stranger to iconic gangsters. He wrote the screenplay for Brian De Palma’s Scarface, which brought Al Pacino’s coke-fueled Cuban political asylum seeker, Tony Montana, into celluloid’s perennial rogue’s gallery. For his 2012 cartel twist of a gangster film, Savages, Stone let Hayek reset the template. Her Elena Sánchez is street smart, tech savvy and a wiz at business. Her venture is so cut-throat, her underlings sever heads in their enthusiasm. Sánchez commands that much loyalty. Her gang decapitates wayward members, rivals and other stray wolves to bring lambs into the fold. They capture the proceedings on video which they send as messages in introductory offers of hostile takeovers.

Our ostensible heroes in this environment are Ben (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Chon (Taylor Kitsch), who’ve been friends since high school. Ben went to Berkeley and took botany classes; Chon went into the military and took seeds. The latter’s tour of duty in Iraq left him seething with trauma but well-trained tactically. His tour in Afghanistan left him tactless, but introduced him to the finest marijuana in the known world. The pair now run a multimillion-dollar cani-business in the era when the plant was on the verge of becoming legalized on the West Coast. They, and their mutual live-in girlfriend O (Blake Lively), are idealists, using their new wealth to invest in philanthropy. Sánchez’s cartel wants them to join the “family.” It is a renowned and venerable matriarchy.

Sánchez’s enterprise is larger than Vito Corleone’s in The Godfather, but then she is a wise and tough-nurturing godmother. Nicknamed La Reina, the boss of the Mexican Baja Cartel doesn’t merely conquer her competitors, she destroys idealism. To get the thing she wants, Elena kidnaps the thing Ben and Chon love most, O. This is a talent, discovering the things which people most treasure. When Tom Hagen reported back to his don in The Godfather, the family father discerned the Hollywood bigshot Jack Woltz loved his prized racehorse more than any other thing on earth. He sent a message.

Elena’s most potent message is a niche-meme of sorts. While streaming live footage of O in tortuous circumstances, she cuts to an animation of O’s head popping off, leaving an ever-increasing stain of blood which ultimately covers the screen. That’s her horse’s head. This is a message movie and that’s “the word.”  Hayek is a versatile performer. She brought black comedy subtlety to her roles in The Faculty and Dogma; sensual earth tones to Frida; and romantic fantasy into Once Upon a Time In Mexico. She ratted out her gangster boss in Everly, but made her bones as an assassin in The Hitman’s Bodyguard. Hayek has also proven herself a master thief, stealing From Dusk Till Dawn with one scene which she shared with George Clooney, Quentin Tarantino, and a snake. In Savages, Hayek is allowed to be something female characters are routinely denied: ruthless, amoral, and savage.

Hayek presents a straightforward boss with strong family values. Elena Sánchez took over the cartel after the deaths of her husband and twin sons, but there is no room for irony for the Black Widow character. Hayek expertly balances public bravado and private sorrow. Elena is wise, like someone who paid attention to the lessons of different generations. Warnings about getting high on your own supply, and underestimating the other guy’s greed, would sound perfectly natural coming out her mouth. She’s the antithesis of her prisoner, whom she calls Ophelia after sensing the young woman exudes the need for a mother’s accumulated knowledge. Elena’s own actual daughter similarly rejects the past in the movie, but this is a gangster film tradition, sadly. Every mob boss wants their children to move into a thriving legitimate world. Elena says her daughter is “ashamed of me and I’m proud of her for it.”

The gangland dictator’s only vulnerability is her teenage daughter. It is also Elena’s strength. A mob godfather chalks blood up as an expense. Elena, the mother, is not only capable of doing anything for her children, but also justifying any action because it is done for her children. She only took over the cartel because her son was weak and would have been killed. This makes her character fearless.  

Regardless of the hard-bodied eye candy, Taylor-Johnson, Kitsch, and Lively are bland next to Hayek and del Toro, who see entitlement and philanthropy as disgusting conceits of wealth and soft privilege. Lively’s Ophelia is not a deep, William Shakespeare tragic figure. She’s Paris Hilton in a hemp halter top, a seeming trophy for the nouveau stoner rich. O neither shocks nor impresses the crime queen, whose got hideaways and mansions scattered internationally for whim or lam.

“There’s something wrong with your love story, baby,” wise mob boss Elena notes like she’s doling out favors at her daughter’s wedding. “They may love you but they will never love you as much as they love each other. Otherwise they wouldn’t share you, would they?” Their ménage a trois relationship is also seen as absolutely savage to del Toro’s Lado.

The Mexican gang think the gringos lack dignity, tradition, family, and honor. The Californians are appalled by the brutality of the narco-traffickers from south of the border where torture is a routine cost of doing the business. Local D.E.A. agent Dennis (John Travolta) puts his trust in graft. He skims profit from Elena, accepts bribes from her rival El Azul, as well as Lado, and Ben and Chon. Yet he is surprised when he gets bit on the hand at feeding time. “You stabbed a federal agent,” he moans as his faith is shaken in a scene reminiscent of the death of Mel Bernstein in Scarface. Sadly, it only expands Dennis’ jurisdiction.

It is noted in the film that Elena is counting on the reelection of a specific mayor to retain her power base in Mexico. Stone directed the 2009 documentary South of the Border, which presented the untold histories of leftist Latin American presidents. Savages, a commercial film, presents the cultural relationship between Anglo-Americans and Latinos in a way mainstream Hollywood films rarely attempt. Most of this is done through normalizing sequences which act as allegorical bridges, such as when Elena flips back and forth between English and Spanish when chastising Lado and the high-ranking cartel accountant Alex Reyes (Demián Bichir). She is as much a mob representative as when Lado greets Ben with a warm “Welcome to the barrio” as he lets him into his Tijuana hotel suite.

Elena brings an entirely new and unique reworking of the South American narco boss cliché. This is best illustrated with the most subtle of the film’s social commentary, delivered by del Toro, who’d previously won an Oscar for his role in the drug war film Traffic. When Lado drops by Dennis’ house, he’s backed by a landscaping crew packing chainsaws.

Savages is an adaptation of Don Winslow’s pulp fiction novel but only hints at the violence journalist Ioan Grillo wrote about in the book El Narco. The film is set in Southern California’s Laguna Beach, which is close to the province of the Sinaloa Cartel. The film says Elena heads the Baja Cartel, which has operated in the U.S. for years. Sandra Avila Beltran was known as La Reina del Pacifico, but Elena’s circumstances more loosely resemble Veronica Mireya Moreno “La Flaca” Carreon, the first known female leader of the Los Zetas gang of San Nicolas de los Garza near northern Mexico.

The authentic blend of known crime figures brings an immediacy to the character. Hayek’s realism registers subconsciously, adding shades to the gangster persona which blur into a real person. It also instills a real sense of peril. We worry about the antihero.

Read more

Movies

The Training Day Moment That Won Denzel Washington an Oscar

By Tony Sokol

Culture

The Real Goodfellas: Gangsters That Inspired the Martin Scorsese Film

By Tony Sokol

But never forget, Elena is a badass. Savages reflects the violence of the then-ongoing drug wars in Mexico. It looks real and feels painful. The first shot the audience gets of the cartel is a blood-slicked concrete floor, headless bodies and decapitated heads, and Lado in a Lucha Libre freestyle wrestler mask. Elena’s crew is one of the most efficiently lethal in the business. Anything less is unacceptable. Lado calls in a debt on lost years from a former attorney by shooting him in both knee caps. He retires Esteban, the henchman who watched over Ophelia while she was in captivity, because he is too soft.

One thing which separates Savages from the many drug war genre films is how Stone mixes media. He artfully moves through visual formats, color schemes, black and white grit, webcam and cell-phone video pixelation, though all of this is restrained when compared with Natural Born Killers. In that film, the villains were strong but powerless, hurled by forces beyond their control. In Savages, Elena exudes authority. “We didn’t make you an offer to hear a counteroffer,” she explains confidently, turning the screw on mere offers you can’t refuse. “We made you a deal to which we expected compliance.”

Stone is as fascinated by power as he is repelled by it. Like many gangster and Stone films, the mobsters at the center of Savages are allegories. Stone took on financial criminals in Wall Street, and here Elena’s cartel is likewise a modern corporation of sorts, putting the squeeze on the little guy. It’s the same thing real-life Bronx bootlegger Dutch Schultz did when he took over the Harlem numbers racket. The Sánchez expansion is the same as when the Corleone family moved in on Las Vegas. Elena muscles in during negotiations, dropping golden parachutes with balloon interests, percentages, sliding scales over three years, and other buzz-killing business school collateral damage. Even as talks deteriorate, Sánchez keeps a cooler head than Tony Montana and is able to strategize in the long term.

Her operations are brazen. When negotiations aren’t being carried out via computer, business is conducted in public, under the protective shield of a small squadron of snipers. Her hackers are as expert as Ben and Chon’s. All of this was within state of the art, real-time operations, which further solidifies Sánchez’s bona fides. Stone spent 15 months of combat duty in Vietnam, and assigned Kitsch to train with a Navy SEAL advisor during filming. Blakely told Collider she “met a little girl who had been kidnapped by the Mexican drug cartel.  We met people in, of all areas, the marijuana field.” Hayek spoke with members of drug gangs.

“I actually talked to some people involved in the cartel that described, on two different occasions, women that have gotten quite high in the cartel,” Hayek told Collider.  “As a matter of fact, they are incredibly efficient, much more so than men… The women are actually colder. The guy gets angry and thinks he has to do something, and the women are not like that. They are all about the business. They’re not about the vendetta, or who is more macho. They’re about getting things done.”

Elena Sánchez gets things done, and she does it with style. This is a real gangster policy which goes all the way back to Arnold Rothstein, who cleaned up street thugs like Lucky Luciano and Meyer Lansky, put them in suits, and taught them which forks to use at dinner. Dutch Shultz laid out a small fortune to outfit his outfit in the latest fashion. In Dead End, Baby Face Martin (Humphrey Bogart) shows off his silk suit, tailor-made.  The gangsters in Sergio Leone’s mob masterpiece Once Upon A Time in America wore wingtip collars. In American Gangster, Denzel Washington’s Frank Lucas blows his cover to drape himself in a chinchilla coat.

Hayek set Elena’s style in stone, wearing the same diamond necklace and silken black wig in every scene. “These women know they are going to be an icon and they create a character,” she told THR.  “These women design themselves. They don’t want to be versatile. They want you to always remember them.”

Elena Sánchez may only remember Ben and Chon by their nicknames, “Nothing Personal” and “Eat Shit Caviar,” but Salma Hayek presents an unforgettable cinematic crime boss. Savages lives up to its title because Hayek cultivates the untamed natural state with unnatural ease. Sánchez knows enough not to keep too high a profile on “most wanted” lists, but as a gangster, she should never be underestimated.

cnx.cmd.push(function() { cnx({ playerId: "106e33c0-3911-473c-b599-b1426db57530", }).render("0270c398a82f44f49c23c16122516796"); });

The post Salma Hayek in Savages is One of the Most Underrated Movie Gangsters appeared first on Den of Geek.

from Den of Geek https://ift.tt/3rkIW8x

[uispeccoll]

Special Guest Post from John Martin Rare Book Room

Hardin Library of Health Sciences

INGRASSIA, GIOVANNI FILIPPO (1510-1580). Iatrapologia: Quaestio, quae capitis vulneribus ac phrenitidi medicamenta conveniant [Defense of Medicine: Question regarding the medicinals convenient for head injuries and meningitis]. Printed in Venice by Giovanni Griffio, 1547. 16 cm tall.

This month's book was one of six John Martin Rare Book Room items selected to be scanned as part of the Iowa Initiative for Scientific Imaging and Conservation of Cultural Artifacts (IISICCA) project. Iatrapologia (Greek: "defense of medicine") by Giovanni Filippo Ingrassia (1510-1580) was selected for two reasons. One, with backlighting through the thin, limp vellum cover, we were able to determine it had small pieces of manuscript waste that included both green and red inks. Different inks show up at different energy levels in Computed Tomography (CT) scanners - or sometimes not at all. Finding a variety of inks helps to calibrate both types of scanners used in the project.

And two, it's just a darn cool book.

Ingrassia was an influential 16th-century Italian physician. He grew up in a well-educated family and received a classical education. He studied at the University of Padua, one of the most important western centers for the study of medicine and anatomy.

There, he learned from renowned intellectuals and physicians, such as Realdo Columbo, Bartolomeo Eustachi, Girolamo Fracastoro, and, of course, the Anatomaster® himself, Andreas Vesalius. Ingrassia would go on to make his own significant impact on not only anatomical medicine but also public health and hygiene, forensic medicine, and teratology (the study of abnormalities of physiological development).

After completing his studies in 1537, he became the personal physician to a minor Italian noble family in Palermo. Soon after, he became the professor of human anatomy at the University of Naples. It was during his time in Naples that he wrote Iatrapologia. Ostensibly a book about how to treat head wounds, it was also a critique of the current state of medicine and surgery - one of the subtitles, liber quo multa adversus barbaros medicos disputantur, translates as "a book in which many things are argued against the barbarian physicians."

In Iatrapologia and elsewhere, Ingrassia argued that medicine should be considered a less subjective discipline. Treatments should be verified, results checked, and useful diagnoses disseminated among physicians. He also thought that physicians and surgeons should be integrated into a single profession to prevent surgeries by "unqualified" people. Indeed, in Iatrapologia, he states rather dramatically,

"Oh, God, so much human suffering has been caused by the vainglory of contemporary doctors. Indeed, surgery has been abandoned to some inexperienced, empiric [i.e., quack] physicians, most of whom are not only lacking in dogma, but also in what relates to the Art." p. 252

Ingrassia was also a strong believer in continuing education, suggesting physicians should refresh their dissection skills every five years so as to avoid becoming "imperfect and ignorant physicians." If nothing else, Ingrassia demonstrated a natural skill with insults!

Ingrassia made significant contributions to the field of anatomy, particularly with bones and the skull. He is most well known for identifying a third small bone in the middle ear, which he called the "stapes." He also described differences between human and animal bones, breaking down parts of each bone to make identification easier.

Ingrassia was not only a physician and anatomist but also a pioneer in public health. He held various political positions, most notably Protomedicus (chief physician) of Sicily, and implemented measures to prevent the spread of diseases such as malaria and the plague. He emphasized the importance of preventive measures, such as isolating infected patients and cleaning objects to reduce the risk of transmission.

Overall, Giovanni Filippo Ingrassia was a remarkable physician and scientist who significantly contributed to our understanding of human anatomy and the practice of medicine.

Our copy of Iatrapologia is a delight to hold and leaf through and, as indicated, holds a few secrets inside. The limp vellum cover is soft but dried out enough that it has a bit of a rattle while opening. The cover image above shows discoloration from use and bits of writing here and there. The textblock is in excellent shape, the paper bright, and almost completely free of damage.

One interesting surprise is a piece of paper that has been pasted over the verso side of leaf A3 in an attempt to cover up a printer's error (a repeated page from elsewhere in the book). At some point, someone made a concerted effort to remove the paper to see what was underneath. Whoever glued it on, though, made sure the vandal couldn't remove much!

Other surprises can be seen in the images above. The images show close-ups of the text visible with backlighting. In one image, green and red inks are still vibrant and really jump out. The IISICCA group estimates the date of the manuscript to be roughly the 10th or 11th century and suspects the complete word is some form of "archiabbas" (chief abbot).

Another image shows a small scrap where the photo is repeated several times. Different photo filters were applied in an attempt to make the text more legible.

Contact me to take a look at this book or any others from this or past newsletters: damien-ihrig@uiowa.edu

[twentiethcenturymoviesandtv]

Star Trek: A Product of the Times

Miniskirts, beehives and bowlcuts, goodness gracious, is there any time that Star Trek could have been made but the 1960s?

The short answer?  Not really.

Star Trek was made at quite an interesting time.  The Civil Rights Movement, the space race, Vietnam, the Cold War, the hippie movement, and the new wave of feminism was all coming in a wave that swept the nation, turning the country on its head and plunging its people into turmoil.  The 1960s were an uncertain time: President John F. Kennedy was assassinated at the beginning of the decade after dealing with the Cuban Missile Crisis, Martin Luthor King Jr. was assassinated near the end, just in time to see the Civil Rights and Voting Act of the mid-’60s come to pass, ensuring equal rights for all.  In 1969, America put a man on the moon, Nixon won the election of 1968, and Woodstock closed out the summer of ‘69 with a bang.

This was the world Star Trek was born into: a world full of hope and fear.

You may be wondering why I’m telling you all this, why this all matters.

The answer is extremely simple: to help contextualize, and therefore understand, Star Trek, we have to understand the 1960s.

See, no piece of media is an island.  Every movie, every book, tv show and song, is a product of people living in the times, therefore, a product of the times itself.  Everything, no matter how much of a ‘classic’, exists as a product of those who created it, people whose thoughts and actions are influenced very heavily by the world they live in, and the culture around them, ‘dating’ them to future viewers.

That’s to be expected.

It makes sense that our culture shapes who we are and what we think, and therefore the kinds of things we create.  This, in and of itself, is far from a problem.  However, it does leave those of us who enjoy older films with a rather interesting question:

How dated is too dated?

Can we as an audience still enjoy a film that is discernibly made in a time before our own?  Is it possible to relate to the content created in a time of different technology, clothes, and, most importantly, a different political and social climate than the one we currently live in?

The fact is, there is nobody and nothing in existence that can stop any piece of media from being ‘dated’ in the sense that, no matter what, whatever is being made will have the impact of the culture it is made in.  It simply can’t be avoided.  Even films set in the future will feature the hairstyles of the decade it was created in, or use the special effects of the time.  This, although sometimes a little odd, does not negatively impact the films that we watch.  These things are mere trimming, the external demonstration of the culture of the times.  We can watch The Breakfast Club or The Terminator and notice the ‘80s clothes, slang, trends and references, but it does not hurt the core essence of the movie.

So what does?

Ideas.

In my opinion, it is not the styles of a film, but the ideas, the themes, how the world is viewed, that dates a film, more than any beehive or mullet ever could.  It is these elements that cause modern viewers to cringe at offensive lines or words, to wince at blatant displays of sexism or prejudice, and sometimes, turn away from older movies forever.

However, ignoring it, and refusing to watch it, doesn’t make anything better.  After all, those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it, and although movies and television aren’t quite history, they’re a picture of it.

Looking at the context in which a film was created can help us figure out why decisions were made, and understand how the culture has changed.  By looking at where we’ve been, we can better appreciate where we are now, and look to where we are going to be.  We can, and indeed, we should look back at older films, and recognize what doesn’t hold up and what is considerably Not Okay, without ignoring what does hold up.

That’s what we’re doing now.  Today, we’re answering the question:

How dated is Star Trek?

Let’s take a look.

To be honest, at first glance, it seems like it is.  Very much so.

Between very on-the-nose storylines facing off against hippies, racism and the Vietnam war, Uhura’s miniskirt, Yeoman Rand’s beehive, and Chekov’s bowl cut, it seems utterly impossible that this show can exist and hold up in a time period past the 1960s.  The special effects are sometimes cheesy, the acting can be hammy, and the moments of ‘progressiveness’ that are so often praised seem rather small.

Uhura was a black woman on the bridge, sure, but she was horrendously underutilized.  Female characters regularly wore skimpy outfits and threw themselves at male members of the crew, serving as props, seducers, innocents, and rarely holding any real power.  The final episode of the series is about an insane woman who swaps bodies with Captain Kirk because she claimed women weren’t allowed to be starship captains.  Evil Kirk’s assault of Janice Rand is brushed off.  The main characters are all white, and every minority character is in a supporting role.

It’s easy to look back from the twenty-first century with uncomfortably raised eyebrows and ask: “This was progress?”

All in all, it seems impossible to modern audiences that this show could possibly be as revolutionary as it is often said to be.  How can this show be a television game changer, the show that inspired so many and so much good?  How can Star Trek be considered so progressive?

Honestly, it’s all dependent on the time.

Looking back, it’s very easy to judge, to turn our backs on a show that is, in a lot of ways, clearly dated.  There’s no saving the reputation of the bowl cuts, the campy acting, or the tinfoil bikinis, but, if you will, allow me to contextualize, not just the show, but the culture as well.

The year is 1966, and Star Trek’s first pilot has failed, accused of being ‘too cerebral’, (among other things) and having a woman as the second in command on the ship.  The new show, considerably retooled with a whole new crew except for a mixed-race half extra-terrestrial, is set to air, and your crew includes two white American men, the aforementioned half alien, a Scotsman, an Asian man, and a black woman, all in positions of authority on a military ship designed for exploration in deep space.

An Asian man with no stereotypically Asian accent, hobbies, or background was the helmsman for the Enterprise.  A black woman was a lieutenant commander, the chief communications officer.  They were positioned in such a way that they were unmissable for viewers, and regularly took part in landing parties and missions.  They were very smart and very capable.

Now, that’s nothing.  Then?

In 1966, that was huge.

While to modern eyes, the show’s claim to progressiveness seemed like the bare minimum, in the time that the show was produced, it was a big deal.  The equality on the bridge of the Enterprise, (unquestioned, undiscussed equality) changed television, and subtly forced viewers to question their own prejudices.  The idea of a perfect future was one with no prejudice, no distinction among humans.

To quote Kirk himself:

“Leave any bigotry in your quarters; there’s no room for it on the bridge.”

On Star Trek, especially in the Federation, everyone was an equal.  No member of the crew was worth more, or treated differently, than any other.  Multiple characters (non male, non white) characters are portrayed as high ranking, deserving of equal respect.  Sure, now it doesn’t look like a big deal, but in the end, that’s a good thing.

It means that times have changed, and that even in the 1960s, people knew they should change.

In the end, Star Trek remains a good look at a utopian future where everyone is deserving of equal respect and care.  Is it perfect?  No.

But it was about as good as we can expect: Fair For Its Day.

To quote the TVTropes definition of this specific phrase:

“Something from the past that seems like a huge load of Values Dissonance. It seems laden with, say, a Rose-Tinted Narrative or a Historical Hero or Villain Upgrade.

Only… it turns out it was comparatively Fair for Its Day. Maybe the Historical Hero Upgrade or Historical Villain Upgrade wasn’t that unfair a reflection on the person’s views. Maybe the Rose-Tinted Narrative just wasn’t rose-tinted enough for its original audience. Maybe it was even ripped apart in its own time for being downright insurrectionist, and was brave to go as far as it did. It might even completely agree with modern attitudes, but not do so Anviliciously enough for today’s audiences.”

Such is Star Trek.

The miniskirts?  A demonstration of freedom and fashion in the late 1960s.  Uhura’s job?  As a black woman in the ‘60s in a position of authority, it was groundbreaking.  A non-stereotyped Asian man and a non-evil Russian?  Unthinkable.  Khan, one of the show’s most memorable and well-loved villains?  Played by Ricardo Montalbán, a Mexican.  Kirk reported to higher-ranking non-white officers.

Does that fix the fact that Janice Rand’s assault was largely brushed off?

No.

But it’s a start.

Star Trek’s legacy is, not in its perfection, but in the fact that it was a product of the times that saw the need for change.  It’s impact, it’s importance lies in its guts to push the boundaries of what was acceptable at the time, to be a product of the times that was looking for a better future.

Yes, times have changed, and Star Trek no longer looks as groundbreaking as it did at the time.  That’s good.  It shouldn’t.  But that does not mean that it loses its importance.

Star Trek remains a titan among game-changers in the history of pop-culture, and rightfully so.  Very few franchises have the scope of influence and inspiration that Star Trek lays claim to having, and in a true test of its values, continued to expand on them and grow and change with the culture with each version, continuing to strive for the best.

All that leads us to our final question.

Is Star Trek dated?

In some ways, yes.  Some of those stories could only have been created in the 1960s.  Some interactions were only possible in a bygone era.

In others?

Star Trek’s general concept, and indeed, a lot of its execution, actually does hold up very well.  The stories are often just as interesting and compelling as they were when they were first released, and the characters remain as gripping and entertaining, over fifty years later.  In terms of storytelling and characters, for the most part, Star Trek is not dated.

After all, the idea of equality, and a better future, is never dated.

Yes, Star Trek is a product of its times.  Very much so.  However, that fact makes the series no less enjoyable.  It was influenced by its culture and its times just as much as it would go on to influence, and even today, it still casts a long shadow on television, and the culture at large. Star Trek stands the test of time, serving as a reminder of times past, while at the same time looking to the future.

In 1966, Star Trek was a visionary concept that ended up changing the world.  Just because we’ve seen progress since then doesn’t take away any of its punch, it just shows us that it was on the right track.

Fifty years later, Star Trek is still boldly going, and it will continue to do so as long as people still look for a better, brighter future.

Thanks so much for reading!  Don’t forget to use that ask box if you have your own ideas or thoughts that you’d like to share.  I hope to see you in the next article.

[maccamaniac1]

Music documentaries are hardly a rare occurrence these days, particularly when focused on The Beatles. Over the years, the Fab Four have been at the centre of countless different documentaries, books, and films, all aiming to give a little more insight into the life and times of the biggest band of all time. ⁠

⁠

However, it is not often that these films feature such a star-studded production crew, including the likes of Martin Scorsese and David Tedeschi, who are set to collaborate on the upcoming Disney+ documentary Beatles ‘64. ⁠

⁠

Focusing on The Beatles’ first visit to the United States back in 1964, the documentary film aims to capture the spirit of a particularly important period in the band’s history. By the time they visited the USA, John, Paul, George, and Ringo were already household names in their native United Kingdom, but the intense popularity they witnessed in the States set the band on a path to global domination. Not only did their trip to America represent the absolute pinnacle of Beatlemania, but it ushered in an entirely new era for the group.⁠

⁠

Beatles ‘64 will aim to capture the unparalleled cultural moment of The Beatles touching down at JFK Airport in New York, before appearing in living rooms nationwide through their performance on The Ed Sullivan Show. The importance of this event within the history of American music cannot be overstated, a fact which Beatles ‘64 will explore in-depth. ⁠

⁠

The documentary will reportedly be compiled of archival clips and famous footage of the band, in addition to footage originally shot by documentarians Albert and David Maysles, newly remastered in 4K. What’s more, the iconic film of The Beatles performing on The Ed Sullivan Show have been extensively remastered, too. This mixture of new and recently remastered footage will likely make Beatles ‘64 essential viewing for fans of the band.

[moniire]

All the classic author asks pls!!!

Okay, I didn’t imagine that someone would reply so quickly, but I suppose I have the time.

Mary Shelley: Were you a goth, prep, nerd, or jock in school?

I’m a nerd, as far as I’m aware. I have a little bit of goth in me, I suppose, but that part rarely rears its head in public.

Zora Neale Hurston: Do you write in your free time? If so, then what do you write?

I don’t write a lot as I’m incredibly fussy and I find it hard to come up with plots or make my writing flow. I do write some drabble occasionally, in the form of very short stories, but they rarely have an actual plot. It would be my dream to actually be able to finish a proper short story.

J.D. Salinger: What was the last movie you watched?

I’m pretty sure it was North by Northwest, but I don’t remember exactly.

Alice Walker: What was the first “adult” book you ever read?

The first properly graphic book I read was, I believe, A Game of Thrones by George R. R. Martin. I was 13 at the time.

Bram Stoker: Do you prefer suspenseful horror movies, gore, or jump scares?

I absolutely hate jumpscares. If you send me anything with jumpscares I will probably cry. But I immensely enjoy suspense and gore has never really phased me (apart from stuff with eyes). Many of my favourite shows and movies have a good mix of them. 

Oscar Wilde: What book have you read more than once?

Oh, hundreds of them. My favourite re-reads are probably the Howl series by Diana Wynne Jones. Childhood classics!

Beatrix Potter: Do you like reading inside or outside?

I’d say inside usually, but it honestly depends on the weather and location. A sunny bench in a quiet park? Sure, I’d go for it. But a rainy, crowded street? Perhaps not.

Ann Radcliffe: What’s something you’re known for among your friends or family?

There are a few things. Firstly, I’d say my height is a big one, at least on my mother’s side of the family. I’m really tall for my age - 6�� or thereabouts - and taller than everyone on my mother’s side. My grandparents on my father’s side have actually been measuring the family’s heights against a wall since the early 2000s. Seeing the progression is pretty cool.

Among my friends, I’d say either my speech patterns or my ability to remember little tidbits of information that I’ve been told years ago. Despite coming from an area with a very distinct, “non-posh” accent, I speak a lot of the time with an enunciated, stereotypically British accent. When I get angry or excited, I tend to speak with a slight Irish accent, and the list goes on. No idea where I picked this up, but it’s apparently very humorous. The latter is a bit of an inside joke, as normally my memory is quite bad. However, I occasionally come out with bits of information that people have no memory of telling me. There have luckily been only a few awkward situations due to this.

Lord Byron: What’s a negative quality that you can admit to having?

I’m very insensitive at times and have had multiple friends call me out on statements that I meant as jokes or constructive criticism, but they found incredibly hurtful. 

Edna St. Vincent Millay: Do you have a favourite poem or one you can recite?

La Belle Dame Sans Merci by Keats, The Orange by Wendy Cope, How Do I Love Thee (Sonnet 43) by Elizabeth Browning and When You Are Old by Yeats are the ones that spring to mind.

The ones I can recite are La Belle Dame, Valentine by Carol Ann Duffy and most of the Relationships Anthology for GCSE English Lit. 

Jane Austen: Have you ever fallen in love?

That one’s difficult. I fall in love every day with places and things and experiences. With books and artworks and music. 

But I presume this means people. And honestly, I don’t know. I thought I was in love once, with a boy whom I met through a friend. He was beautiful and talented, but what stood out was that he could talk. I was sick of people who seemed to have no wider perspective or opinions, or, if they did, kept it firmly under lock and key. But he would always find a new topic to talk about, without me even needing to start a conversation. Art installations at our local gallery, religious ideology, politics, music. And it was wonderful. 

I spoke with him for maybe 30 minutes a month at most, with the rare exception of protests or marches, but they were bright and intriguing and he made me feel like I’d swallowed a star every time I saw him.

But alas, it came to an end as all good things do. We drifted and, since he didn’t seem to text, we stopped speaking almost altogether.

But was I in love? I still don’t know

Langston Hughes: If you could be part of a literary era, which one?

I feel like this is predictable but the Romantic/Gothic era (1780s - 1830s) because, whilst I’ll admit that women’s rights most definitely were non-existent, it has to be my favourite one literary-wise

Emily Dickinson: What’s the last book you were reading?

Blackhearts in Battersea by Joan Aiken. I wanted something quick and nostalgic for a change.

John William Polidori: What was the last book you finished?

See above answer

Stendhal: Have you ever hid a book you were reading because you were embarrassed? 

When I originally read the ASOIAF series, I, of course, had to read it in school as well, because I wasn’t switching books for school and for home and I obviously needed something to read at lunch. Scared of getting judged by peers or getting the book confiscated by teachers, I hid it in the dust jacket of another book. I can’t remember which, but, surprisingly, it worked.

Charles Dickens: What book are you currently reading?

E. H. Gombrich’s A Little History of the World. Again, written for children, but one I immensely enjoy and very informative on a wide variety of countries. 

Thomas Hardy: Are you a city or country person?

I want to say a mix of both. I love the city I live in and its bustle and shops and life, but I also love the countryside with its greenery and cosy intimacy. I do hate the insects though.

Virginia Woolf: What book has been on your TBR longer than a year?

Pride & Prejudice. I just haven’t gotten around to it, though I’m sure I will soon.

And finally…

Edith Wharton: What’s your favourite season for reading?

Winter, easily. Curling up to read is hard if you’re all sweaty and can’t concentrate on the words because of it. Winter gives me an excuse to pile on the jumpers and blankets, heat up the hot chocolate and just read. Plus, winter often means visits to Ireland to see my grandparents, who have the cosiest living room ever, which doubles as my all-time favourite reading environment. 

That was quite a task. I might have gone off on one in some of these, but I hope this answers it all nicely.

[skarsgard-daydreams]

Autobiography and Epilogue and Addendum? 💚

Who is the protagonist you most relate to?

Hmm, this is difficult. It’s rare that I feel like I relate to a protagonist in a book even though my personality type is sometimes nicknamed “The Protagonist.” When I was a kid, I related strongly to Hermione Granger. I was a nerd, I was too intense, I didn’t have a lot of friends, and I had bushy, brown hair. I still relate to her in a way because I’ve often been the one who is prepared and the one who people turn to with problems among my friends. But I’m more in my feelings than Hermione. Now that I’m older, I would probably say Elizabeth Bennett. She focuses a lot on the other people around her, she tends to be emotional, and if you slight her, she’ll remember it forever. She’s still bookish, but probably more of an extrovert like me.

What is a book that made you cry?

I have a vivid memory of City of Thieves making me cry like a bitch while I was sitting at my friend’s apartment in college. My friend was reasonably concerned and asked me what the hell was going on. I told them I was in love with the book and also wanted to throw it across the room because it hurt me. I feel like that’s the mark of good writing. Most of my favorite books have made me fucking weep. I often think of that scene in Silver Linings Playbook where the guy finishes reading A Farewell to Arms, slams it shut, and throws it out the window. That’s how I want to feel when I finish a book, but in a good way.

What is a book trope you can’t stand?

Okay, I have so many, but here are a few.

boring boy’s life is changed forever by his pining for an ~eccentric~ girl (I’m looking at John Green) because I think it fuels a lot of toxic narratives

the villain standing around explaining his/her motives or plan to the protagonist for no logical reason (I’m looking at everyone) because let’s face it: in real life, they would just get down to business

unnecessary prologues where the writer could have weaved the information seamlessly into the story (I’m looking at George R.R. Martin) because your first paragraph should go off like a gunshot and ricochet from there

the sudden disruption of a narrative to tell a totally different story at length (I’m looking at every gothic novelist) because 90% of the time, it destroys momentum and is unnecessary

mass mind-control superpowers (I’m looking at Veronica Roth) because I think it’s so much more interesting for antagonists to coerce and intimidate rather than superseding a person’s will with ~magic~

I could go on, but I’ll spare y’all.