#most of the portrayals of jane are very much her being viewed as the 'other woman' | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

the-rewatch-rewind · 1 year ago

Text

An old movie with a very relevant name.

Script below the break.

Hello and welcome back to The Rewatch Rewind! My name is Jane, and this is the podcast where I count down my top 40 most frequently rewatched movies over the last 20 years. Today I will be discussing number 14 on my list: MGM’s 1944 psychological thriller Gaslight, directed by George Cukor, written by John Van Druten, Walter Reisch, and John L Balderston, based on the play by Patrick Hamilton, and starring Ingrid Bergman, Charles Boyer, and Joseph Cotten.

So first of all, if you’re thinking, “Gaslight? As in, to deny someone’s reality to the point that they can no longer trust their own perceptions?” then, yes, you’re absolutely correct: this movie (and the play it’s based on and the 1940 British film it’s a remake of) is where that term comes from. So I’m just going to give a blanket content warning for this whole episode: I will be talking a lot about psychological and emotional abuse. This is an incredibly well-made movie, which is why I keep revisiting it, but I recognize that not everybody is in the right place to hear stories about gaslighting, so please, take care of yourself, and skip this episode if you think it’s going to cause you distress.

That being said, I truly have no idea why “gaslighting” suddenly became a popular buzzword in the last 10 years or so, or how it has evolved to be misapplied to any form of lying. I’ve even heard people talk about how someone is “gaslighting” them when they merely disagree about something. So despite how incredibly dark and disturbing this movie is, I really think everyone should watch it, if for no other reason than to learn how to use the term correctly. But there’s obviously a lot more to it than that, which I will get into. But first, my traditional plot summary:

When her aunt and guardian, a famous opera star, is murdered in their London home, young Paula Alquist (Ingrid Bergman) is sent to Italy to train as a singer. Ten years later, she is swept off her feet by her new accompanist, Gregory Anton (Charles Boyer), and after knowing each other only two weeks, they get married. Though she is still haunted by her aunt’s unsolved murder, upon hearing that Gregory has always wanted to live in London, Paula suggests that they move into her old house. As they settle in, Gregory’s behavior gradually changes, and Paula begins to feel like she is losing her mind.

The main thing I remember about the first time I watched this movie was thinking it wasn’t a very good mystery, since it’s pretty obvious fairly early on who the bad guy is. But by the end it became clear that it was never meant to be a mystery, but rather a map of red flags to watch out for, as well as a surprisingly sympathetic portrayal of how easy it can be to ignore them until it’s too late. Or, I guess I should say, almost too late, since, spoiler alert: the movie does have a mostly happy ending. Anyway, I had never seen a movie like this before and it fascinated me. I watched it twice in 2003, once in 2004, once in 2006, once in 2007, twice in 2008, three times in 2012, once in 2013, once in 2014, twice in 2015, twice in 2016, once in 2017, once in 2018, once in 2020, twice in 2021, and once in 2022. I also saw the 1940 version once in 2006. I don’t remember much about it other than I thought it was pretty good, but the remake was better. And a big part of that is because of the cast of the remake. One of my 2015 views of the remake was part of my watching through Best Actress winners project because Ingrid Bergman won the first of her three Oscars for this film. Apparently at the time I ranked this performance as the 7th best to win that award, and now if anything I feel like that was too low. The more I rewatch this movie, the more impressed I am by what a difficult job she had and how thoroughly she crushed it.

Paula is an incredibly complex character who undergoes a significant emotional journey. At the beginning, though she’s definitely still haunted by the trauma of her youth, she’s mostly happy and hopeful and vivacious. And then all of that slowly dims as Gregory’s manipulations escalate, almost as if she is a gas light that he’s turning down. That’s not why the movie is called Gaslight, though; it’s called that because one of the early signs that something sketchy is going on is when Paula starts to notice lights dimming as if someone turned a new light on somewhere else in the house, but nobody else seems to notice this and she can’t find a good explanation for it. But watching Paula go from a lively, lovestruck newlywed to basically a zombie struggling to find a shred of reality she can trust also feels like watching a gas light flame go down. And it would have been so easy to either overdo or undersell this descent into confusion, but Ingrid Bergman perfectly balances every moment. You can see Paula starting to doubt herself more and more as her actions and words become more hesitant and her looks become more vague, until she begins to resign herself to the fact that Gregory must be right, she must be insane, there’s nothing more she can do. It’s so painful and heartbreaking that I desperately want to reach through the screen and comfort her and tell her what’s really going on. And then, just when I almost can’t stand it anymore, Joseph Cotten shows up to do that for me. He plays Inspector Brian Cameron of Scotland Yard, a childhood fan of Paula’s aunt who happens to see Paula one of the few times she’s out with Gregory in London, which leads him to reopen the cold case of her aunt’s murder and figure out what’s going on just in time to help Paula. The implication that Paula needs a man to rescue her is one thing I don’t love about this movie, but at the same time I think it’s important to acknowledge that Gregory was so effective at – for lack of a better term – gaslighting her that she could not have escaped that situation without help.

Not to take any of the credit away from Bergman for her stellar performance, but I do think it helped that George Cukor was the director. Longtime listeners may recognize his name from Holiday, which was number 33 on this list, and Adam’s Rib, which was number 27, both of which have significantly lighter tones. Gaslight feels much more like an Alfred Hitchcock picture than a George Cukor one. Cukor apparently didn’t like being referred to as a “woman’s director,” but he had a reputation for his ability to coax great performances out of actresses, and this is certainly no exception. In order to help Bergman keep track of Paula’s gradual descent toward madness while shooting out of order, Cukor would tell her the whole plot up to the scenes they were filming each day, which Bergman initially resented, but then he stopped doing it for a few days and she realized how helpful it had been, and they went back to doing it that way. I do think Ingrid Bergman would have been great in this role regardless of who the director was, but George Cukor helped elevate her to the best she could possibly be.

While Bergman’s performance is far and away my favorite aspect of this movie, the rest of the cast is also phenomenal, albeit rather small. It definitely has that based-on-a-play feel of limited locations and few characters, although that also works very well with the story. Part of Gregory’s strategy is to cut Paula off from the rest of the world so she won’t have a safety net. Consequently, for most of the film she only interacts with him and their two servants: the kind but mostly-deaf cook, Elizabeth, played by Barbara Everest, and the saucy, flirtatious maid, Nancy, played by none other than 18-year-old Angela Lansbury in her film debut, both of whom are absolutely perfect in their roles. I love Everest’s delivery of “I see just how it is” when Gregory is trying to keep Elizabeth on his side without realizing that she’s always been firmly on Paula’s. And Lansbury embodies the exact attitude required for Nancy: flirtatious toward Gregory, disdainful toward Paula, totally oblivious to how she’s being manipulated until the end – all conveyed with every look she gives and line she speaks as if she’s a veteran actor. It comes as absolutely no surprise that she went on to have such a long and successful career, with this as her first screen performance. She was even nominated for an Oscar! And then there’s the neighbor Miss Thwaites, played by Dame May Whitty, who adds some much-needed levity with her “diggy biscuits” and morbid curiosity about the house in her square where there was a “real murder!” Joseph Cotten’s role is honestly pretty bland – kind of the film noir version of a classic Disney prince, in a way – but he makes the most of it. And then there’s Charles Boyer, giving one of the best creepy villain performances I’ve ever seen, which was also Oscar-nominated. He starts out just sort of vaguely unsettling, raising one or two red flags right off the bat, but like, he could still be okay, and then by the end he is full-on terrifying. He has this amazing stone-faced look that makes your blood run cold. There’s this one moment in particular, kind of toward the middle, when Miss Thwaites and Inspector Cameron (posing as her nephew) have tried to visit them, and Gregory tells Nancy to send them away. Paula wanted to let them in but he freaked out so she backed down, and then after Nancy leaves she again says she wanted to see them, and he’s like, “Oh, why didn’t you say so?” and it makes me want to scream. Then he tells her she didn’t have time to see them because they’re going out to the theater, and Paula’s like, “I didn’t know that…or did I forget?” and Gregory, facing the camera with his back to her, opens his mouth to respond, and then stops and waits for her to dwell on that for a few more seconds before he tells her that no, this is a surprise, and both his face and her face are so perfect there, I love it and hate it so much. Like, I love it from a “this movie is so well acted” perspective, and I hate it from a “this character is a horrible human being” perspective. And then Paula gets overly happy, since she’s been trapped in the house for so long that him letting her go out seems like a wonderful gift. But then he “notices” that a picture is missing from the wall, and makes her think she hid it, and they end up not going out because she’s “too unwell.”

That’s the main way he manipulates her: by moving things and making it look like she took them. What’s particularly interesting about the way the movie shows this is we never actually see Gregory taking any of the things, but it is nevertheless clear that he has been. But he is so insistent that she’s doing it that we can easily believe that Paula wouldn’t suspect him, or that if she did, she would have significant doubts. And even if she did figure it out, it’s not like there’s anything she can do about it. She’s in London for the first time in a decade, she doesn’t know anyone, she doesn’t have anywhere to go, and she’s not sure she can trust her own mind. And I think it’s so important that the movie at no point faults her for ending up in that situation or for not being able to leave. The movie also gives no indication that Gregory is physically harming Paula, but leaves the audience in no doubt that he is an abusive husband. And I feel like the messages that abuse doesn’t have to be physical and that it’s never the victim’s fault are still too rare in media today, let alone nearly 80 years ago. I feel like back then most unhealthy relationships in movies were in the His Girl Friday vein of “they’re kind of both abusing each other so it’s fine” or would find other ways for excusing or explaining the abusive behavior, like “the abuser was drunk” or “the victim was asking for it” or what have you. And if they weren’t like that, the victim usually ended up dead. In Gaslight, Gregory has no excuse. I mean, he does have a reason, but it’s a terrible reason that in no way justifies his actions. And Paula not only survives, but also gets an incredibly satisfying confrontation with Gregory after Brian and another policeman have tied him up. When the police leave them alone together, Gregory pleads with her to get a knife and cut him free, and for a moment you think she’s actually going to help him, but she gets her revenge by pretending she can’t find the knife and saying she’s too insane to help him, forcing him to admit that he has lied to her and she isn’t actually mad. And she wraps up her great payback with: “If I were not mad, I could have helped you. Whatever you had done, I could have pitied and protected you. But because I am mad, I hate you. Because I am mad, I have betrayed you. And because I'm mad, I'm rejoicing in my heart, without a shred of pity, without a shred of regret, watching you go with glory in my heart!” So she turns his gaslighting around on him, and it’s amazing. Although I must admit that right after that when she cries, “Mr. Cameron! Take this man away!” is the one part when I feel like Ingrid Bergman overdoes it just a little bit and gets too melodramatic, but after everything Paula has been through, she deserves as many melodramatic moments as she wants.

I would prefer it if the movie didn’t conclude with the implication that Paula is going to end up romantically involved with Brian, but again, she deserves all the happiness she can get, and if that’s what’s going to make her happy, I’m all for it. And I guess we can claim Miss Thwaites as aroace representation, since she seems to be an old maid with no interest in romance. This movie also speaks to my aromanticism and asexuality in a different, unique way. Because to a certain extent, being aroace in an allonormative, amatonormative society kind of feels like the entire world is gaslighting you. Of course, I don’t mean to imply that my experiences have been anywhere near as horrendous as someone like Paula’s – having your reality cruelly and intentionally twisted by a partner is on an entirely different level from not quite fitting in with the dominant culture’s concept of reality. Still, being constantly bombarded with the message that all mature humans frequently experience sexual and romantic attraction, and that a universal top life goal is to find a partner you’re attracted to that way, when you don’t feel those attractions and don’t desire that kind of partner, is incredibly confusing and disorienting. Once you become an adult, or even a teenager, people start giving you knowing looks when they hear you’ve been hanging out with a friend one-on-one, especially if that friend happens to be of the opposite sex. And you don’t think you like any of your friends “that way” but you also don’t really know what liking someone “that way” feels like so you start to think maybe you don’t know your own feelings. And if you’re lucky, your brain subconsciously decides that you do have crushes like a normal person, they’re just always on movie stars, most of whom are dead, which you realize is weird, but it’s an understandable kind of weird. Nobody believes you when you say you don’t have a crush on anybody, but if you show them a picture of Cary Grant and say, “I have a crush on him,” that makes sense to them. And so you end up becoming convinced that you’re experiencing types of attraction that you’re not, to the point that when you first hear about asexuality you don’t even consider the possibility that it could describe you. And of course, when I say “you” I mean “me”; I can’t speak for all aroaces, although I do think most of us experience some form of that confusion before we figure out that our identity exists. I feel like there’s a relatively widespread perception that aromantic and/or asexual people are just single allos who want to feel special by giving themselves a label, but for me, the opposite is true. Using the aroace label makes me feel less special, because now I know there are other people out there like me, after spending so much time trying to play along with the attraction I thought I was supposed to be feeling. It’s honestly been kind of difficult to unlearn this, to teach myself how to even recognize, let alone trust, what I’m actually feeling versus the socially acceptable way to be feeling about other people.

It’s weird because, looking back, it’s so obvious to me that I was faking crushes, that I was just parroting things I’d heard when I talked about them, that I was just smiling and nodding when people would say things like, “Isn’t that person hot?” But at the time, I absolutely could not admit that, even to myself, because I felt like, in order to be human, I must be experiencing what I’d been led to believe were universal human emotions that went along with sexual and romantic attraction. Back in 2013 I blogged about all the movies I’d seen at least 10 times in 10 years, and I just re-read my post about Gaslight, in which I apparently wrote that I found Joseph Cotten attractive in this movie. I don’t remember thinking or writing that, but I’m sure if I’d been asked to elaborate, I would have said I thought he was hot or whatever, even though I absolutely did not, I just thought I was supposed to. I wasn’t consciously lying; I had become convinced that I felt things I didn’t. Although, now that I think about it, maybe I really was attracted to him, not sexually or romantically, but in terms of the way his character functions in the story. I desperately needed someone to show up and tell me that the problem wasn’t with my mind and provide me with some key information I was missing that would explain what was going on, just like Brian does for Paula. Again, her experience was much more horrifying than mine, but learning that some people are aromantic and asexual, that not feeling those kinds of attraction is perfectly normal for those people, was almost as revelatory to me as learning that her husband killed her aunt and was trying to drive her mad was to Paula. Maybe it sounds like I’m the one being melodramatic now, but I don’t know how else to explain how messed up it is to spend decades convincing yourself and everyone else that you’re feeling things you’re not, and what a relief it is to learn that you were right all along and can finally take the mask off. And that’s why I’ve been focusing so much on looking at movies from an aromantic and asexual perspective on this podcast. Because I don’t want anyone else to go through all that. I want everyone to know that amatonormativity and allonormativity are lies, both because I want people on the aromantic and/or asexual spectrums to understand themselves sooner than I understood myself, and because I want alloromantic, allosexual people to know that not everyone is like them. I don’t blame the allo people I was surrounded with for perpetuating these norms because they didn’t know better. I know they weren’t really trying to gaslight me. But I would like to live in a society where most people do know better.

Anyway, I appreciate this movie for understanding me in ways that I couldn’t articulate until recently. But that’s far from the only reason it’s this high on my list. Again, I truly cannot overemphasize how phenomenal the acting is. Ingrid Bergman was always wonderful, but she took it to a whole other level here, and the rest of the cast were similarly at the top of their game. I never get tired of watching them act together, particularly when I’m in the mood for something a little darker. Like the other Ingrid Bergman movie I talked about, Notorious, I’m not sure whether Gaslight “counts” as film noir, because it has some of the typical noir tropes but lacks other important ones. But from a lighting and cinematography perspective, it definitely feels like a noir, so if you enjoy that style, you’ll probably appreciate this movie. It was nominated for a total of seven Oscars, including Best Picture, Screenplay, and Black-and-White Cinematography, in addition to the three acting nominations I mentioned earlier for Bergman, Boyer, and Lansbury. The only Oscar it won besides Best Actress was for Art Direction, which is something I don’t generally pay a ton of attention to, but the set is particularly important in Gaslight. The house almost functions as a character: it’s Gregory’s accomplice in torturing Paula, and the increasingly cluttered look of the rooms helps emphasize the way it’s trapping her. And, of course, there are the real, vintage gasoliers that give the movie its title and add greatly to its mood. So both of this movie’s Oscars were thoroughly deserved.

Thank you for listening to me discuss another of my most frequently rewatched films. This wraps up the 4-way tie of movies I saw 22 times from 2003 through 2022. I wonder how many other people out there have watched Beauty and the Beast, A Mighty Wind, His Girl Friday, and Gaslight the same number of times in the last 20 years. Anyway, I didn’t watch any movies exactly 23 times, so next up is the only one I watched 24 times, which is also one that I have a LOT of feelings and personal stories about, so stay tuned for what I’m sure will be a particularly long and rambling episode that I hope will be fun to listen to. As always, I will leave you with a quote from that next movie: “I don’t need to act things out in order to write them. I have what we like to call an ‘imagination.’ Have you ever heard of that? Oh, no no no no no, please tell us more about the old man… and the boat.”

#gaslight #ingrid bergman #charles boyer #george cukor #angela lansbury #the rewatch rewind

9 notes · View notes

burningvelvet · 21 days ago

Text

more thoughts on this bc im insane:

- in many ways fran is sort of the opposite jane which works because jane eyre is a dramatic gothic romance & mystery whereas the nanny is a romantic comedy family sitcom.

- jane eyre was written by charlotte brontë and contains a lot of herself in it (source: the secret history of jane eyre, any charlotte brontë biography). the nanny was mainly created/written by fran drescher herself who played fran fine; even if she didn't write every line/episode, it seems like she not only invented the character entirely herself (even having the same name as it) but had final say over much of the creative process. so both are very influential female characters written by bold women who incorporated their lived experiences into their work. fran drescher wanted to give insight into the lived experience of working jewish women in nyc and their sense of humor whereas charlotte was a governess and wanted to explore that story. charlotte also famously wanted to write a heroine that was conventionally unattractive because she said that never happened back then. fran wanted the same but for women who often (especially in the 90s) are totally left out of the comedy scene.

- religion is a huge element of both heroines identities and can also explain alot of their differences. fran is jewish in the late 1900s USA and jane is christian in the early 1800s UK. i think they can be seen as representing the differences in womens experiences not only in time/place but also in their religions. im not christian or jewish so this is out of my grasp but it would seem that judaism is objectively a bit more accepting of women's power/sexuality (ie importance of matrilineal descent in judaism). jane's belief in redemption/forgiveness, her stoicism, and her leaving rochester to avoid the temptations of extramarital sex, as well as other major points in her arc, are all heavily informed by her religious beliefs. this matches pretty well with fran fine's jewish new yorker identity informing various aspects of her character and many running gags on the show like her brave outspoken nature, her passion for fashion, her love of good food, her love for & loyalty to her family which is what leads her to bond with the sheffield family so atrongly, etc.

- another contrast but i feel an important part of comparison is their unique relationshios to sexuality. i think both are ultimately empowering portrayals of female sexuality. this is also culturally dependent but fran is inherently sexually liberated and sex positive and that's a huge part of her character & the running gags in the show; she's confident, sexy, flirtatious, and sure of herself, even with sheffield mostly. i just looked it up and apparently its mentioned in the show that she was celibate for a few years before she marries mr. sheffield but she does go on hot dates and talks a lot about boys with the girls. as a child watching the show i just assumed she was sleeping with a lot of her dates but the reverse i can also see making sense and i find this more empowering now that im an adult because its a subversion of what most audiences would expect. anyway jane's history with sexuality is a bit different because its more about her struggle with sexuality regarding her inexperience compared to mr. rochester and her leaving him partly because she doesn't want to have extramarital sex with him but is obviously tempted (see: her comments on the potential of her being his "mistress" which directly allude to this, and her stopping herself from fantasizing about going off with him to his "pleasure villa" in france, among their kissing and basically all the subtext in their time together before she left). but jane does have an empowered view of sex in the way that she leaves st john partly because he lacks passion and lust for her which is what she partly desired in rochester (reciprocation of feelings in general but also specifically sexual feelings). you can argue like many do that rochester covets her virginity and that she's woefully repressed or even prudish. call it wishful thinking, but i think they'd probably have a really positive and explorative sex life, and i do think he would care about her pleasure and that she would be curious and positive about sex in general. i think charlotte partly implied this in the end when she talks about how they got married as quick as possible and had such a great time of it and immediately had a child.

- both are loving mothers and wives.

- both call their partners mr. (mr. sheffield, mr. rochester) and are sort of weirded out by calling them by their first names. its a whole thing in both stories.

- both have important relationships with their maternal relatives. but whereas jane's experiences are negative (she never knew her deceased mother, and her "adoptive" mother, her aunt reed, is abusive), fran's are positive (her mother/grandmother are very influential in shaping her to be the family-devoted and strong-willed woman she is).

- whereas jane is modest in the christian sense and shuns fashion (this being actually a really important source of tension which foreshadows her leaving rochester), fran is all about fashion to an overwhelming extent.

relevation: the nanny is jane eyre if it was a lighthearted TV sitcom set in 1990s nyc

you've got

- slow burn age gap romance between confident unique young poor woman who becomes an employee/nanny for a rich british asshole who has a soft side and the couple bonds through their funny banter. heroines are both clearly presented as having other romantic options aside from their employers and both consciously grapple with the pros and cons of pursuing the relationship before going for it

- plotlines about how heroine acts while adjusting to life after marrying the rich man

- heroine slowly becomes more mature/responsible as story progresses

- sweet growing bond between heroine and the child(ren) she looks after

- an entertaining housekeeper who knows too much

- a scheming woman who is close to the romantic hero and is a rival to the heroine

and i'm probably missing stuff...

#the nanny #sitcoms #comedy #literature #analysis #books #shows #tv #fran drescher #fran fine #jane eyre #charlotte bronte #charlotte brontë #comparison #contrast #my analysis

48 notes · View notes

iamthenightcolormeblack · 3 years ago

Text

My Thoughts on Pride and Prejudice 1980: The Ladies Take Center Stage

It's easy to forget that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of other Pride and Prejudice adaptations because the discussion is generally limited to "1995 versus 2005." The subject of this review is the 1980 BBC miniseries adaptation of Pride and Prejudice, which stars Elizabeth Garvie as Elizabeth Bennet and David Rintoul as Mr. Darcy and consists of five 1 hour long episodes. Some Pride and Prejudice fans consider this show as the definitive version of the book, since it was one of the first adaptations that attempted to be faithful to the story by incorporating much more of Austen's dialogue compared to previous adaptations.

1. THE PRODUCTION

The video quality is blurry (typical with 1970s/1980s BBC TV shows), so this adaptation is hard to watch compared with the 1995 and 2005 adaptations. While I like the historic houses used in the miniseries, boring, stuffy studio interiors are used for the interior scenes (except for Pemberley). I would only recommend this adaptation for extreme Pride and Prejudice fans/completionists.

Each episode's opening credits are accompanied by illustrations of what happens in the episodes, reminding the viewer that they are watching a filmed version of the book. The caricatured figures are not appealing to the eye and look dated. It doesn't help that they all are accompanied by "ye olde timey" music.

The costumes are for the most part very historically accurate for the early 19th century Regency Era, possibly even more so than the 1995 version with open chests, since the women's day dresses cover their necks as well. The costume designer mastered the famous Regency era white dress; I liked Elizabeth's white day dress and Jane's white evening gown. However, not all the costumes are flattering; some of the ugly floral patterns and garishly bright colors come straight from the 1970s, while a lot of decent evening dresses are ruined by fake lace or clunky 1970s bibs.

The hair is mostly accurate, with the exception of Mary's straight bangs and pixie cut. Unfortunately, the makeup is of the 1970s, especially with the penciled eyeliner/eyebrows on Jane and Caroline Bingley. Poor Mr. Bingley meanwhile has the most unflattering 1970s "helmet bowl" hairstyle.

2. PLOT AND CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT

The adaptation focuses heavily on the female relationships within the book, much more so than other adaptations. Throughout the episodes, there are many slice-of-life scenes in which the Bennet sisters are gathered together in conversation while occupying themselves with typical activities for women of the Regency era (sewing, flower arranging, trying on clothing).

Charlotte Lucas has a larger role here than in the book. In this adaptation, she frequently visits the Bennet sisters at Longbourn, and the screenwriter uses her dialogue as a representation of the Regency perception of marriage as an economic proposition.

Mary Bennet also receives more screen time, and like Charlotte, she voices Regency attitudes towards women in general through her didactic remonstrances.

The many scenes in Elizabeth and Jane's bedroom are a means for Elizabeth to express the feelings and attitudes that she keeps hidden from society.

Elizabeth's favoring of Mr. Wickham is more obvious; she even pronounces him to be "above everyone, in person, countenance, [and] air" and is delighted that Wickham's trash-talking of Darcy confirms her hatred of him.

Inner monologues highlight Elizabeth's mental transformation as she grapples with the consequences of her prejudice against Mr. Darcy and considers the consequences of her family's social gaffes.

I dislike that the show chose to end with Mrs. Bennet's joy over the advantageous marriages of her elder daughters. It reinforces the perception that these marriages are ultimately for money rather than love.

The cast consists of largely unknown (to a mainstream audience) British actors whose portrayals of the characters are solid and replicate the book exactly. The rest of the supporting cast portray the characters just as they are in the book, but do not otherwise stand out. Here are my comments on the lead actors and other supporting cast:

Elizabeth Garvie: Garvie effectively portrays Elizabeth's wit, intelligence, and poise. She also looks right for the part, as she is believably youthful and has captivating eyes. Her pride is not so obvious because Garvie acts like a proper Regency girl, but it is brought out by the way Elizabeth looks people straight in the eye and addresses them directly while confidently stating her opinions, however flawed. My only minor nitpick is that Elizabeth is less vulnerable here; most of the time she is confidently in control of every situation she faces and has a smile for everyone.

David Rintoul: Rintoul looks the part, as he is tall, handsome, proud, and carries himself gracefully. However, he is too stiff and boring like a robot. In many scenes, even private ones with his close friends, he is always standing at attention like a soldier. With the exception of the Pemberley visit and the second proposal, he never smiles, and his voice is very monotone, even in the key romantic scenes where he is supposed to lose himself to his great passion for Elizabeth. Though he tries to appear amused at times, and shows some intelligence, his stiff body language never changes, undercutting the meaning behind his words.

While fans of this show have praised Rintoul for being stiff, like book Darcy, this stiff portrayal hinders Darcy's character development, since he must change his cold manners in order to be worthy of Elizabeth's love. There are MANY instances in the book where Darcy shows some emotion; he smiles as he teases Elizabeth at Rosings, becomes angry when Elizabeth rejects his first proposal, and blushes when he sees Elizabeth at Pemberley. This Mr. Darcy is "all politeness" and we don't get to see Elizabeth peeling back his cold exterior to reveal the good man underneath, unlike in the book.

Malcolm Rennie as Mr. Collins: His portrayal of Mr. Collins is very similar to 1995's Mr. Collins, as both are fat and simpering (maybe 1995's portrayal of Mr. Collins is a copy of this one, except even grosser). I also like how he is super moralizing and preachy in this version. He even walks like a penguin too!

Casting I disliked:

Moray Watson as Mr. Bennet: His Mr. Bennet is thoroughly unsympathetic; he does nothing but scold the family, slam doors, and drink tea. While Mr. Bennet is a neglectful parent, he expresses his dislike of the family in far more subtle ways and does not get into fits of anger easily.

Judy Parfitt as Lady Catherine de Bourgh: While the adaptation makes clear that Lady Catherine likes getting her way, this Lady Catherine isn’t intimidating enough to frighten anyone into submission. What doesn't help is that the scene where she interrogates Elizabeth about her family situation is cut; this scene is important in establishing Lady Catherine's tyrannical personality.

The actresses hired to play Kitty and Lydia Bennet are far too old for the parts; they do not look like teenagers!

Scenes I liked:

The opening scene -- the adaptation gives Charlotte a larger role, as she visits Elizabeth at Longbourn right after the news of Bingley's arrival. She also reveals her practical view on marriage as a necessity for securing comfort, which is at odds with Elizabeth's view of marriage as an equal partnership between people who love each other.

"First Impressions" -- Elizabeth shares her bad opinion of Darcy with Jane and reveals that the Bingleys earned their wealth in trade, making them "new money" as opposed to the Darcy family, which has many generations of nobility. This detail about the origins of Bingley's wealth could explain Caroline's extreme arrogance and make Jane's separation from Bingley on the basis of her poor connections more cruel.

Elizabeth at Mr. Lucas' party: This adaptation includes a scene from the book which isn't in many other adaptations, not even the 1995 miniseries. Elizabeth, acting impertinently to catch the attention of Darcy's "very satirical eye," addresses him sarcastically. Charlotte then gets Elizabeth to play the piano and she takes another opportunity to show off her wit:

"There is a fine old saying, which every body here is of course familiar with - 'Keep your breath to cool your porridge', and I shall keep mine to swell my song."

Jane and Elizabeth at Netherfield. In a series of scenes, Elizabeth confides in Jane her true thoughts and feelings about Darcy, the Bingleys, and the Hursts. For instance, she theorizes about why Darcy stares at her and rants about how disagreeable and annoying the Netherfield party are. It's really entertaining to see Elizabeth driven to frustration by the arrogant rich people.

Any scene with Mr. Collins in it, but here are the funniest ones:

Mr. Collins eating with the Bennet family: I laughed at how he examines the food with a critical eye before shoving it in his mouth quickly. It perfectly captures Mr. Collins' arrogance combined with bad manners.

Mr. Collins at the Netherfield Ball: he cannot dance and embarrasses Elizabeth (definitely a parallel with the 1995 version, where he bumps into the other dancers and apologizes profusely).

Mr. Collins' first proposal to Elizabeth: I laughed at the added flourish (not in the novel), where he bends down on one knee, but instead of professing love for the intended, states proudly to Elizabeth that the main benefit of the marriage is the patronage of Lady Catherine de Bourgh.

Collins' proposal to Charlotte Lucas: this is not in the original book, as it is (mostly) limited to Elizabeth's point of view, where she only finds out about the proposal after it happens. This comical scene begins with pleasant music and blooming flowers to establish romantic connotations, before it cuts to an awkward Mr. Collins following Charlotte Lucas. When Charlotte accepts Mr. Collins, they are sitting together by a rosebush, and his pure joy at the unromantic, arranged marriage, combined with the floral imagery from earlier, elevate the situational irony and make for a good laugh. The flower imagery also ties into Charlotte's earlier comparison of marriage to growing a plant; Elizabeth challenges Charlotte's assertion by asking her what would happen if the soil was poor (metaphor for the respect Elizabeth feels is a foundation for a loving relationship).

Aunt Gardiner's advice to Elizabeth: This scene isn't included in other adaptations, not even the 1995 miniseries. Here Aunt Gardiner warns Elizabeth against falling in love with Wickham, telling her that she needs to keep her common sense intact; Elizabeth dismisses this, fully confident in her powers of judgment. It's great that this exchange is included because it foreshadows the discovery of Wickham's true character, and hints that Elizabeth's perceptions of others may be wrong.

Scenes I disliked:

The romantic scenes. This adaptation unfortunately fails in the romance department; there is zero chemistry between the actors; even the otherwise wonderful Elizabeth Garvie is not exempt. (more about this later).

The first country ball. The interior is dark, small, cramped and stagey. Also, the dancing and overall manner of the guests is very sedate and orderly; it’s so quiet you can hear the dancers feet scrape the floor in spite of the music. This isn't very realistic compared with the other adaptations, where we are presented with much more boisterous country dances.

The activation of Stalker Darcy: While Elizabeth plays the pianoforte, Darcy, while shrouded in darkness, moves like a ghost among the crowd until he all of a sudden appears very close to the pianoforte and golf-clapping. perhaps Darcy is a blood sucking vampire? Though this scene is entertaining for all the wrong reasons, it doesn't make sense that Darcy's love for Elizabeth makes him even more robotic and creepy.

Lady Catherine confronting Elizabeth: While the dialogue for this scene is lifted straight from the book, there isn't quite enough fury and anger on the part of either person.

3. THE SCRIPT

What makes this adaptation stand out is the script by Fay Weldon. While the majority of the script is taken directly from the book, many have commented that her interpretation of Pride and Prejudice is much more feminist because of the greater emphasis on Elizabeth's point of view, as well as her relationships with other women. Many of the creative changes made emphasize the ridiculousness of the patriarchy and Elizabeth's outspokenness. In addition, Austen's narration slips into the dialogue of the female characters; for instance, Mary proclaims the village's judgment of Darcy as "the proudest most disagreeable man in the world."

Creative Changes/Great Quotes from the Script:

Darcy adding further insult to injury: after proclaiming Elizabeth to be unattractive to him, he adds: "She has too many sisters."

Mrs. Bennet criticizing poor Mary: “You read too much! No wonder you’re shortsighted.”

Elizabeth has had enough with Darcy, the Hursts, and the Bingleys: “Jane, they are monsters! They like nothing and dislike everything!"

Elizabeth has no patience: "This is unendurable! Mr. Darcy has scarcely spoken more than 10 words to me during the whole of today!"

Mary Bennet praises Mr. Collins' writing skills: "But he is intelligent. In point of composition the letter he wrote Father was not deficient and it was very long."

Mr. Collins scrutinizes Longbourn (his future inheritance) Part 1: "The hall. The hall should be imposing. This one is spacious enough but a little dark..."

Mr. Collins scrutinizes Longbourn Part 2: "Truly a gracious dining room. Lady Catherine de Bourgh would not be ashamed to dine here...The table, though a trifle rustic, is solid and a good match."

Mr. Collins provides much needed moral lessons to Kitty and Lydia: "I have often observed how many young ladies are very little interested in books of a serious stamp, though written solely for their benefit. Certainly there can be nothing so advantageous to them as instruction."

Mr. Collins on Anne de Bourgh: "She is agreeably fragile, and she is to marry Mr. Darcy."

Lady Catherine de Bourgh supporting the patriarchy: "If I were to have more children, they should all be sons."

Mr. Collins' Aquatic Hat: In one of many examples where Lady Catherine micromanages everyone's life, she orders Mr. Collins to plant bulrushes by the lake and per her instructions he orders an ugly top hat with a shower cap inside it to prevent himself from drowning. Charlotte and Elizabeth laugh about it when Mr. Collins isn't looking.

Darcy is a dog person, how sweet! Before the first proposal and before he meets Elizabeth again at Pemberley, Darcy is accompanied by a dog. Perhaps if he brought his dog to the first proposal it would have succeeded?

Elizabeth's internal monologue after she reads the letter: I normally dislike internal monologues because they detract from the action or become redundant, but I like how this adaptation utilizes the internal monologue to show Elizabeth actively confronting her prejudice against Mr. Darcy and acknowledging that she has acted wrongly in judging him harshly. Some adaptations reduce or even leave out this fundamental part of Elizabeth's personal growth. My only quibble with this scene is that Elizabeth lets go of her prejudice too soon and in too calm a manner. In the book, she is initially angry at Darcy and needs to reread the letter multiple times before she starts to form a grudging respect for Mr. Darcy. For Elizabeth, letting go of her prejudice is a slow, exhausting, and emotionally taxing process, unlike in this adaptation, where her logical reasoning allows her to quickly overcome her unreasonable hatred of Darcy.

4. THE ROMANCE (or, to be more accurate, lack of)

Many of the key romantic scenes between Elizabeth and Darcy are shortened, which surprised me because the length of a miniseries in general allows for more character development. I was hoping to see a fuller picture of Darcy and Elizabeth's relationship than could be provided in a movie.

While the female characters of the adaptation are fully rounded and have many opportunities to express their perspectives, the male characters remain one-dimensional and do not get the same treatment as the women. In other words, the male characters are reduced to mere objects of affection.

Some critics have argued that Darcy is irresistible to women in part because he is mysterious. Even his appearance is left to the reader's imagination, as Austen only notes that Darcy has a "fine, tall person, handsome features, noble mien...[and] ten thousand a year." Thus, the reader gets to craft their ideal version of Mr. Darcy; he could look like any handsome man. When the "historically accurate Mr. Darcy" image was released several years ago (where he looks like George Washington); many, including me, were disappointed because we all have different images of Mr. Darcy in our heads (or more likely, we pick between Colin Firth and Matthew Macfadyen). This adaptation capitalizes into the mystique of the character by leaving the viewers to guess Darcy's intentions. Since we do not have access to his internal thoughts or motivations, we are limited to what we see before our eyes, much like the Meryton villagers. We do not get to see how Darcy develops feelings for Elizabeth; nor do we see how he is like in private occasions (even when alone with his friends, he says little and reveals little).

Other critics/Austen scholars/fans have argued that the one-dimensional treatment of male characters is in keeping with the unique writing style of Pride and Prejudice. Typically, female characters were the ones reduced to objects of affection for the male characters. Austen reverses this norm by focusing more on Elizabeth's viewpoint while Darcy remains mysterious.

Though a more reserved Darcy may work in the book, it does not serve the development of the romance well. Darcy's falling in love with Elizabeth is characterized by a gradual loss of control over himself; in his words he was "in the middle before I knew that I had begun [falling in love]." After all, he cannot stop staring at Elizabeth and frequently tries to keep talking to her at Netherfield before he begins to feel "the danger of paying Elizabeth too much attention." During his first proposal, he is agitated, and when Elizabeth rejects him, becomes angry. It is obvious, in the book and in the 1995 and 2005 adaptations as well, that the man is clearly an emotional train wreck.

The conflict between Darcy's outer shell and inner self is a key part of his falling in love with Elizabeth, and the adaptation misses out on this with a stiff, wooden Darcy who always carries himself properly and never smiles. In general, the most entertaining romances have this tension between self-control and passion, with lapses in manners usually the only sign of the passion beneath the surface; after all, in Elizabeth's words, “Is not general incivility the very essence of love?”

Back to the idea of the one-dimensional Darcy being an inversion of gender norms in writing: I have to disagree with this because (this is obvious I'm sure) Darcy is still a fully rounded character and does undergo his own journey, since he has to change his manners to earn Elizabeth's love. This quote shows what Darcy has learned about himself:

"I have been a selfish being all my life, in practice, though not in principle. As a child I was...given good principles, but left to follow them in pride and conceit. Unfortunately an only son, (for many years an only child) I was spoilt by my parents [who] almost taught me to be selfish and overbearing, to care for none beyond my own family circle, to think meanly of all the rest of the world, to wish at least to think meanly of their sense and worth compared with my own."

Though some fans of this adaptation like how the other relationships are treated with equal importance as the well-known love story, the romance is important as a source of personal growth for Elizabeth as well as Darcy. After all, they do have to overcome the "pride and prejudice" that separates them.

The marriage of Darcy and Elizabeth is a feminist triumph for Elizabeth Bennet; in my review of the 2005 movie, I noted that Elizabeth Bennet is revolutionary because of her unwillingness to compromise on her belief that marriage should based on love and respect, contrary to the prevailing social view of marriage as an economic proposition. While it seems counter-intuitive for a repressive institution like marriage to be a feminist triumph, Austen's heroines use marriage as a means of gaining not just material comforts, but ultimately the self-respect they desire by uniting themselves with partners whom they are equals with. The marriages Austen's heroines make are testaments to their independence, as they are choices made by the women themselves. Even Charlotte Lucas' otherwise unhappy arranged marriage works for her, since she enjoys the freedom that running her own household gives her. Not focusing on the romance of Elizabeth and Darcy leaves out Austen's complex perspective on marriage as a social necessity but also an unlikely route to freedom.

Here's my breakdown of the Elizabeth and Darcy scenes in this adaptation and why the romance fails:

"She is tolerable:" Elizabeth reacts rather too sedately to the insult Darcy gives her (and he also makes an added comment about her having too many sisters); unlike in other versions where she attempts to suppress a laugh or even taunts Darcy outright. The adaptation diverges from the book by having Elizabeth tell her mother instead of her friends about Darcy's insult; it does not make sense why Elizabeth would confide this in her mother, given that she knows her mother is a fool.

Netherfield dance: Darcy attempts to flirt with Elizabeth during this dance (which only lasts one minute!), but doesn't succeed because of his poor social skills and her prejudice. It's also an amazing battle of wits, as Darcy counters Elizabeth's accusations while admonishing her not to trust Wickham.

Unfortunately, the adaptation cuts out essential dialogue revealing the extent of Elizabeth's prejudice and foreshadowing the discovery of Wickham's true character. For example, what isn't included is Elizabeth's accusations that Darcy is to blame for ruining Wickham's life, to which he replies that Wickham is capable of charming others but not necessarily of retaining good friends.

More significantly, the adaptation cuts Elizabeth's admission that she cannot figure Darcy out:

"'May I ask to what these questions tend?' 'Merely to the illustration of your character,' said she...

'And what is your success?' She shook her head. 'I do not get on at all. I her such different accounts of you as puzzle me exceedingly.'

'...I could wish, Miss Bennet, that you were not to sketch my character at the present moment, as there is reason to fear that the performance would reflect no credit on either.'"

The development of the romance is harmed due to the omission of the portrait metaphor. Here, Darcy shrewdly observes to Elizabeth that her judgment of character may be flawed and foreshadows the discovery of her prejudice against him. After his many observations of Elizabeth, Darcy knows her so well that he can read her like an open book (though he underestimates the extent of Elizabeth's prejudice against him). The metaphor of the picture as a representation of character also becomes literal through Darcy's portrait at Pemberley; Elizabeth only falls in love with Darcy after examining his character through the portrait.

Ultimately, the Netherfield Ball dance between Elizabeth and Darcy is essential in demonstrating the fallacy of first impressions, and reducing the dialogue only to the beginning part where Elizabeth teases Darcy on his inability to make small talk undermines the richness of the story.

Darcy's first proposal: This scene is definitely the worst one in this miniseries because it fails on so many levels. First, this Darcy remains stiff throughout the entire proposal, like he was at a public ball rather than declaring love. This is a total contrast to book Darcy; who, though formal, is "agitated" and "pale with anger" at times. Those famous opening lines ("In vain I have struggled...") are delivered so quickly and without any sort of overwhelming passion. What should be the climax of Darcy finally letting the volcano of his repressed emotions erupt (with bad consequences for him) instead becomes a cold recitation of the script. Elizabeth also becomes robotic as well, repeating her lines back with a detached tone of voice as if reading a teleprompter. I'm warning you: be prepared for the worst 5 minutes of your life.

Visiting Pemberley: The adaptation utilizes Elizabeth's inner monologue as she praises Pemberley; it's interesting to people who have read and re-read the book, but I don't think it's necessary to "copy and paste" large portions of the book and read them to the audience.

I do like that this adaptation clearly indicates that Elizabeth still stands by her decision to reject Darcy's first proposal, even though she really likes his great big house:

"'And of this place,' thought she, 'I might have been mistress! 'I might have rejoiced in [these rooms] as my own, and welcomed to them as visitors my uncle and aunt. - 'But no'... 'I should not have been allowed to invite them.'"

Most adaptations include the "Pemberley could have been mine" part, but don't include Elizabeth's realization that Darcy's class prejudice would have estranged her from the Gardiners (unfortunately that includes the 1995 miniseries). Including Elizabeth's thoughts about her aunt and uncle dispels the perception that she is a gold-digger who marries Darcy only after realizing how rich he is.

The portrait: why, why, why does Darcy not smile in his portrait?! The book LITERALLY EMPHASIZES that DARCY SMILES in his portrait, revealing a more sensitive side to him than his cold and formal appearance would otherwise suggest. Big mistake.

Lydia's elopement: the adaptation messes up this scene so badly, which is unfortunate because the scene is important in showing how much Elizabeth trusts Darcy and how much he still loves her, as shown through his concern for her. First, it diverges from the book by having Elizabeth run several miles to Pemberley (while fully outfitted in a spencer, bonnet, and long dress) and somehow she doesn't sweat or faint from the exertion. Running to Darcy to tell him the news doesn't make any sense, since the book makes clear that she did not want anyone outside her family to know about Lydia's elopement, or else her marriage prospects would certainly be ruined; the news devastated her because she feared losing Darcy's respect due to his social prejudice. Darcy learning of the news was purely a coincidence because he happened to be waiting for her at the inn where she was staying (aw how romantic!). As for Darcy, he remains cold and doesn't seem concerned enough for Elizabeth, in contrast with the book, where he immediately springs into action. The adaptation also omits Darcy's kindness by cutting out the part of the scene where he consoles Elizabeth, gets her to sit down, and brings her some wine.

Second proposal: Darcy breaks the rules of social etiquette by going out alone with Elizabeth before proposing to her, unlike in the book where they are with Jane and Bingley, but this scene is still thoroughly unromantic because the two actors have zero chemistry.

5. CONCLUSION

Although this adaptation has some good moments, the dated production design, underdeveloped romance, and wooden acting means that I will only recommend this version to Pride and Prejudice nerds/extreme book purists. The adaptation is boring to watch unless you know the book by heart.

This script highlights Austen's wit and sarcasm, but the performances don’t always do it justice. The feminist approach to the novel makes the adaptation stand out, but comes at the cost of Darcy's character development and the central love story.

Purists and casual book fans are better served by the 1995 BBC miniseries, which has the right balance of entertainment, historical accuracy, and faithfulness to the novel.

Thanks to JASNA (Jane Austen Society of North America) for all the wonderful online articles that I pull many of my ideas from. I spent many hours entertaining myself by reading their scholarly analyses of Jane's other works as well as those related to Pride and Prejudice, and they have really helped me as I write these reviews.

@princesssarisa @austengivesmeserotonin @dahlia-coccinea @obscurelittlebird @appleinducedsleep @colonelfitzwilliams

#book adaptation #pride and predjudice #pride and prejudice #elizabeth bennet #mr darcy #mr bingley #long post #tv show review

27 notes · View notes

night-unfurls-its-splendour · 4 years ago

Text

The Critique of Manners Part IV

~Or~

A Very Amused Review of Emma (1972)

One doesn’t really know where to begin with this one. I’ve watched a few of these 70’s/80’s period drama adaptations, but I’ve never written a review for one. I think the tricky thing is it doesn’t feel fair to judge them against more recent adaptations because the approach and quality are so very different to modern television making.

But people do. I’m sure it’s different for people who grew up watching these, who are just used to them and their objectively terrible, stagey quality and can look past that particular weakness on the sheer power of nostalgia.

So I’m going to try and find a middle-ground here where I ignore the stagey and obviously dated aspects and judge it primarily on its value as an adaptation – is it faithful to the book?

Let’s dive in.

Cast & Characterization

Normally I would start with Emma and Knightley but this time I’m gonna switch it up a bit and do them last because… well we’ll get there in a bit.

Let’s start instead with Mr. Woodhouse. I have to say, I kind of like this take. The 1996-7 and 2009 adaptations all kind of went for the same type of older man: a bit stout, or in Michael Gambon’s case… however you would describe Michael Gambon. With Donald Eccles, however, this version goes for a rather more frail looking Mr. Woodhouse; in fact to compare him to any recent Mr. Woodhouse, I suppose he comes closest to Bill Nighy (although the general characterization is of course very different.) He’s a ridiculous but lovable soul who seems always, of course, worried about his own health and comfort, but in his own selfish way, concerned for his friends and family as well. My only complaint is that maybe they over-utilized him.

I thought the casting of a plump Mrs. Weston (Ellen Dryden) was an interesting choice, and definitely different from other versions. Her acting was actually really good too.

I wasn’t quite so pleased with the characterization of Mr. Weston, on the other hand. I have huge issues with this script vis-à-vis the men, but Mr. Weston and Knightley in particular. The problem with Mr. Weston is how he’s written as just verging on uncouth at some points. There are way too many rustic contractions here: “Ain’t I looking well too, Miss Emma?!’ “’Ark at that eh? The sly young rogue!” “Oh I think it looks tolerably gay and festive, don’t it?” and then just throwing himself back on the grass and chortling when Emma makes her fateful Box Hill faux pas? Like, what the hell? I’m not saying he shouldn’t use a few casual contractions (“How d’you do?” for example) but he seems almost like a positive country bumpkin and I don’t think it’s appropriate; he doesn’t talk like that in the book and I’m just all-around not here for it.

Constance Chapman, a well-respected character actress of the time was cast as Miss Bates, while Molly Sugden, of Are You Being Served? fame was WASTED in the bit-part of Mrs. Goddard. If you ask me, they should have swapped this casting, since I think Sugden, an outstanding comedienne, could have done so much more with the Miss Bates role than the usual wittery-old-lady style chattering Chapman delivered.

Mr. Elton was played by Timothy Peters (Right) and was, eh, adequate. They did slime him up a bit by having him over-eagerly offer to fix Emma’s bootlace, which she points out isn’t entirely appropriate for a man to do, especially the vicar and it’s pretty funny; but other than that, he has all the appearance of being a pleasant young man, as Mr. Elton should – becoming less pleasant as the story progresses.

One John Alkin (left) played Mr. Robert Martin, and he, too, was adequate. There’s not much of him and, since Mr. Martin wasn’t one of those characters this version decided to approach more three-dimensionally, there’s not much to say about him.

Frank Churchill is… OMG IT’S PRINCE HARRY FROM BLACKADDER!

Ahem. Yes, Robert East (BETTER KNOWN AS PRINCE HARRY FROM BLACKADDER) plays a very agreeable (and smarmy, but not too smarmy) Frank. I think honestly this is as good as this part could get in the 70’s, although at 29 he was a little too old for the part.

John and Isabella, in an interesting (?) casting choice, were played by brother and sister duo, Yves and Belinda Tighe. I actually really liked Yves’s John Knightley (he’s actually one of the more handsome John’s, in a 70’s kind of way; for note-taking purposes I have nicknamed him “Not-Harrison-Ford”), but his sister as Isabella seemed kind of old and had just a really annoying voice. Also she doesn’t look at all like Doran Godwin, and Emma and Isabella are supposed to look somewhat alike.

The real casting stand out for me in this version is Fiona Walker as Mrs. Elton, although she too was a little old for her role, I’ve said before that there are no bad Mrs. Eltons (only bad accents) and she just absolutely nailed the insufferable chatter to a definitive standard (until the recent adaptations – 2009 onward).

I did however, get the feeling in this version that they kind of wrote in a through-line where Mrs. Elton is putting the moves on Mr. Knightley (to the point where they actually wrote out Mr. Elton from scenes he should be in) which was one of those unnecessary deviations which made me raise an eyebrow and also was just… weird.

Now my question is – why do all of the young women in this series kind of look like evil dolls?

Debbie Bowen, from a strictly book accuracy perspective is one of the most accurate Harriet Smiths I’ve seen – in fact we don’t get another this accurate (to my way of thinking) until Louise Dylan in 2009, who fits roughly the same model (fair and shapely). Its Bowen’s acting I don’t like, but I know that in the 70’s, this kind of simpering acting for this kind of character was just unavoidable. It was the style at the time, so I’m cutting her a break critically; but the performance just doesn’t cut it for me.

This Jane Fairfax (played by Ania Marson) is not my favorite interpretation of this character. At first I thought she was going to be alright, but in her first scene she bursts out and actually shouts in frustration at her chattering aunt (which she has some basis for, I’ll admit, since Miss Bates, in her muddle-headed way, could very well have unwittingly spilled the beans about Jane and Frank) but this is far more feeling than we should even have a hint of from Jane at this point. The whole reason Emma doesn’t like Jane (other than the fact that Emma is an attention whore and Jane steals her thunder by being so admired and accomplished) is because she’s timid and demure and reserved.

But the biggest problem I have with this Jane is that she can’t even fucking sing. I know they write it away as her having a sore throat (Which I think is a pull from a different part of the book?) but this was just egregiously bad to me. This is the only time in the series they show Jane singing so it’s never actually established that Jane really is more accomplished than Emma (although they don’t show Emma herself singing or even playing at all either.) Could the actresses just not sing well so they decided to write around it? You could have dubbed it; you had that technology in the 70’s!

OK. Now it’s time to talk about Doran Godwin. I’ve never seen her in anything else so I don’t know if it’s just that she can’t act, but I have no idea what she was going for with this portrayal of Emma, and this is something so consistent and unique to her that I, for once, can’t justify blaming it solely on the director because you can’t direct crazy-eyes. They just happen; and they happen A LOT in this series.

I’ve struggled to find the words to sufficiently describe my feeling about Doran Godwin’s facial expressions and her acting in this adaptation. In my ribbon rating notes I think I describe her as a “witchy automaton”? I stand by it. Every time she talks to someone her eyes go very wide and she sort of looks like she’s trying to hypnotize everyone in Highbury. The effect is just absolutely inhuman. I never thought I’d ever see anyone with more patently crazed Crazy-Eyes than Timothy “Crazy-Eyes” Dalton – but man, Doran “Hypno-Witch” Godwin just stole the prize. Perhaps she escaped from the set of a Doctor Who? telling of the story where Miss Woodhouse has been replaced by an android.

You have scenes such as this in episode 2 , where Harriet is trying to get Emma to acknowledge Mr. Elton calling after them as they walk past the vicarage, and Emma ignores her by mechanically continuing to talk, looking straight ahead with laser focus. Of course, Emma is intentionally ignoring Harriet because she wants Mr. Elton to follow them, but that wasn’t quite apparent to me until the end of her ramble – which I had assumed she was forced to complete due to some directive in her programming. I have more to say on her characterization, but we’ll get to that in a dedicated section of the review.

John Carson might actually be one of the better Knightley’s, but I’m sorry – at 45 he was just too old. This is something you can play around with in other characters (Mr. Weston and Miss Bates after all, have no stated ages in the book) but not only do we know how old Mr. Knightley is in the book, they state in the show that Emma is 21 (Doran Godwin was actually 28) and that Mr. Knightley is sixteen years older than her – 37 or 38 – and John Carson is CLEARLY no 38. This obviously-over-forty appearance does have an effect on how I view his banter with Emma, and it’s more avuncular than the older-brother feel that Mr. Knightley and Emma should have.

Whether by direction or actor’s choice, Carson’s Mr. Knightley speaks in a way that just doesn’t feel period to me. He has a very sort of 20th Century, stock British, hearty-good-fellow manner, that dates this adaptation pretty badly and feels old-fashioned (but not in a Regency/Georgian way) even in the 70’s.

Sets & Surroundings

Normally at this point in the review I would talk about the British manor houses and estates used and how they measure up to the book descriptions but the publicly funded BBC ran on a much tighter budget in the 70’s (apparent in the production values and number of obviously bad takes that they just decided to leave in, in everything they made) and as such they couldn’t afford to film in and rent out large estates quite as much, so this has the trademark 70’s/80’s BBC sound-stage quality of all of their other productions of the period. That said, this production actually has some of the better sets I’ve seen and that’s saying something, for being made in the 70’s. The walls didn’t actually shake when doors were closed, and it didn’t feel as stagey as some other Austen serials of the time. (This doesn’t improve the very “on-cue” acting in the series, but I have to give credit where it’s due.) I believe they may used a real manor house for the exterior of Hartfield (and not a landscape pastel) and maybe some of the interiors too? I can’t say for sure, and I would love to tell you what house and where it is but I can’t find any credits on it. I’ll just say that I think it’s very suitable and leave it at that.

Costumes

Much like today, the BBC almost exclusively used, re-used and rented costumes for their period productions. Almost every costume in this series was also used in the 70’s and 80’s BBC productions of Sense and Sensibility, Mansfield Park, and Pride and Prejudice (P&P being the overwhelming common denominator – almost every one of Emma’s evening dresses and pelisses was seen, primarily on Caroline Bingley.) Some of the shawls have been picked out in BBC Austens as recently as 2008.

For being made in the 70’s the costumes in this production are really kind of nice. They don’t date themselves too badly. The ones that do feel 70’s retro, in fact, were mostly styles borrowed from period accurate fashions that just happened to coincide with contemporary 70’s tastes, and which aren’t often used in Regency costumes today because, well they don’t coincide with our modern tastes. For the most part, they look well-made (although some of them do have that stiff, dingy polyester look to them and there are definitely some plastic pearls here and there).

I’m quite pleased with the silhouettes which don’t suffer from Square Bust/Boob Droop syndrome the way the 1980 P&P does. All of the assets seem to be lifted and shifted in the right places.

Daywear

I like Emma’s blue day dress the best of all her day-wear looks. It’s a rich color and has pleated cups (Also on her white day dress) which is a style I really love.

Emma wears the gauzy… let’s be kind and say ivory instead of “Yellowish” ruff during the day A LOT (Emma Pic 2). It’s a popular look on Jane Fairfax too (Jane Pic 2) and I just… I don’t like it. Not that it’s not period appropriate (because it unfortunately is) it just makes them look like Dr. Seuss characters to me, especially worn with short sleeves which is something these dramas do a lot and I hate it. It just makes the person in question look very awkwardly disproportionate to me, especially because. if they had long sleeves to go with it (which would be more correct from a historical authenticity standpoint) it would even it out so much better. Compare Jane and Emma to see what I mean. The single layer ruffle (Emma Pic 1) is much more agreeable to me. (I wanna point out that Jane wears the same green dress without any partlet or undersleeves for strawberry picking at Donwell, which is blatant Eveningwear-For-Daywear™ and looked really out of place since everyone else was wearing day-appropriate attire).

Emma’s wider, cuffed, long sleeves and Mrs. Elton’s puffy segmented Renaissance sleeves are exactly what I mean about period accurate styles that suit the 70’s in a way that they just don’t jive today. Even Harriet gets some.

Mrs. Elton Orange ™ is another crayon color Crayola should consider I think.

Harriet gets stuck with a lot of brown outer wear but her day clothes are otherwise pretty nice. I especially like the ivory and blue number (Bottom right) and her white day dress with blue accents (Top right) which I think is the nicest thing she wears in this whole series.

Evening Wear

Emma’s evening wear confines itself pretty exclusively to cool purples and blues except for her white ball gown. I find this interesting because other versions tend to dress Emma in warmer colors and pinks (As I’m very partial to purples and blues, I love all of them). I can’t say it’s inconsistent with Emma’s cold characterization in this version. Mrs. Weston’s evening gowns are uniformly amazing. I especially love her blue party dress, which is my favorite in the series.

Both of Harriet’s party dresses are characteristically pretty and girlish. The pink is a bit fussy for me but I love the blue one (which has a lot more detail but I couldn’t get a full length shot of it.)

I’m pleased that Jane is given a bit of a break from the Jane Fairfax Blue ™ trope with her evening wear. She has one light blue evening gown and gets a few green numbers, most notable being her mint ball gown. Her beige party dress is absolutely tragic though.

Mrs. Elton’s evening color seems to be chartreuse (Which I think was also the case in the ITV version? ITV fans back me up.) Her black overlay/spiky number is iconic of the Austen Bad Girl, but her ball gown is a bit disappointing in its simplicity to me.

I would love to have seen a full length shot of Isabella’s black and purple number because I have a suspicion THAT would have been my favorite but I just can’t make out enough detail on it.

Zig-zag patterns on the skirt are a huge theme in this version, which is so of the period. Mrs. Cole (shout out to another future Are You Being Served? familiar, Hilda Fenemore) looks straight out of a fashion plate in her dark green party dress, which has (drumroll please…) a padded hem!

Outerwear

This version has SO MANY PELISSES AND REDINGOTES. Are they all nice? No. No they are not; I particularly hate Emma’s fugly salmon number that she wears for Strawberry picking/Box Hill. Mostly because she looks SO over-dressed compared to everyone else who’s wearing loose fitting light clothes (except Jane, who’s wearing an evening dress). Just looking at her makes me hot. I’m also NOT a huge fan of her pink winter cloak. The one trimmed with… faux ermine? One can only assume. It looks awfully tacky.

That russet pelisse tho! This is one of my all-time favorites. It’s SO. PRETTY and so detailed (See this number on Jane in P&P ’80). I think her gray fur-trimmed pelisse is pretty fabulous too, but I do not like the hat she wears with it. The brim is kind of a funky shape to me.

I know I’ve criticized brown before, but I do like it in moderation and this version is astonishingly brown-free for being made in the 70’s, so I really like her red/brown velvet spencer, especially with the cream dress and gloves, and her hat has some amazing decoration.

Jane and Mrs. Weston are the only other characters who get pelisses/redingotes. I’m not a fan of Mrs. Weston’s fuchsia number, and while I like Jane’s, it does put itself solidly in the Jane Fairfax Blue™ category.

Harriet gets pretty much only one form of outer-wear, her brown school cloak (a different brown school cloak from the one in the ‘97 version, in case you were wondering) and while it’s pretty dull, it’s hardly unexpected. Here it is paired with her rather ugly blue bonnet, with yellow ribbon. The bonnet features heavily in this episode.

To be honest for the most part I totally forgot about the…

because a lot of it is very standard. No dandy standouts here, but overall it’s pretty okay and I’m really pleased to say that there are no bib-cravats. That’s not usually so much a problem in Regency Era stuff (Since ruffles were going out at around this time), but you can really distinctly see that the ruffles (where ruffles there are – usually on older men which is good) are part of the shirt and distinctly separate from the cravat. Also there are LOTS of high collars and they’re not comically high to the point where they get wrinkled, like they were in Emma. (2020), so points for that also. These are the screencaps I gathered going back over it for posterity.

Mr. Knightley doesn’t really get a lot of cool outfits. His best is his purple velvet evening jacket which somehow manages to not look ostentatious (but is his only dress jacket), and his gold-topped Prussian boots (which you should just be able to see bottom right.) The worst though… I’m sorry, (looks up costumer’s name) Joan Ellacott – do you really expect me to feel the weight of Emma’s cock-ups when Mr. Knightley is rebuking her in such a cartoonishly proportioned top hat? It’s like being scolded by the Mad Hatter. All of the men’s hats are pretty flared in this series too, and I’m not totally sure but, I’m pretty sure I read somewhere that flared top hats are not right for this period?

I think Mr. Weston only has one day outfit (which, in keeping with his characterization is pretty farmer-chic) and one evening outfit. Frank’s dark green day-jacket is a pretty standard look on him and I don’t think we get a fresh look until his fabulous blue jacket/yellow waistcoat combo that he wears for Strawberry Picking/Box Hill. I believe his evening jacket is also dark green but it was tough to tell. Again I think he has only one set of evening-wear. I would expect Frank to have more, since he’s such a dandy.

Mr. John Knightley doesn’t have much to write home about in terms of evening kit, but DAYUM, his blue traveling coat is DOOOOOPE.

Let’s Talk Script

This adaptation was directed by John Glenister and Dramatized by Denis Constanduros.

Now I’ve seen a lot of positive reviews for this on IMDB calling it the… let’s see here… “The best Emma I’ve ever seen” and “The most true to the novel”… *Takes off spectacles and sighs heavily* I’m afraid I have to disagree. Several people also really love Doran Godwin’s Emma (We’ve already gone over why I don’t, and I have also seen reviews that name her and her lack of charisma as the main sticking point preventing them from really enjoying it, so I’m not alone). I’ve also heard it described as “sensitively handled” “Intimate” and “The most faithful to the spirit of Austen” and so forth, and again maybe it’s that prejudice against the stagey production and… no there’s definitely some other reason I have a problem with this version.

Let me make this clear – I don’t totally hate it, and I’m not here to shame the people who really love this version. Once again – if this version gives you what you want from the story I think that’s great for you. I, myself, like it pretty well and I think it’s one of the better early BBC Austen serials. It’s certainly not boring; but I do want to go over some of the changes that were made and choices in the script.

Some of them aren’t really that egregious, but they’re annoying in that I think they didn’t need to be made and don’t really add anything. Characters being added to scenes where they didn’t need to be and written out of scenes where their presence was missed. Like writing Mr. Elton out of Box Hill (And really the whole second half of the series, to facilitate Mrs. Elton flirting with Knightley), and adding Miss Bates into the after-dinner scene, I think at the Randalls Christmas party? I’m sure this was done for expediency but you have six episodes. It’s not as though you’re strapped for time.

Particularly praised, as far as I’ve seen, is the scene at Christmas when Knightley and Emma make up after their argument over Harriet. It takes place in the nursery, which I suppose isn’t an unreasonable place for Emma to be fawning over her niece (in the dramatization she seems to have been feeding the baby, where in the book she is playing with her). The book doesn’t specify where the scene takes place, although I assumed it to be a downstairs room, and I’m not sure that it’s entirely appropriate for Emma and a man (even one connected to her family through marriage) to be alone in an upstairs room together with the door closed and no more chaperone than a baby. But in spite of this, perhaps inappropriate, level of privacy, the scene feels less intimate to me than the book, where in the course of the conversation, where Mr. Knightley takes the baby from Emma “in the manner of perfect amity” and holds her himself and it is very adorable and sweet. In the dramatization, Knightley sort of just stands next to Emma’s chair and leans down a bit. After this conversation in the book, John comes into the room to talk to George, while in the show Emma puts the baby in the cradle and they leave the room to go downstairs.

But there are more outstanding changes that just feel wrong to me. When confronting Emma about her meddling in Harriet’s response to Mr. Martin’s proposal, Constanduros changes “What is the foolish girl about?” to “What is the stupid girl about?” it’s not that big a change, but it makes Mr. Knightley sound unnecessarily mean.

I’ve already mentioned the, er, additions regarding Mr. Weston’s dialogue and Mrs. Elton, and Jane shouting at Miss Bates; but by far the biggest, worst additions were made with Emma. The worst, I think, is the handling of this scene in Episode 4 when Harriet is feeling heartsick following Mr. Elton’s marriage.

And for those of you who don’t wanna follow the link, here’s a transcription:

Emma: Now Harriet! Your allowing yourself to become so upset over Mr. Elton’s marriage is the strongest possible reproach you could make to me!

Harriet: Miss Woodhouse –

Emma: Yes it is! You could not more constantly remind me of the mistake I made, which is most hurtful!

Harriet: Oh Miss Woodhouse, it was not intended to be!

Emma: I have not said “think and talk less of Mr. Elton” for my sake, Harriet, because it is for yours I wish it. My being hurt is a very… secondary consideration, but please, please Harriet, do learn to exert a little more self-discipline in this matter.

Harriet: {Looks down} Yes, Miss Woodhouse.

Emma: We are all creatures of feeling; we all suffer disappointments, it is how we learn to suffer them that forms our character. If you continue in this way, Harriet, I shall think you wanting in true friendship for me!

Harriet: Oh, Miss Woodhouse! You, who are the best friend I’ve ever had? Oh what a horrid, horrid wretch I’ve been!”

Emma: Oh now Harriet – (She’s gonna console her now, right?)

Harriet: Oh yes, I have, I have!

Emma: Harriet, control yourself! (ha ha bitch, u thought) Now, you will tie your bonnet, and you are coming with me to call on Mr. And Mrs. Elton at the Vicarage…

Harriet: Oh, Miss Woodhouse –

Emma: Yes you are! And I’m sure you will find it far less distressing than you think.

Harriet: Oh, Miss Woodhouse, must I?

Emma: Yes, Harriet; but you may borrow my lace ruff if you wish.

Harriet: Oh may I, Miss Woodhouse? Oh, thank you!

(Look how evil she looks! She looks like she’s planning on baking Harriet into a pie!)

While this scene is in the book and much of the dialogue is also from the book, it’s the lines that were added that stick out to me. Emma does tell Harriet that her allowing herself to become upset over the Eltons is a reproach on Emma more than anything else and reminds her miserably of the “Mistake [Emma] fell into” but from this point, the script takes a left turn from the firm but kind appeal to Harriet to move on for both her happiness and Emma’s own comfort, to a far more manipulative strain.

Even after Harriet apologizes, she goes from simply appealing to Harriet to let herself move on, to basically telling her that she’s a bad friend. She treats Harriet like she’s unreasonable for feeling this way, where in the book Emma is very understanding and feels that “she could not do too much for her; that Harriet had every right to all her ingenuity and patience…” and only after Harriet goes all afternoon with Emma soothing her and no improvement in her spirits does Emma take any kind of reproachful tack whatsoever.

In this scene, Emma says that her own happiness is a secondary consideration (this is stressed much more in the book) but from the way she says it, it seems more like she just wants Harriet to shut up about it rather than actually meaning it. (This is a very prominent example of Emma’s not seeming to really like Harriet at all in this version, only tolerating her presence.)

AND THEN she does something which Emma in the book most certainly did NOT do and forces Harriet to come with her to visit the Eltons, as if to put her on the spot and test how good a little friend she will be. I can’t express how disgusted I am by the changes and interpretation here. This is the culmination of the general through-line of Emma’s manipulative characterization being taken to an extreme. She looms over Harriet sounding, by turns, like a school marm and a saccharine nanny. She’s like a (very) low budget version of Tilda Swinton as the White Witch in The Chronicles of Narnia.

My question about all of these changes is simply: Why? They don’t improve the story or the characters. They’re not big, but a lot of them just strike me as weird and unnecessary, but I guess there’s no accounting for artistic license.

Final Thoughts

So is it a faithful adaptation? I often find this a more complex question to answer for myself than one would think, since inflection and line delivery and even, at some points, intention behind what the characters say tends to be up to the interpretation of the person reading the book.

Is the dialogue faithful? Other than the many changes I’ve mentioned (and the numerous cuts and edits I didn’t – and besides no screenplay can be 100% faithful), for the most part yes.

Are the characters accurate to description / faithful in their portrayal – again this tends to be subjective and opinions vary. In my opinion, Emma is not. I’ve mentioned that Knightley is too old, and Emma not only seems more intentionally manipulative than I believe she’s meant to be, and also just does not seem 21. She acts and looks like a much older woman, especially when preaching at Harriet) but she’s also very gawky, and Emma is supposed to look very healthy and glowing.

So my book accuracy rating meets in the middle at a 4.5. It’s NOT the most faithful adaptation I’ve seen, nor is it the most fun or the most intimate, but it’s not totally a travesty either and there are good things in it, even with a robot witch playing the main lead.

Ribbon Rating: Tolerable (43 Ribbons )

Tone: 4

Casting: 5 (Witchy automaton Doran Goodwin plays opposite avuncular good-fellow John Carson. Fiona Walker stands out as Mrs. Elton.)

Acting: 5 (Doran Goodwin is by turns crazed and mechanical with some momentary touches of what might be actual emotion. Raymond Adamson way over-acts Mr. Weston as a hobbeldy-hoi, verging on uncouth.)

Scripting: 4

Pacing: 4

Cinematography: 4 (A bump up from the usual 1 or 2 for TV dramas of the time. Surprisingly less stagey than expected.)

Sets and Settings: 5

Costumes: 7 (Very clearly of the 70’s but drawing on perfectly accurate styles that jived well with contemporary taste)

Music: 1 (Plinky, poorly played piano music. Only used for intro and outro I think? Jane Fairfax can neither play nor sing.)

Book Accuracy: 5 (They changed a lot of small details. Lines are changed unnecessarily (Calling Harriet “Stupid” rather than “Foolish” – Why?) Mrs. Elton seems to have a thing for Knightley? People present when they shouldn’t be, others absent when they should be present, again without any apparent reason.)

#jane austen emma #jane austen #regency #period drama #costume drama #emma 1972

16 notes · View notes

alinaastarkov · 4 years ago

Note

True, out of all the six the musical songs. Anne of cleves song is the most accurate. Anne Boleyn's song was so inaccurate to her personality, and didn't bother to mention Elizabeth and how she disappointed Henry (Obviously another Anne hate). Catherine Howard was molested, and the song was cheerful and about how she loved grown men touching her (an insult really), Jane Seymour's song just depressing. Katherine of Aragon, did they mention her mother and father? 1/2

2/2 Cause I am sure Katherine would've mentioned her mother and father a lot of times, probably act like a show off about it.

Ok, I appreciate this ask and there is a lot to unpack and I’m gonna try and be as fair as possible. I also apologise for making this a Six analysis but I can’t help myself. Strap in kids.

KOA: I would say her song was the next most accurate. It hit a lot of the points of her personality, why she was pissed, how she fought back, etc. The only thing it didn’t do was be fair in showing more of Katherine’s faults which... I wouldn’t have expected anyway. Think of the context - Katherine herself writes and performs the song, she’s hardly gonna admit any wrongdoing, just as she didn’t in real life.

Anne B: This was not as bad as I thought it might be, which isn’t saying much I know. The song is a bop tho, that must be said. They pretty much all are. Fact is Anne was hugely complicated: it is simultaneously true that she was an impressive political mind with ambition, and just a girl who wanted to enjoy her life and mind her own business. The musical leaned too hard into the latter certainly, but at least it didn’t make her some kind of seductress (which is the one thing i will take a hard stance on and say she definitely wasn’t and everyone that says she was is being sexist). But I will eternally be pissed off that they didn’t let her mention Elizabeth - Anne literally adored her daughter, I cannot stress enough how much pride and love she had for her. If Jane, who knew her son for just over a week, can mention him, then Anne can certainly talk about the person she raised and by far loved the most. That will never not piss me off.

Jane: Idk what to say about this other than that it romanticises their relationship which was messed up and weird from the beginning, and there’s no way Jane would have been beloved by Henry if she survived much longer. Though the song expresses Jane’s own bias and how she viewed that relationship (no matter how incorrect) so there’s that. My bigger problem is with her verse in the last song; it’s all about how much better their lives would be without Henry, yet Jane includes him in her happy ending and still insists she was the one he loved the most. I honestly don’t have time to go into how wrong that is.

Anna: Absolute BAMF, will be listening to this song and adoring her on my deathbed.

Kathy H: Now, not to be rude, but I do think you’re slightly missing the point of the song. The whole point is naive Katherine doesn’t realise she’s being abused the whole time because society and these men have taught her that this behaviour is ok, and that she, as a woman, is supposed to bow down and let them do whatever with no complaints. We, the audience, clearly hears her and knows this is messed up, and by the end she comes to that realisation herself in a very heartbreaking way. I was actually dreading they wouldn’t let her say she was abused, cause no portrayal ever goes that way, so to hear her be that explicit about it was pretty epic.

Kathryn P: Not gonna go into this now, as my issues with Kathryn extend to after the period the musical covers but let’s just say that romanticising Thomas Seymour is a common tactic, and seriously fucked up.

Anyway I know no one asked but here, have my thoughts on Six. Enjoy 🤗

#history #tudor history #six the musical #six #anne of cleves #anne bolyen #catherine of aragon #catherine howard #catherine parr #henry viii #Anonymous #neve has mail

47 notes · View notes

apho-sappho · 4 years ago

Text

Where I think Six: The Musical Went Wrong

This rant/ramble is going to be very rant-y because its late and I’m tired, so be prepared! I also might lose steam in some sentences, so prepare for that.

No, I do not think that its the worst thing ever or that I’m trying to devalue how it got some people in to history, I am in that boat, since it got me in history. I also think they did a great job for what little time I’ve heard they were given

It seems to only value what Catherine Parr did, it hardly mentions anything good that the other Queens did. I’m frustrated with what they did with the song “Six”, making up an alternate ending to them, instead of mentioning what they did, when they had opportunities to do so.

For a feminist musical, I think they really made the characters pretty one dimensional, and stereotypes. Catherine Of Aragon being this “stubborn Spanish lady”, Anne Boleyn being this “ditzy ambitious girl” (ugh), Jane Seymour being this “loving mother despite the fact she barely saw her son-”, Anna Of Cleves being this “cat fishing proud stubborn gold digger”, Catherine Howard being this “young teen looking for love” (although this is one of the more positive portrayals), and Catherine Parr being this “feminist writing Queen”

Now, I get they had a certain set space of time that the musical could be, however I definitely feel they could have done a bit better with what they had. I also dislike how they glorify Parr, in my opinion making all the other Queens seem worse because from my view, they made her a better written character, while the others, as I’ve already said, seemed like just a stereotyped one dimensional character.

Again, I realize they have a certain time they need to fit, and they didn’t expect it to blow up, but I still feel as if they could have done a bit better.

And, from what I have seen and researched so far, they ruined Anne Boleyn’s character, although this is more a personal nitpick. I’m getting more into Anne Boleyn, because she’s the one I’ve most researched.

Anne, in the musical, is seen as a fun loving ditzy woman who only wanted love, however, in history she was much different. My interpretation of her in history is a smart and somewhat ambitious woman who wanted to secure a place for herself and her family, and would settle at being the Queen’s lady in waiting.

I take issue with the fact she only once mentioned her daughter, Elizabeth, and not even by name. She loved Elizabeth to death, and the last thing, to my knowledge, she did was a) buy clothes and fabric for Elizabeth, and set up a connection that Elizabeth would use later in life.

Shifting the focus from Anne to Catherine Parr, I also take issue with the fact that one of the “accomplishments” Catherine did in the musical, get painted by a woman, I can’t find anything saying she did? To my knowledge, Catherine never got painted by a woman in her time. This isn’t to say that she wasn’t after her death, but if she did then Six shouldn’t have gone off and claimed it as a fact.

I dislike what they did with the song Six, it feels a bit like a cop out, I wish it would have been about some good or strong things they did, like Aragon ruling England in Henry’s absence, Anne providing bibles in English out to the public, Jane trying to reconcile Mary to Henry, Anna being kind and generous to her servants and in her will, paying them, and Howard being a kind step mother and a Queen with virtually no enemies. Parr, as I’ve already said, had enough good things that was said about her

This is where I’ll end my rant, because its getting late and I need to sleep.

#six the musical #catherine of aragon six #anne boleyn six #jane seymour six #anna of cleves six #katherine howard six #catherine parr six #rant #ramble

32 notes · View notes

neroushalvaus · 4 years ago

Text

Top 10 favourite characters from any fandom

I was tagged by @limalepakko , thank you! Since I have recently listed male characters here (or you know, in August, but we all know time hasn't been a thing for many moons), I took the liberty to list characters in general this time. I also went with which characters feel right at the moment, so does not show all my favourites. I also try to keep these short. (edit: okay so these are not remotely short, I will post a list first and have the explanations be under the cut, read if you want to hear my ramblings c': )

1. Fantine, Les Misérables 2. Javert / Jean Valjean, Les Misérables (yes i am cheating) 3. Carrie "Big Boo" Black, Orange Is the New Black 4. Jane Marple, Agatha Christie's Marple 5. Aunt Lydia, The Handmaid's Tale 6. Bridget Jones, Bridget Jones books & movies 7. Rock Lee, Naruto 8. Sarah O'Brien, Downton Abbey 9. Marilla Cuthbert, Anne of Green Gables / Anne with an E 10. Sister Monica Joan, Call the Midwife

1. Fantine, Les Misérables

I love Fantine with all my heart. I remember reading Les Mis for the first time and her story sending chills down my spine. Her character development makes me so sad, from a girl who falls hard and fast and won't deny anything from her lover, to a woman who is so beaten down by society that she can't do anything but laugh at her fate. But I love how she doesn't lose her pride or her fighting spirit and how she still has the guts to spit in Valjean's face when she sees him after being arrested. And I love how all she does is for her daughter and how despite selling "the gold on her head and the pearls in her mouth" she is content, because all that matters to her is that Cosette will live.

2. Javert & Jean Valjean, Les Misérables

I was really trying to limit this list to one character per fandom, but alas, I am but a weak little person. Thus, I am cheating already. The thing is that when it comes to Les Mis characters, Fantine, Javert and Valjean are the eternal top 3 for me, but I'm never quite able to say who I love the most. Last time I picked Javert for the male character meme because I love the symbolism and critique of society his character embodies, but let it be known that Jean Valjean is the best character in all of literature and I will fight you on this. The original soft on crime icon (aside from Jesus Christ but they're the same and you know it). Valjean's character journey is such a complicated one from an ordinary man (no worse than any man) to a person, who had been shaped by society and criminal justice system to be a very dangerous man, to someone you could compare to a saint if you wanted to... To an ordinary man, who would do anything for his daughter. He has so many character-defining moments, the biggest ones being in my opinion the trial of Champmathieu and letting Javert go instead of killing him. I just love Jean Valjean so much and could speak about him for hours.

3. Carrie "Big Boo" Black, Orange Is the New Black

Hopping away from the Les Mis hole and into a OITNB hole. I was debating on whether I'd put Boo or Pennsatucky on this list since I love them both so much, but I've been feeling so much love for my angry butch king that it had to be her. First of all, I'm just so happy to see butch lesbian representation where the butch identity is not just a joke. I know OITNB sometimes uses Boo questionably, but in general she is a nuanced character and one of the most interesting ones in the series in my opinion. I'm so sad they forgot all about her on the last seasons. I love everything about her, how she has trouble with feelings besides anger and often deflects serious stuff through humor, how fiercely protective she is of those she loves (boosatucky otp forever fucking fight me), how proud she is of her butch identity ("i refuse to be invisible")... Also, not to express attraction, but... Mama I'm in love with a criminal. And not to be a slut for how characters view religion/spirituality/God, but the relieved smile she has in one of her flashbacks when she says "there's no God... there's nothing", like you can't just do stuff like that and expect me not to love the character to bits.

4. Jane Marple, Agatha Christie's Marple

Last time I listed Poirot and was a bit frustrated I couldn't list Marple, but now it's time to right that wrong! I love this little old lady so much. I love Agatha Christie so much for just going "you know who is the person who knows everything that's going on in a community, and thus would make the perfect detective for a detective story? the nosy old woman". As she is introduced in The Murder at the Vicarage: "Miss Marple is a white-haired old lady with a gentle, appealing manner — Miss Weatherby is a mixture of vinegar and gush. Of the two Miss Marple is much more dangerous." She is so likable and witty, you can't help but love her. My favourite portrayal of her is by Geraldine McEwan, she looks so gentle but has such a sharp gaze. I would spill all my secrets to her any day. I also am compelled to tell you that when I was a child we had a costume party at my school and I dressed up as Marple and learned some old lady things in English (it was before third grade so I didn't know much English back then) just for the occasion (such as "thank you, my dear", "what a lovely necklace you are wearing" or "there has been a murder"). Teacher might have thought me rather morbid but I remember that day being quite good.

5. Aunt Lydia, The Handmaid's Tale

The Handmaid's Tale is such a great series and a book and Aunt Lydia is such a great character. The way she's capable of being absolutely cruel and vicious, but how she is also protective and caring in her own way. One of my favourite scenes in this series is when Serena Joy (my other favourite, can you tell) tells Lydia to "remove the damaged ones" from a line of handmaids and Lydia tries to argue with her. Sure, she is responsible for some of the punishments these women are now "damaged" by, but she truly believes those punishments were for a greater good and now the handmaids deserve their place with the others as much as anyone else. It is chilling and the character is such a dark shade of morally gray, but I can't get enough of it. The actress who plays her, Ann Dowd, has so interesting thoughts about her, like here. I just love this character so much I could scream.

6. Bridget Jones, Bridget Jones books & movies

I'm mostly talking about the movies here because Renée Zellweger's performance is iconic. Plus the movies are what made me love this character first. But I'll give it to the books, they're one of the few books I've laughed out loud while reading. Anyway, how do you even begin explaining the love I have for Bridget Jones... I love how she is a character so many people can relate but who would be a comic relief side character in some other story. Yes, yes, it is really bad that she is constantly described as fat when she really is not, but when I was growing up she gave me hope that people who are viewed as fat and/or unattractive by other people can be admired and appreciated, and they don't have to be super talented at everything and highly intelligent and some kind of a super smooth social butterfly to "make up" for what they "lack". And also that they can have standards (i once dodged a bullet by rejecting someone by pretty much subconsciously quoting Bridget Jones so..). I also love how the comedic tone of everything does not dismiss Bridget's feelings. For example in some other movie we maybe would concentrate on how "stupid" Bridget was to trust that Daniel was in love with her, but in Bridget Jones we concentrate on how Bridget was hurt by Daniel cheating on her, how he is the one who did wrong. Idk I just love Bridget Jones so very much can you tell.

7. Rock Lee, Naruto

Aka the boy who would have kicked Madara in the balls if Kishimoto had any sense of drama and good storytelling. I think I robbed Lee by not putting him on the fav male characters list. You know that post that goes like "gays be like 'these are my comfort characters', 1 literal ray of sunshine, 2 war criminal" etc? This child is the sunshine. I've been reading and watching Naruto again ( @hapanmaitogai is my sideblog for that nonsense) and I'm so ready to adopt Lee and/or Gai. Rock Lee is just such an earnest character, he has a goal he will give anything to achieve and he's the one true underdog in this manga. I love how he's so kind and polite (it's not so clear in English but in the Finnish translation he speaks as formally as he does in Japanese, he uses singular polite "you", calls Sakura "Sakura-neiti" = "Miss Sakura" etc... i love one polite boy). Also, he has the best fights in the series. Like Lee vs Gaara is a Classic, but we simply can't forget that time Lee absolutely crushed Sasuke in just a few minutes, or that time he politely asked Kimimaro not to kill him while he drinks his medicine. The best boy. I love that boy so much.

8. Sarah O'Brien, Downton Abbey

Last time it was Thomas' turn, so now I must talk about the snakiest snake, the queen of weaponized handmaidenry, Miss O'Brien. She is such a great character especially in the first two seasons (I obviously love her on season three as well but Julian Fellowes really tried to make it hard by not explaining her actions at all, didn't he. Well, luckily I am ready to stuff the gaps with my headcanons). She has some of the best comebacks in the series and brings some needed realism in some conversations. I also love how she uses her position as a lady's maid for her advantage and how she is proud of her profession despite being highly aware of the power structures in the Abbey. And then there is the soap. That is such a good character moment, because for a character who always plans ahead, who is ruthless and cunning and intelligent... I don't think O'Brien thought about the soap thing at all before she left the room ("Sarah O'Brien, this is not who you are" hit me like a train). Just once she did something with nothing but anger motivating her and that became one of the defining moments of her character. And one of the defining things of the future relationship between her and Cora. That's why I find the Sarah/Cora ship so interesting, because there will always be the undercurrent of bitter regret. Also Sarah O'Brien and Thomas Barrow are the greatest brotp and Fellowes was a coward for driving the smoking scheming gay best friends apart, and

9. Marilla Cuthbert, Anne of Green Gables / Anne with an E

I'm not saying L.M. Montgomery is entirely responsible for me having a fondness for strict, older women who first act unkind but have a heart of gold, but she most certainly did not help. Between characters like Marilla Cuthbert and Elizabeth Murray, how can you not fall in love with the type? It's been a while since I read the Anne series, but I really love how Marilla's character has been adapted into the Anne with an E tv series. Geraldine James looks like she was born to play her, she has me in tears so often. She has the ability to portray someone like Marilla, who is a very hard and stern person but feels deeply for her loved ones. I was watching the episode that dealt with Matthew's heart attack and Marilla berating her brother while hugging herself like she was trying so hard to hold herself together absolutely destroyed my heart.

10. Sister Monica Joan, Call the Midwife

It was a tough choice between her and Sister Evangelina. I just love these nuns very much. Sister Monica Joan is such a lovable and wise character. She is so knowledgeable of many subjects, from the Bible to astrology, and I feel like her unspecified memory problems and confusion are handled very tastefully. I also love how she's such an important part of her community despite not working as a midwife anymore. She is such a kind woman and gets visibly upset when others are treated poorly. And how could I not mention her saying "I do not believe in weeds. A weed is simply a flower that someone decides is in the wrong place", like... I love her so so much.

I won't tag anyone, but if you read this and you want to do this, consider yourself tagged and you're no allowed to mark me as the one who tagged you!

11 notes · View notes

claudia1829things · 4 years ago

Text

"LITTLE WOMEN" (2017) Review

"LITTLE WOMEN" (2017) Review There have been a good number of adaptations of Louisa May Alcott's 1868-69 novel, "Little Women". Although it was not the first adaptation ever made, the first one I had ever seen was the two-part 1978 miniseries that aired on NBC. But the most recent adaptation I have seen also aired on television. It was Heidi Thomas' three-part miniseries that aired on the BBC in 2017.

For some reason "LITTLE WOMEN" - or at least this adaptation - has failed to win any acclaim in compare to the 1994 and 2019 movies. At least with the American press. The British press, on the other hand, seemed very impressed by Heidi Thomas' adaptation. Frankly, this situation seems like a case of national pride - a British television producer adapting a famous American novel. As for the American press - what can I say? Was this version of "LITTLE WOMEN" really that mediocre? Or was this a case of American journalists resenting the very British Heidi Thomas adapting Alcott's novel? I certainly had some quibbles regarding "LITTLE WOMEN". In an effort to be more politically correct, the miniseries featured two minor African-American characters - a badly wounded Union soldier and a wig maker in Concord, Massachusetts. I had no problems with the wig maker's presence. But I definitely had a problem with the presence of the wounded black soldier being nursed by Mr. March, the four protagonists' father, during the miniseries' first half hour. "LITTLE WOMEN" began right before Christmas 1861. The Union Army did not begin recruiting black soldiers until the mid-July 1862. The 2017 miniseries also featured another historical blooper. Sometime during the second episode, one of the characters mentioned the Battle of Ball's Bluff being recently fought. This is impossible, considering the battle was actually fought at least two months before the story began. I had a few other quibbles regarding "LITTLE WOMEN". As much as I had enjoyed his performances as the March family's neighbor, Mr. March, I must admit that I found Michael Gambon's American accent rather sketchy. Thomas made a mistake that many other adaptations made - she allowed one actress, namely Kathryn Newton, to portray the youngest March sibling, Amy. Newton is an excellent actress, but there were times when she seemed a bit too old to be portraying a pre-teen and later early teens Amy. The 1949 MGM movie allowed Amy, as portrayed by the 16-17 year-old Elizabeth Taylor, to be older than Beth. The production barely got away with this. But only the 1994 movie had cast two actresses to portray Amy - Kirsten Dunst (who was roughly 11 to 12 years old when that movie was shot) and later, Samantha Mathis. One last problem - or should I say quibble - bothered me about "LITTLE WOMEN". Hairstyles. Especially the hairstyles worn by one Josephine "Jo" March. I understand that Jo is considered the "tomboy" of the March family. And I could understand the casual or loose style in which she wore her hair during the first half of the story . . . and inside the family home. But there were times when she wore her hair in a similar manner when she was outside. And "tomboy" or not, I just cannot see Jo being so relaxed with her hair - at least not in public and not during the 1860s. Sometimes, I feel that this effort to portray Jo as a "free spirit" went a little too far. The American press had more problems with "LITTLE WOMEN". The main theme behind their dissatisfaction seemed to be criticisms of the production's "faithful" adaptation of Alcott's novel. In other words, the miniseries is a stridently conservative adaptation. It lacked - at least according to Sonia Sariya of "Vanity Fair" magazine - progress. Critics accused the miniseries of following Alcott's novel by allowing all of the sisters to adhere to the social dictates of mid-century United States. As I write this, I am trying to so hard not to punch my fist through my computer screen or scream in frustration. "LITTLE WOMEN" is an adaptation of a novel that was published in 1868, not 1968 or 2018. Or perhaps they were pissed that Jo ended up married to Professor Bhaer, which did not happen in Alcott's original ending (before it was changed). I keep forgetting that many of today's feminists believe that the only way a woman can achieve her dream or be "fulfilled" is by avoiding matrimony altogether. I also find it odd that none of these critics have demanded the same fate for the protagonists featured in any of the Jane Austen adaptations, including the recent movie, "EMMA". So, why dump this nonsense on this particular production? Because it was a British adaptation . . . of an American novel? I came away with the feeling that the overreaching theme for "LITTLE WOMEN" seemed to be personal self-satisfaction for its four major protagonists. This adaptation featured the first time Elizabeth "Beth" March, third and most reserved sister, being portrayed as someone who suffered from social anxiety disorder, instead of mere shyness. I had once come across an article on the Internet that claimed the recent 2019 movie adaptation had finally done justice to the youngest March sister and not portray her as a villain. I could only shake my head in confusion. I have never regarded Amy as a villain. Certainly not in this or any of the other adaptation of "Little Women". Yes, Amy could be vain, coddled and a bit spiteful. But she had to struggle to overcome some of her negative traits and at the same time, develop into a strong-minded woman who knew what she wanted in life - to become an artist and live a life beyond genteel poverty. The same could be said for the oldest March sister, Margaret "Meg". She starts out as a young woman, who is already regarded as ideal in the story. Some have criticized Meg for her desire for domestic bliss. Superficially, I believe there is nothing wrong with this. After all, it is a woman's right to choose what she wants in life. However, like Amy, Meg also harbored a desire to be both socially acceptable and wealthy. I never had a problem with Amy attaining this position, because I have always suspected she was emotionally suited to such a lifestyle. I believe Meg was a different story. I believe Meg had to learn to attain her desire for domestic bliss in a way that suited her, instead of Amy. And she had to realize that kowtowing to her great-Aunt March's demands for all of the March sisters to marry the "right men" (namely wealthy) and take their places within the upper-classes was not the way. At least for her. Meg's encounter with Laurie's British upper-class friends, the Vaughns, may have finally allowed her to question her previous desire to be socially acceptable. While viewing this miniseries, it had occurred to me that Josephine "Jo" March might the most complicated of the four sisters. Many admire Jo for her artistic ambitions to be a writer and her independent spirit. But I thought Heidi Thomas did an excellent job in conveying how Jo can sometimes be her own worst enemy. Despite her ambition to be a novelist, she was willing to waste her literary talents to create cheap melodramas to help support the family. Initially, I saw nothing wrong with this. However, Jo seemed doomed to continue wasting her talent with writing cheap melodramas. She probably would have continued this path if her parents and Professor Bhaer had not encouraged to take a chance and embrace her true artistic potential. Another aspect of this production that really impressed me was how Heidi Thomas made Jo's rejection of Laurie's marriage proposal more plausible. Clearer. This was especially apparent in scenes that featured Jo's quiet rejections of Laurie's romantic overtures, her final rejection of his marriage proposal and her conversation with her mother on why Laurie could never be the right husband for her. But it is obvious that Jo's biggest problem was her fear of losing her family - not only to death, but also to love and marriage. This explained her hostile attitude toward Meg's romance with John Brooke. Jo seemed to be afraid of growing up. And she seemed to dread that growing up would eventually mean losing her sisters. "LITTLE WOMEN" features some differences from Alcott's novel. Did these changes hurt the miniseries' narrative? Well, I some issues with Thomas' erroneous mentions of historical events of the Civil War. On the hand, I thought her portrayal of Beth suffering from social anxiety disorder was something of a masterstroke. The miniseries did not feature a great deal of Alcott's religious additions to the story . . . something I did not miss. There were other aspects from Alcott's story that was also missing - the family newspaper, the Pickwick Club, and the sisters' amateur dramatics. But honestly? I did not miss them. Earlier, I had criticized some of the hairstyles worn by actress Maya Hawke, during her portrayal of Jo March. However, I certainly cannot criticize Eimer Ni Mhaoldomhnaigh's costume designs. I do not regard them as among the best 1860s costumes I have seen on television or in the movies. But I thought they were pretty solid, as shown in the image below:

Knowing that this adaptation of Alcott's novel was a British production, I thought Susie Cullen's production designs did a first-rate job in converting the Ireland locations into mid-19th century Massachusetts, New York City and Great Britain. Considering the miniseries was shot in Ireland, perhaps Ms. Cullen's job proved to be easier than I had originally assumed. I certainly enjoyed Piers McGrail's photography for the miniseries. I found it beautiful, thanks to the colorful and sharp images. One of the best aspects of "LITTLE WOMEN" - at least for me - proved to be its cast. The 2017 miniseries featured solid performances from supporting players that include Julian Morris as John Brooke, Meg March's future husband; Helen Methven as the March family's housekeeper Hannah; Adrian Scarborough as Amy’s teacher, Mr. Davis; Kathleen Warner Yeates as Aunt Carroll; Richard Pepple as a local Concord wigmaker; along with Felix Mackenzie-Barrow and Mei Bignall as the visiting Vaughn siblings. But there were supporting performances that impressed me. Dylan Baker gave the most memorable portrayal of Mr. March, the sisters' father, I have seen on-screen. It helped that his character was never in danger of being pushed to the background, unlike other adaptations I have seen. Mark Stanley gave a very charming and intelligent performance as Professor Bhaer, the German scholar whom Jo befriended while working as a governess in New York City. Stanley made it very easy for me to see how Jo would find Professor Bhaer so attractive. I really enjoyed Angela Landsbury's portrayal of Mr. March's aunt, Aunt March. The actress did such a marvelous job in conveying the character's forthright and controlling nature. Michael Gambon's portrayal of the Marches' neighbor, the elderly Mr. Laurence. Gambon did an excellent job of developing the character from a reserved and forbidding man grieving over a recently deceased child to a wise and compassionate friend and grandparent. If I had to choose my favorite on-screen Mrs. March aka "Marmee" I have seen, the honor would go to Emily Watson. I really enjoyed how Watson portrayed Marmee as this wise, yet pragmatic woman struggling to keep her family together. Another excellent performance came from Jonah Hauer-King, the story's "boy-next-door" who became a close friend of the March sisters. I cannot deny that Hauer-King gave one of the most complex performances in the miniseries. He did an excellent job in conveying the positive aspects of Laurie's personality - including his charm and loyalty to the March famiy; and the character's more negative aspects - namely his impatience, his inability to understand Jo's intellectual pursuits and his own quick temper. Naturally, I had to turn my attention to the four actresses who portrayed the March sisters. Thanks to Thomas, actress Annes Elwy was given the opportunity to portray the reserved Beth March from the prospective of one suffering from social anxiety disorder. And Elway did an excellent job of conveying Beth's emotional disorder and the struggles she endured to overcome it. Earlier, I had complained that Kathryn Newton was too old to portray Amy March during the first two years of the war. And I stand by this complaint. But I cannot deny that I ended up enjoying Newton's performance of the ambiguous Amy anyway. And I am thankful she did not make the mistake of exaggerating her performance to portray a character seven to eight years younger - something that many actors and actresses tend to do. Someone had once complained that Willa Fitzgerald's portrayal of the oldest March sister, seemed "too mature". And I do not understand this complaint. Meg was not only the oldest sibling, but possessed a personality that led her to occasionally behave like a "quasi parent" to her younger sisters. And Fitzgerald did a first-rate job in portraying his aspect of Meg's personality and her role within the March family hierarchy. As for Maya Hawke - questionable hairstyle aside - I truly enjoyed her performance as the story's main protagonist, the artistic and tomboyish Josephine "Jo" March. She did a superb job in capturing the many complex textures of Jo's personality. More importantly, Hawke also did an excellent job of developing Jo from this gawky and outgoing personality to someone forced to grow into adulthood - even if a little reluctantly. It is a pity that Hawke's performance was never acknowledge with an acting nomination of any kind. In fact, it is a pity that very few have been able to truly appreciate this adaptation of Louisa May Alcott's novel. The three-part miniseries seemed to be overshadowed by two recent adaptations - Gillian Armstrong's 1994 film and Greta Gerwig's 2019 production. I am not putting these two films down. But as far as I am concerned, Heidi Thomas' miniseries strikes me as worthy as those two films. In fact, I feel it is just as worthy as other adaptations of the novel - including the 1933 film and the adaptation released in 1949. I honestly did not believe I would enjoy this adaptation as much I did. And I have to give kudos to Heidi Thomas for creating a superb adaptation. She was aptly supported by excellent direction from Vanessa Caswill and a first-rate cast led by Maya Hawke. I look forward to viewing this adaptation in years to come.

40 notes · View notes

lady-plantagenet · 4 years ago

Text

Unsolicited Book Reviews (n3): The Sunne in Splendour

Rating:

⭐️⭐️⭐️(+1/2?)

Even before I had an account, I tended to go to tumblr to see people’s opinions before buying a histfic. Certain books are either severely underrepresented, where I feel like there needs to be something on them, whereas others, though talked about enough, something more can still be said about them. So for my quarantine fun, I have decided to start a series where I review every medieval historical fiction novel I read. Hopefully, it will either start interesting discussions or at least be some help for those browsing its tag when considering purchasing it.

TL;DR: Keep in mind that I’m harsh with my ratings. I don’t expect my historical fiction to offer some sort of insight about the human condition or be some perfectly manicured prose, but this book’s biggest detriment was its lack of depth. Some scenes packed a serious emotional punch, but then again I am attached to this era and given the length, it would be insane not to. I learned a lot - no lie, but while my background knowledge on the wars of the roses has become enriched, I feel no closer to Richard.

Plot: We follow Richard III from a young boy at eight right before the catastrophe that was Ludlow to his death and a few years after. This story seems to be told through omniscient third person point of view, which creates issues when it comes to voice - a lot of the characters sound the same (John ‘Jack’ Howard, Francis Lovell, Richard Catesby to name a few). This is only a natural consequence of the sheer amount of people Penman chose to portray. I’m honestly still grateful for this as I was not a fan of Richard III’s POV, but really enjoyed Richard Neville Earl of Warwick’s, Margaret of Anjou and Cecily Neville’s. Everytime these three were the center of the chapter, it was truly enjoyable and multi-faceted which comes to show that Penman is capable of writing complexity when she wants to. I would also like to add that the author’s knowledge of medieval life (e.g. the food, the dogs, the nature of battles) was a high point of this novel and did something to counter-balance the rampant late 20th century flavour in this novel. She tries way too hard to adapt a medieval man such as Richard to our modern values to propagate her Richardian Agenda, which ultimately underscored this.

It must be said though that the author clearly did her research as most of what she said regarding minutae such as: what day of the week it was, where the characters were at one time, details of documents, who did what in which battle, what laws were passed etc... I had just come back to this time period after some years and I thought I knew all there was to know, yet, here comes this book which springboarded me into a wealth of new research - I suppose I am grateful for that. However, do not let that delude you into thinking it is comprehensive. There were historical innacuracies which I can only guess were intentionally made for the sake of the author’s Richardian goal e.g. Anne Neville being forced into her marital duties when historicalMargaret of Anjou made it clear that there would be no consummation until Warwick would prevail at Barnet, Isabel Neville being ‘abandoned’ by her husband in France when really it was only about 4 months they were apart and it would have made no sense for Isabel to sail with an invasionary force, Richard III abolishing benevolence tax because he thought it unfair as opposed to the reality which was that he had failed in his initial attempt to raise them because the population opposed, Richard III allowing the marriage between Jane Shore and Thomas Lynsom when in reality he had initially opposed it... Historical fiction is entitled to innacuracies but given that the author made it clear in her afterword that the only time she strayed was setting a scene in Windsor as opposed to Westminster, it is dishonest to conceal the aforementioned blips, especially when they are so unobvious that it would take a seasoned enthusiast to spot them. As you can tell they either do have a negative bearing on Richard’s image as a saint or show detractors in a positive light, clearly neither that which she was in a mood to explain away.

Characterisation: I can not stress enough how well Cecily Neville was portrayed, every scene she was in, I felt. She tends to be a very difficult character to get because of the whole illegitimacy rumour which casts shades of doubt. She was proud but also pious, subservient but also commanding... just an incredible woman of gravity. I enjoyed Warwick in all his flamboyancy as well and Edward IV was masterfully portrayed as the intelligent but forgiving man that he was. You could clearly see how despite his indulgent character, he knew when it was time to be serious, it was a joy to read the scenes where he strikes people into subserviancy. Anne Beauchamp was also quite a treat for the little time we had with her.

There were also some portrayals of mixed quality: George Duke of Clarence for one, his warped sense of humour and charm were well presented, his unpredictability adequately captured. The issue I have though is that no man is unpredictable to themselves and while it may make sense for other characters to see his temperaments as those like a weather vane it would make no sense for it to be this way in the chapters where he is the POV. Penman’s basically wrote him off as crazy (I mean literally mad) for the majority of the story which is utter tripe given that the whole madness angle is a modern invention. I won’t write more on this now as it deserves its own post (btw if anyone wants me to elaborate on anything I said so far send me an ask). Last thing I will say though: the last scene we have with him is utterly tragic and still sticks with me today, honestly the best writing in this novel was during the ‘Anne’ Book and ‘Protector of the North’ in the years surrounding George’s death. Speaking of, where do I begin with Isabel Neville and Elizabeth Woodville? Their marriages with Richard’s brothers are portrayed negatively for no other reason than to set up Richard and Anne Neville as a perfect love story. This story-telling technique is cheap as hell and I did not expect to find it in a novel so highly acclaimed for its ‘quality’. Let me make this clear: The marriage which was hailed as a love match at that time was that of Elizabeth Woodville and Edward IV. Anne and Richard could have been just as much a marriage of politics as George and Isabel’s, or the latter’s just as much a love match. George fought for Isabel just as much, if not more than Richard did for Anne, George stayed loyal for a surety whereas Richard’s bastard John’s conception may have coincided with his marriage according to Hicks, Marrying Anne was highly advantageous for Richard as marrying Isabel for George... I could go on. Therefore, why is Isabel constantly described as wretched, miserable and at one point abused(!) by her husband whereas Richard was nothing but gentle to the happy Anne. The Mary of Burgundy proposal story is often cited as proof that George only cared about power... but what about Richard’s proposal to Joanna of Portugal one month after Anne died? This may sound minor but it’s a perfect example of the author trying hard to make Richard a modern romantic figure which he wasn’t. I think he may have loved Anne Neville, but that doesn’t change the fact that he was a medieval king and made marriage provisions after her death to secure the succession. For a 800+ page novel about Richard III some seminal pieces of information were left out such as his seizure of the aged Dowager Countess of Oxford’s Howard fortune, the mysterious circumstances in which George Neville Duke of Bedford died young and unmarried after becoming his ward. All in all, do not let the wonderful historical detail fool you into thinking this is a complete account of Richard III’s day to day life.

Don’t even get me started on the Woodvilles... They were all treacherous villains and social climbers who belonged in hell. EVEN ANTHONY WOODVILLE - what has he ever done to Penman or anyone? All scenes with Elizabeth Woodville at the beggining were bedding scenes pretty much, which shows that the author saw her as nothing more than a heartless seductress. There was even a point where Edward in his rage said: ‘you would lie with a leper if it meant you becoming Queen’ and I was just shocked at that. I was further shocked when her daughter Elizabeth of York was musing that if her mother had been a good wife her father wouldn’t have needed to stray and I was just like... ‘I thought we were trying to be sensible in this book 0_0’ - How is it appropriate to have a woman blamed for her husband’s infidelity? How can we have such blatant classism and sexism on the one hand and late 20th century wokeness on the other? It’s what I said earlier, the author can’t prop up Richard and Anne without putting down all other couples in this book. By the end of the book I was honestly finding myself cheering for Elizabeth Woodville as she was becoming the woman with sense and cunning as we all know her, the saving grace of this entire characterisation was that Elizabeth became the only person with a brain by the end (I doubt this was the author’s intention). Down here in this category of bad characterisation I will add Richard and Anne themselves. Anne Neville though often absolutely adorable to me lacked any personality trait apart from being in love with Richard and past sexual abuse by Edward (which didn’t historically happen). Anne’s father and only sister die and she barely thinks about them, which severely undermines her portrayal as a loving and empathetic person. Her death scene and wane was tragic and affected me as a reader but holy Christ before that the author was very heavy handed throughout the book with her martyrisation of Anne, even when she was a young girl and everything was going well she cried in nearly every goddamn scene. Yes, this is Warwick’s daughter we are talking about. Richard (unlike the real great man that once lived on this earth) was similarly flawless and any small flaw he had was something like: ‘too trusting’, ‘acts then thinks’ - essentially ‘too good for this world’ flaws. No one is like this, least of all the real Richard who would not recognise this weird contrived romanticisation of a man. The saving grace of all this is that he admitted around the end to himself and Anne that he did want to be king a little bit, which YES, at least we get that because no one goes through all the procedures he did and endangers the survival of their house, unless they wanted to become king, at least a little bit. All in all, if Penman’s Richard III is the real man, all I have to say is: thank god his reign was cut short because this character would have made a terrible and weak monarch.

Prose: And here is where another of the stars was deducted. The prose is largely very pedestrian. It was full of modern phrases such as ‘hear me out’, ‘He thinks I am in the wrong’ ‘he can’t get away with this’ and other such likes. Also, I know it’s difficult to write a book where everyone’s names are Elizabeth, Edward, Richard and Anne, but apart from ‘Nan’ which was a nickname of that time, the modernity of ‘Bess’, ‘Bella’ or ‘Lisbet’ and the use of them in-text and not just dialogue, did much to draw me out of the medieval era. This is not just a criticism towards Penman but a grand majority of historical fiction novelists of this period. Having said that, her choice to cut conjunctions and use the word ‘be’ intead of ‘is’ or ‘are’ did not bother me at all and I found it effective in dating the language a bit. I appreciate that writing in poetic prose for 800+ pages is extremely difficult, but other’s have done it. And even in other novel where that’s not the case, the writing is still profound and impactful and conveys a deeper meaning, whereas here it’s more of a fictionalised history book. The author appears to have some imagination as the few scenes she made up e.g. Catherine Woodville’s visit to Richard or Edward summoning Edmund’s previous carer John to talk about Edmund as he was trying to deal with the grief of losing George, any scene with Cecily Neville in it, Anne Neville and Veronique (OC lady-in-waiting to her) when they were in hiding, Rosamund and Richard at the end, Margaret of Anjou when she was lodged at that abbey, When Stillington visited George before his death to give him a rosary and last rites and he refused to get them from him, Anne and Richard going to Middleham and Isabel’s lying in state were just some of them. However, even if you took all those well-written scenes and stuck them together they would not be more than maybe 150 pages which is not good in such a massive novel. I really don’t know how I would rank the prose, I feel weird saying it’s at the low bestseller level because at least it’s not overwritten and annoying, however, it lacked a lot of soul most of the time, which is dissapointing given what Penman had to work with. I can see that the author has some strengths, for example she’s good at writing about the weather and the natural landscape, she’s also good at describing facial expressions. But her massive flaw is dialogue and flow - especially the latter. The flow is hindered by her abject inability to weave historical events and their happenings into the prose, so she often settles for an exposition dump, especially when it comes to some male chatacter’s POV such as John Howard, Francis Lovell or Buckingham. A lot of the characters exposited at each other too, which wasted the opportunity for some serious character profiles. Basically too much telling and not enough showing. In conclusion, It didn’t always feel clunky, expository or laboured, but it way too often did for the good to be redeemed by the bad prose-wise.

In Conclusion, I cheated on this book a couple of times when it dragged, but got right back into it whenever the good sections came along. It is one of these books which people cannot stop raving about and I can’t stress how much I wanted to love it when I got it. It’s nice being a fan of something a lot of people are too for once, but it was just not to be. But at least now I can say I have read the cult classic of this histfic niche which apparently everyone has read and cried over. Even though it took me 7 months where others got through it in a week through sleepless nights. Despite all the negativity in this review, I would still reccomend it as it is a solid book and written by someone who clearly gets the conflict and time period. You will learn lots with this book (I intend to keep it as a sort of timeline) regarding things that you might otherwise find too dry to research in depth e.g. battle strategies and sieges. But what you will not learn about is the characters’ psychologies and personalities though Penman tries very hard and heavy-handedly to exposit their feelings to us.

#lady-plantagenet’s book reviews #the sunne in splendour #sharon kay penman #Richard III #if anyone disagrees or agrees i’d love to know your opinion #just send me an ask #historical fiction #Anne Neville #George of Clarence #Edward IV #Elizabeth Woodville #House of York

30 notes · View notes

brindaneer · 4 years ago

Text

Inspiration and positivity are what the entire human race is in dire need of during these uncertain times. The present blog acquires additional importance for us because the film it deals with is possibly one of the most motivational motion pictures produced by the Hindi movie industry in the past few years. Penned by the inimitable Javed Akhtar, and directed by Farhan Akhtar, Lakshya showcased the progression of Karan Shergil from an aimless, albeit good-hearted soul drifting through life into a dutiful officer of the Indian Army. Karan's path of self-discovery was not merely an entertaining watch; it was also about the vital role that initiative and determination could play in our lives. Thrown in the midst of a world pandemic after a hundred years, most of us have lost these amazing qualities up to some degree at least, which is probably why pondering over this film in particular seems to be a productive job at the moment. Ironically, a film that several people have drawn inspiration from over the years (people had actually joined the Army after watching Lakshya) had been declared a 'box-office flop' during the time of its release. In that aspect, Lakshya resembles classics like Kaagaz ke Phool, Mera Naam Joker, Pakeezah, Jane Bhi Do Yaaron, and Andaaz Apna Apna, all of which failed to take the box-office by storm, but went on to obtain cult status among viewers later. Astounding? Definitely. Great films sometimes fail financially without rime or reason and unfortunately, the same fate befell Lakshya.

At its core, Lakshya was Karan's story and not a war film. The war and Indian Army provided a perfect setting for Karan to find his true calling. Nevertheless, intricacies of the Kargil war along with the destruction, desolation and pain that accompanied it, and which are also inevitably associated with all international armed conflicts in general, were far from being neglected in the story. A great writer is able to strike a balance between various dimensions of a plot without compromising on his actual intention, and who better than the legendary Javed Akhtar to achieve that? He was complimented by his talented son, the captain of this ship, who ably steered the film into a direction his father had envisaged while writing the script. Karan's metamorphosis from a lazy, casual college-going boy, perpetually confused about what he really wanted to do with life into a mature and responsible man was laced with humour and drama in equal measure, a strategy Farhan had previously employed while depicting Akash's journey in the epic 'Dil Chahta Hai'. Yet, the real genius lay in how different these two journeys actually were. Nobody could accuse Farhan of repeating what he had already done in his debut directorial venture.

Moments such as Karan listing his engagements of the day to Romi's (Preity Zinta) father upon being asked about his future plans in life and then literally hijacking that man's opinion on the importance of giving the best, no matter what the job was, to pacify his own father were examples of the witty humour we were talking about earlier. Of course, the actors took these scenes to a different level altogether. Hrithik’s delivery of ‘Main ye sochta hoon Dad’ after Karan had just rattled the ‘achcha ghaas kaatnewala’ lecture, and Boman Irani’s (Karan’s strict father) poker faced ‘Thik sochte ho’ in return have never failed to elicit roars of laughter from viewers till date. This wit pervaded most of the film’s first half as Karan continued his antics- the expression of his eternal confusion through the iconic ‘Main Aisa Kyun Hoon’ (apart from displaying Hrithik’s insane dancing skills through the choreography of the one and only Prabhu Deva, this sequence also aptly conveyed Karan’s inherent dilemmas), his decision of joining the Army only because another friend had promised he would come too, his disappointment upon being dumped by that friend, his ‘unconventional’ marriage proposal to Romi and his characteristic callousness as well as indolence even during his stint at the IMA were hilarious to say the least. Hrithik’s comic timing was pitch perfect in every scene, and perfectly suited for the nuanced, elegant genre of comedy that the script had aimed at.

Just when we thought Lakshya was a hoot, Farhan introduced the dramatic element in it; and he did so with such subtlety and ease that the ensuing sequence of events seemed to be the only natural course for the film to take. The scene where Karan fell into the pool by sheer unmindfulness during one of his drills and got punished by his commanding officer was somehow able to generate a strange mixture of sympathy as well as laughter amongst the audience and proved to be one of the watershed moments in Karan’s story. Hrithik’s masterful portrayal of humiliation as Karan knelt in front of his fellow cadets engendered such palpable discomfort within us the first time that re-watching it remains difficult even now.

The Karan that emerged on the other side of this event was somewhat different. Staying true to his fickle-minded nature, he jumped the wall of IMA and fled home. Nevertheless, regret could clearly be observed on his countenance as he sat with his parents, head bowed in shame, forced to accept defeat in front of his father- a man, who had always underestimated him. The grievance in his eyes upon over-hearing Mr. Shergill's unfavourable opinion of him hinted not only towards Karan's underlying strong ego, but also revealed his latent desire to prove himself. The hurt ego, along with his heart, was eventually completely shattered when the one person who had genuinely believed in him refused to be a part of his life anymore. Romi, played by Preity Zinta with her usual vivacity and boldness, broke up with Karan at the same place where she had once agreed to marry him because he had failed to live up to even her expectations. For Karan, someone who had probably harboured feelings of inferiority ever since childhood because of incessant comparisons with his brother, this became the ultimate betrayal. As viewers, it was our interpretation that he never really understood Romi’s point of view; he only attributed one primary meaning to her actions- her belief in his worthlessness. Looking at this entire sequence from a neutral perspective, one might say that both Karan and Romi deserved some empathy from each other. Karan’s lack of conviction in everything he did naturally upset Romi to a point where she could not imagine spending the rest of her life with him. Can we really blame her? As far as Karan was concerned, he had to bear rejection from someone, who, he had hoped, would never judge him like his dad. Before this, he had been able to bear the brunt of his father's expectations because of the security that his relationship with Romi provided him. However, when she pushed him away, he truly hit bare ground, with no one to break the fall. The scene that followed the break-up will possibly remain one of the best pieces of emotional acting in Hrithik’s career forever. As easy as it might seem, crying your heart out on screen can actually be very difficult in practice. Hrithik obviously nailed the sobs, but more importantly, he conveyed his character’s rancour towards Romi most effectively through the unspoken hurt in his eyes, thereby suitably justifying the transition Karan would undergo next.

With no comfort zone left for him to turn to, Karan did what his parents, especially his father, and Romi had always wanted him to do. He grew up. He could have sulked like a petulant child and continued to live a directionless life like he had done previously. Instead, he chose to prove himself to Romi and made that his life’s goal. Ironically, Romi had disapproved when he insisted on joining the army earlier because she felt he was doing it to rebel against his father. But this was a different Karan. He was not rebelling anymore. He was trying to show Romi that he could be much more than what everyone thought about him. Sub-consciously, it was not just she who was the reason for this transformation; rather, it was both his dad and her.

Karan’s second stint at the IMA provided viewers with some of the finest moments in the film. His dedication towards learning and training, initial isolation and finally, amalgamation into the student community were fascinatingly depicted through the brilliant title song ‘Haan yahi rasta hai tera, tune ab jana hai, Haan yahi sapna hai tera, tune pehchana hai, tujhe ab ye dikhana hai......Roke tujhko aandhiyaan, ya zameen aur aasmaan, payega jo lakshya hai tera....Lakshya ko har haal mein paana hai’. Now, let us take a brief moment to acknowledge the terrific music by Shankar-Ehsaan-Loy which truly set the mood for the film. This song in particular struck a chord with us because of the simplicity and eloquence with which it expressed the inherent message of the story. The picturization was top-notch with several nuances throughout. Few moments stand out even now such as Karan passionately screaming ‘Dhawa’ during his drill, something he had been completely casual about earlier, Hrithik’s unflinching eye-contact with the CO who had previously punished him indicating that Karan was a changed man now, and Karan’s increasing camaraderie with his batch mates.

The song was followed by two important sequences, superb for the understated nature in which they expressed first Karan’s unspoken resentment towards his father, and then, his blatant grievance against Romi. In the first, Karan’s mother informed him that his dad had wanted to attend his graduation ceremony but could not ultimately, and in the second, Karan himself called Romi to inform her that he was finally a lieutenant of the Indian Army. At this point of time, talking about Hrithik’s acting probably seems redundant. So, we apologize for the redundancy (What? Did you think we would stop talking about it? 😱😱). Karan’s casual brushing away of his mother’s statement about Mr. Shergill conveyed volumes about how he had ceased to expect anything from his father; it also revealed the disappointment he felt, courtesy of Hrithik’s amazingly layered performance. Similarly, his delivery of ‘Saare faisle tum nahin kar sakti Romi’ was spot-on. It was optimally hurtful, just like it was supposed to be.

As his job brought Karan to Kargil, Ladakh, and he met his commanding officer, Colonel Damle, played to usual perfection by the enigmatic Mr. Bachchan who managed to captivate the audience completely during the few brief moments he had in the film, as well as other colleagues, the lines between proving himself to the two important people of his life and finding his true ‘Lakshya’ began to blur. By his own confession, he had never thought about the significance of being an ‘Indian’ until his senior colleague Jalal Akbar (a brilliantly natural Sushant Singh) took him to the border (pretty prophetic that Hrithik himself went on to play a different Jalal Akbar later in his career, right?). In all honesty, a considerable section of the audience probably felt the same too. The stunning Trans-Himalayan locales shot so artistically definitely added to this feeling, although any border area is usually capable of engendering such thoughts. The landscape of Ladakh has a strange haunting quality about it, and that played a substantial role not only in making the film a visual treat but also metaphorically with respect to Karan’s journey.

As he truly began to love his job, Karan realized that he was finally ready to let go of his ego as far as Romi was concerned. Unfortunately, Romi, after a lot of thought, and pining for Karan, had decided to move on with life, much to Karan’s shock and dismay. The scene where he stood outside the venue of her engagement and watched her laughing with her fiance was one of a kind for the lack of melodrama that usually accompanies such sequences. Its speciality lay in the director’s nuanced handling of emotions and the actor’s terrific portrayal of subtle poignancy.

Run down and broken by the trials of his life, Karan returned home to his parents, only to receive news that his leave had been cancelled, and that he was urgently required to return to base. The moment where he bid goodbye to his parents was the first time when his father openly expressed love and concern for him, although not exactly in those words. The visible tension on Mr. Shergil’s face as he lost his cool and asked Karan to tell the complete truth was a testimony to his worry for his son who was about to go to a border area amidst serious disturbances. The part where Karan hugged his mother and left with just an uncomfortable glance towards his dad was another of those amazing subtle moments which characterized Farhan’s direction for this film. Hrithik’s discomfort and Boman Irani’s disappointment were both heart-rending to watch and as a viewer, one really wanted to reach out and give both of them hugs. A special thanks to Farhan and whoever was in charge of casting for signing Boman Irani in this role. Hrithik and his scenes were like mini acting classes that aspiring actors could take tips from.

Sometimes, it is difficult to get on with life, more so after losing one’s love forever like Karan had, but military training had instilled a sense of duty and discipline in him that was impossible to ignore. Of course, he had already begun to find a deeper meaning in his life through his job, especially after spending time with his superiors and colleagues. And, so he marched on. Had Romi seen his sense of responsibility even during a time when his personal life was in turmoil, she would have been proud. However, the realization that this was his true calling was probably yet to come to Karan. It did, in phases as he learnt about the war situation from Colonel Damle, and then embarked upon it.

If two people are destined to meet, even the universe conspires to bring them together. The same thing happened with Karan and Romi as they crossed paths unexpectedly in Kargil, of all places. The scene where they saw each other amidst a convoy of army vehicles is absolute poetry. Kudos to Preity for being so natural with her expressions always; she was brilliant in every scene, and especially here as Romi’s eyes changed from pure surprise on finding Karan there to a subtle melancholy and probably hope ( ?) at the thought of their future interactions. Hrithik, as usual, was spot-on with Karan’s ‘seeing a ghost’ expression as he moved past her, without getting an opportunity to satisfy his curiosity regarding her presence there.

Their next exchanges were laced with intense angst, but not of the typical Bollywood kind, rather much more controlled and nuanced. The part where Karan, after knowing about the demise of his good friend Abir (from the IMA) found his other pal Saket (Abir’s closest friend) venting out at Romi requires special mention because of the seamless manner in which it shifted from a discourse on the necessity and morality of war to a fantastic interaction between the lead couple, their first face-to-face conversation since the break up. It was formal, yet intimate; mundane, yet special; filled with hope for more on Romi’s part, and discomfort as well as suppressed anger on Karan’s. This scene was followed by his a little mean ‘pata nahin’ when Romi asked him if he had decided whether they should meet or not, and his angsty ‘congratulations’ for her engagement. Of course, the poor guy had no idea that she had broken it off after finding out that her fiance who was apparently a highly motivated successful individual was also a narrow-minded chauvinist. The irony of life! Once again, kudos to the genius of Farhan Akhtar. Without even mentioning it, he managed to point out the difference between Karan and Rajeev, and it was clearer than ever why Romi loved Karan. Remember ‘Maine aj tak tum mein koi choti baat nahin dekhi’ ? However, Romi obviously did not explain the truth to Karan. It was truly frustrating at times to see these two souls so much in love with each other, and yet unable to let go of their stubornness. Nonetheless, the frustration could be borne because of the brilliant intensity of their scenes and the wonderful chemistry these two shared. Truly, we do not talk enough about Hrithik and Preity’s amazing on screen bonding. We really should!

Karan eventually found out about Romi’s broken engagement from a letter his best friemd Ashu had sent him a while back. Hrithik’s expression of shock portrayed the extent to which the news had unsettled Karan. Incidentally, just when love had given him a second chance, Karan encountered death more closely than ever. After an initial victory during the first battle (the one in which he had saved the life of a senior officer, and killed opponents for the first time; also possibly the one where he began to realize that serving his country had started becoming his passion), Karan and his battalion were massively defeated in the second and several lives were lost, including his close colleague, Captain Akbar’s. The scene where Akbar succumbed to his injuries in front of his best friend, Dr. Sudhir (played by the late Abir Goswami, may he rest in peace too) who tried desperately to resuscitate him while motivating the gasping man with remarks such as ‘aam khane jana hai na’ can make people cry anytime without manipulating their emotions or forcefully tugging at their heartstrings. In fact, this was true for every battle sequence in Lakshya, which made it one of the best war movies Bollywood had ever made. Notably, the script treated every character with sufficient respect including even the ones who had screen times of just a few minutes. Everyone had a well-crafted story arc, however small it might be but integral to the movie. Most importantly, not for one second did we feel that Karan had taken up the screen space of others.

The best example for this was provided by the great late Om Puri ji, who played the role of Subedar Pritam Singh. Of course, if you have the privilege of casting an actor of his calibre, your can rest assured of the outcome. Acting is at its best when it does not feel like enactment, and not many actors are more natural than Om Puri ji! Appearing on screen for not more than four to five scenes, he delivered some of the most profound dialogues in the film. He explained to Karan how a soldier knew better than anyone about the destructiveness of war; yet he had no other option but to be a part of it. When Karan asked why wars took place, he pointed out that human greed had drawn boundaries upon the earth’s surface and if it were in their hands, men would partition the moon too. How true it rings, especially now. People are actually talking about ‘making life interplanetary’. If it ever happens, countries are going to fight about demarcating territories there.

Moving on! Excuse the length of this blog please! A film like Lakshya has so many subtle intricacies that it becomes impossible to leave out scenes. But don’t be impatient please. We have almost reached the end of our ‘Lakshya’. A few sequences still deserve mention. First, the iconic ‘Tum kehti thi na Romi meri zindagi mein koi lakshya nahin hai?’ The defeat accompanied by the loss of close friends and colleagues had augmented Karan’s determination to win but our hero had also finally discovered his passion, his true calling. In moments when such epiphanies occur, is there anything else left to do other than crying? Probably not. That was exactly what Karan did. As usual, Hrithik’s performance elevated the quality of this scene, like so many others. The part where Karan pledged to Colonel Damle that either he would execute the mission successfully, or he would not come back alive was again equally impactful because of both Hrithik and Mr. Bachchan. The way Colonel Damle looked at his officer after this momentous declaration conveyed the immense pride, gratitude and grief he felt at that moment. Truly, Mr. Bachchan needs no dialogues to express emotions. His eyes do it all. And the same is true for Hrithik too.

Now, its time for our favourite scene in the movie. You guys must be thinking that we agree on everything. Well, we do agree a lot, but disagreements occur too. However, there was no disagreement on this one. We think its a lot of other people’s favourite too. You are right! We are talking about the scene in which Karan called his dad. This was on the night before the final mission- a mission that was near suicidal. Upon seeing his colleague Vishal take off his engagement ring and put it in an envelope, Karan finally acknowledged what he was running away from; something that he had buried deep down in his sub-conscious- his conflicted emotions towards his father. The knowledge that he might no longer be alive for a resolution made Karan pick up the phone and dial his number. Here is an anecdote in this context. When Boman Irani started shooting for his part in this sequence, Hrithik’s lines were being read by an AD, and Mr. Irani could not get his shot right because he was not able to get the proper feel. Acting is a lot about reacting, and the non-impactful delivery by the AD hampered Mr. Irani’s shot. Finally, the person in charge of the sound came to his rescue and Hrithik’s dialogues were played in audio (Hrithik’s part had already been shot by then) to which Boman Irani reacted. And what an outcome. This is the true mark of a great actor; he not only excels himself but helps others soar too. And what an honour to have helped an ace actor like Boman Irani! The performances by both in this scene were superlative and manage to leave us with lumps in our throats even today.

In his first ever heart-to-heart with his dad, Karan confessed that he had always disappointed his father and told him that he was aware of it. In return, his dad who initially had thought Karan had called his mom, finally told him how proud he was of him. A salute and heartfelt gratitude to all the parents out there who send their children to serve in the security forces so that civilians can live in peace. The smile on his son’s face was proof that he could die happy. The tears in both their eyes expressed the craving they had towards each other; the dejection that Karan had always felt upon being ‘ignored’ by his father was replaced by the understanding that his father had always loved him; the pain on Mr. Shergill’s face portrayed his disappointment for waiting so long to convey his love to Karan- so long that there was a chance he might never see him again.

Having poured his heart out to his dad, Karan finally set out to achieve his Lakshya of recapturing Point 5179 and hoisting the Indian flag on it, but not before a much needed conversation with Romi. What an amazing bond these two shared. Karan did not need to tell her explicitly that he knew about her broken engagement; she did not have to tell him that she still loved him. They just knew. Her ‘to phir main zindagi bhar intezaar karungi’ was far more intense than a conventional ‘I love you’. The beauty of this scene lay in the complete lack of melodrama which one usually associates with Bollywood scenes of this kind. No over the top background score, no hysterics, not even a hug! And the fact that they wanted to hug, but could not (because Karan’s seniors were waiting) made this moment even more poignant. Hrithik and Preity were the epitomes of subtlety here. The frustration of not even being able to touch each other before Karan left for a life threatening assignment was so tangible that even the audience imbibed it. Seriously, why did not Hrithik and Preity work more? They were so attuned to even each other’s silences!

The final mission proved the truth of Romi’s words. ‘Jis din usne decide kar liya ki use kya karna hai, aap dekhna wo kahan se kahan pohochta hai’. Indeed, Karan reached the peak of success, literally and metaphorically. The mountain-climbing scene deserves a special mention here. It was so perfectly done that the only comparison that comes to mind is the famous rock-climbing sequence in ‘The Guns of Navarone’ by the iconic Gregory Peck. And in all fairness, Captain Mallory only climbed a cliff; Captain Shergill had to climb a peak of the Trans Himalayas! Jokes aside, both scenes shall forever remain goosebump- inducing. Karan, obviously hoisted the Indian flag, and just in time. Boy, did he make Colonel Damle proud or what?!

Thanks to our friend Mita for this wonderful VM .

There is a saying that everything works out in the end, and if it does not, it is not the end. It indeed did happen that way for Karan. He found his goal, and achieved it too. As he walked out of that elevator, and hugged his dad finally, we surely did feel contented. And who said Mr. Shergill did not know his son? Well, he might have taken time, but now he understood him better than most. When Karan’s mother asked if they could go home, he objected. Go home? What NO! Karan had to go and fulfill his other 'Lakhshya’, right?

How wonderfully thoughtful of Romi to stand at a distance from Karan’s parents, wanting to give them the private space that they needed! Actually, kudos to the director for his sensitivity; such subtlety is not something that we frequently see in Bollywood. So thank God for ‘Lakshya’. Just like Karan’s story ended on a positive note as the camera focussed on him and Romi, holding hands, finally embracing each other, ready to step in to a new chapter of their lives, we also end this blog with a bit of optimism.. Let us all hope and pray that ‘Hum Jeetenge Ye Baazi’ (modifying Javed Akhtar’s line a bit) on behalf of every Indian, and every person in the world dealing with this pandemic.

P.S. This blog is dedicated to all the front-line workers (doctors, nurses, other medical personnel, medical suppliers, delivery executives, grocery storekeepers, and all other emergency personnel) who put their lives in danger everyday so that we may survive. Please know that you are always in our prayers. Also, let us all hope that no one remains shy of masks and vaccines anymore. Those are the most effective ways of countering this virus. Stay safe everyone!

1 note · View note

9worldstales · 4 years ago

Link

INTERESTING POINTS TO PONDER FROM INTERVIEWS 7

Interviews might not remain forever available or not be easy to find so I’ve decided to link them and transcribe the points I find of some interest so as to preserve them should the interview had to end up removed.

It’s not complete transcriptions, just the bits I think can be relevant but I wholeheartedly recommend reading the whole thing.

And of course I also comment all this because God forbid I’ll keep silent… :P

Title: EXCLUSIVE: Screenwriter Don Payne Talks Thor!

Author: Elisabeth Rappe

Published: Feb 23, 2011

BEST BITS FROM THE INTERVIEW

ABOUT THE SCRIPT FOR “THOR”

Thor has seen a lot of screenwriters come and go, and I imagine that led to some very drastic changes to the character and story. Can you talk at all about that process, and what changes were made over the course of project? (For example, I know rumors swirled very early that the Thor movie would be an origin story with his alter ego, Dr. Donald Blake!) How did the script come together? At what point in the process did you come on board, and what was your contribution?

Don Payne: First off, for the record, the final, official WGA writing credits for the film are “Story by J. Michael Straczynski and Mark Protosevich, Screenplay by Ashley Edward Miller & Zack Stentz and Don Payne.” Any other writing credits you might have seen elsewhere are either outdated or incorrect.

As far as how the script came together, J. Michael Straczynski and Mark Protosevich worked on the project before Kenneth Branagh came on board to direct. At that point, Ken and Marvel sat down and decided exactly what kind of story they wanted to tell. They took everything that had been written so far and figured out a game plan. Marvel then hired Ashley Miller and Zack Stentz, and, as I understand it, those guys worked pretty intensely on the screenplay over the course of four or five months. After they left the project, Marvel hired me, and I stayed on all the way through the end — about a year and a half total. For the first eight months, I continued to develop, rewrite, and restructure the screenplay, bringing in new characters and new scenes. I worked closely with Ken and Marvel throughout the process, and, as the cast came together, I worked with Ken and the actors during rehearsals here and in London.

Then, once production started in January 2010, I was on set writing every day, both at the studio in Manhattan Beach and on location in New Mexico, and continued to work through post-production.

I’d like to say more about how the script has evolved since the very beginning of the development process, but I don’t want to spoil anything. I hate spoilers. (Mostly because I’m weak, and I can’t resist them myself!) But I’ll be happy to talk about it all after the film comes out. What I can say is that this really has been the greatest writing experience of my life. I’ve never worked harder or been as closely involved day-to-day on a project as I have on Thor.

And as far as Thor’s alter-ego goes, as Kevin Feige has said, people looking for a Donald Blake reference might just find one.

ABOUT THOR’S JOURNEY AND FAMILY

I know you’ve worked with iconic superheroes before, was Thor more or less daunting to deal with? He’s a real anachronistic, medieval character. How do you bring that into the modern world? Is it ultimately the same as trying to make any superhero realistic and relatable?

Don Payne: Well, I think the challenges are pretty apparent. As you say, Thor’s a unique character, and it’s an unusual story we’re telling. When you’ve got something like Captain America, the premise is easier to get right away — he’s a superhero fighting Nazis in World War II. Whereas we’ve got an extra-dimensional being once worshipped as a god by the ancient Norse who’s banished to earth and stripped of his powers to learn humility, all set amidst the Shakespearean intrigue of a dysfunctional royal family. It’s not as simple to grasp.

You just have to find the things that make Thor timeless and relatable as a character. It certainly helps that he’s charismatic and likeable, albeit flawed. He’s banished for good reason, but I think people will want to go on the journey with him and root for him to find redemption — particularly with Chris Hemsworth’s performance.

I think what really makes Thor relatable are the family relationships. There’s a lot of dysfunction in the House of Odin. Thor’s got a hard-ass father and a jealous brother. But for all of Thor’s hardheaded rebelliousness, he, like Loki, is really just trying to live up to his father’s expectations and make him proud. I think people can relate to that father and son dynamic.

ABOUT SIF, THE WARRIORS THREE AND HEIMDALL

What can you tell me about the parts popular Asgardians such as Heimdall, the Warriors Three, and Sif play in the overall plot? Will we see more of them in other Marvel movies? Is there potential for a Sif spinoff, as she has enjoyed in the comics?

Don Payne: The Warriors Three and Sif are very much like they are in the comics. They’re fierce warriors who are fiercely dedicated to their friend Thor. They’ll follow him anywhere — which might not always be the wisest thing. Also, as in the comics, Heimdall is bound by duty and honor to guard his post on the Rainbow Bridge, and he’s got serious issues with anyone who tries to cross it who would endanger Asgard.

As far as seeing these characters in other movies or their own spin-off films, I think Marvel already has a full slate of projects in development, so I imagine we’ll only see them as part of the Thor franchise. But you never know. I’d ask Kevin Feige if I were you!

ON THE HUMOUR OF THE MOVIE

One element that jumped out at me in the trailer was the comedy – it felt very light and natural, not corny. (Jane reacting to Thor’s name, for example, or the coffee cup scene.) How did you strike the balance between the comedy and drama of the piece? Were there moments where you thought “Ok, this goes too far with the fish-out-of-water joke”?

Don Payne: Well, my hope is we’ve included just enough humor in the script, but no more than that. This isn’t a comedy, and that’s not what I was hired to do. It’s an action film, and, as in all action films, you need those fun moments. But you have to do it sparingly. You don’t want things to get silly.

One thing we all agreed about early on was to make sure we were careful about how we approached the fish-out-of-water moments. We didn’t want Thor to come to earth and suddenly become an idiot for comic relief. Even without his powers, he’s the same person on earth as he was in Asgard — a smart, headstrong warrior. He’s a being from an advanced race who’s used to travelling to other worlds and thinking on his feet. We didn’t want him looking at a television set and going, “What is yon magic box, with phantoms that move and speak inside it?”

Still, he’s on unfamiliar turf, and there’s some fun in that. You just have to find the right balance. You also want to have fun moments and dialogue during the action sequences, so you put those into the script. Of course, those bits are the easiest to cut in editing if you find the jokes are too much or too distracting. You can pick and choose.

ON JANE AND DARCY

I particularly liked how Jane and Darcy react to Thor’s arrival. They aren’t immediately throwing themselves at him. They think he’s hot, but likely to be crazy. I know you’re a staunch feminist, so I imagine their portrayal was important to you. Can you talk about how you approached them? It seems rare to have two girls in a single Marvel film, possibly competing for Thor’s attention. How did that play into the romance, and how did you approach the relationship between Thor and Jane? Did Natalie Portman and Kat Dennings have any input into their characters?

Don Payne: Kat did an amazing job taking the words on the page as written and making them fly. She really embodied the character of Darcy.

After the second trailer came out, I read some people mistakenly speculate that her character was created as a marketing decision to appeal to the youth audience or some such thing — as if the producers sat down and said, “Hmm… this script is good, but we need a character to appeal to the tweens! With current pop cultural references!” I promise you, that wasn’t the case at all. I came up with Darcy because we needed someone to work with Jane Foster, and the character had to have a vastly different background, personality, and world-view from Jane in order to make that relationship interesting. I decided to make her a woman, frankly, because other than Sif and Frigga, we had a very male-heavy cast of characters. I thought it might also be interesting to have someone working for Jane who both frustrated her and who Jane saw as protégé whose potential she could help fully realize.

But I also wanted Darcy to be the voice of the common man. We’ve got Asgardians and astrophysicists, so I wanted someone to say what the average moviegoer might be thinking. If someone in the audience is thinking, “What the hell is that weird, glowing thing?!” Darcy should be asking “What the hell is that weird, glowing thing?!” (That line isn’t actually in the movie, but you get the idea…)

Natalie actually helped out tremendously with the character of Jane Foster. Let’s be honest, Jane Foster in the comics has traditionally been one of the most boring characters in the Marvel Universe. In the film, she’s an astrophysicist, so that makes her more interesting right off the bat. And it doesn’t hurt that she’s played by Natalie, who brings loads of personality and charm to any character she portrays.

Originally in the script, however, Jane was more of a traditional scientist — a hardcore skeptic. But Natalie came to the first rehearsal with the idea of turning that on its end. She suggested making Jane the believer. She thought Jane could be more of a kind of “scientist as poet” — someone who thinks outside of the box, someone whose theories are considered outlandish and are frowned upon by the scientific community. But it’s the kind of thinking that leads to great discoveries. When Thor arrives, she’s willing to take a leap of faith — and she has to pay the consequences for it. Natalie’s input made the character more interesting, improved her relationship with Thor, and, in general, made the story better. And she helped make sure Jane Foster isn’t boring. So I’m grateful to her for that.

During my story meetings with Ken and Marvel, we put a lot of work into the Thor/Jane relationship, and there was much discussion about exactly how and how quickly things should progress between them. I think we succeeded in developing their romance realistically, so it doesn’t feel forced.

ABOUT HEIMDALL AND THE MCU TAKE

There has also been a lot of ugly and foolish controversy about Idris Elba being cast as Heimdall. I don’t like to justify bigotry with attention, but has the reaction surprised you and the rest of the team?

Don Payne: You’d think as a society we’d be beyond this now. The funny thing is, this film was never meant to be a straight representation of traditional Norse mythology. It’s the cinematic take on the Marvel comics take on Norse mythology. In fact, in the reality of our movie, the Norse myths are actually based on our version of the Asgardians, after they visited ancient Norway. The Norse just got some things wrong, based on their primitive understanding of their encounters. (Like, for example, worshiping the Asgardians as gods.)

The bottom line is Idris is great in the movie. I think almost all of the people who are skeptical or have issues with the casting will be convinced when they see the movie — except for all the actual racists out there. But who needs them?

MY TWO CENTS

This interview is so goddamn awesome because it’s so informative. Don Payne talked about a lot of topics and didn’t give just two lines answers but well rounded explanations. There’s so much more than the bits I’ve selected but I couldn’t really copypaste it all, though I wholeheartedly recommend you to read it.

I’d kill to get a peck at the old scripts but definitely there was a lot of work ongoing to produce the definitive one.

Anyway I love how almost all Marvel seems to know Odin is a bad father yet Odin doesn’te ven get a slap on his wrists. Really guys...

I like how he admits Thor’s journey is one of redemption... but really that’s not how you made a redemption arc...

I also find interesting how again we get a confirmation that Sif and the Warriors Three are ‘fiercely dedicated to THEIR FRIEND THOR’.

In the movie Thor says:

Thor: Why don't you tell her how you sent the Destroyer to kill our friends, to kill me?

But the truth is that those were his friends, not both’s. For the Warriors Three and Sif there was never a choice between Thor and Loki. They were Thor’s friends and to him their loyalty went.

I also like how he says he hopes they included enough humor, but no more than that as this is an action film, and, while fun moments are needed they need to have them sparingly of things get silly. How they didn’t want Thor to come to earth and suddenly become an idiot for comic relief. How they didn’t want for the jokes to end up being too distracting. I think this speaks of care for the story.

They even put care in creating Jane and Darcy. I still think they could do Jane better, but still they tried.

#thor odinson #lady sif #fandral #volstagg #hogun #loki odinson #odin borson #heimdall #jane foster #darcy lewis #interview #don payne #mcu thor #9 worlds interview study

1 note · View note

tv-geeks · 5 years ago

Text

The 25 Biggest TV Shows that Defined the 2010′s

Described as the golden age of television, the 2010’s redefined what we saw on our silver screens. With many of its programmes being compared to the work of the film industry, television changed before our very eyes these past ten years. We said goodbye to our favourite politicians, fell in and out of love with an after school club that sang show tunes, and crowned the king of the seven kingdoms. The 2010’s has an abundance of programming for us to watch, so making this list was quite the difficult task. In order to be considered for this list, the majority of the show’s seasons would have had to be aired from January 1st, 2010 to December 31st, 2019. And, each show has been ranked based on its impact on television/its audiences, as well as the quality being taken into account (but not being considered quite as much as the former). So, before we move into another ten years of the ever-changing landscape of the small screen, let’s take a look at the best shows we watched.

HONORABLE MENTIONS (26 - 40)

26. Top Boy 27. How To Get Away With Murder 28. Keeping Up With The Kardashians 29. One Day At A Time 30. Rick and Morty 31. Jane the Virgin 32. New Girl 33. Broad City 34. Crazy Ex Girlfriend 35. Master of None 36. Bob’s Burgers 37. You 38. Insecure 39. Bojack Horseman 40. The Simpsons

25) This Is Us, NBC (2016 - present)

Renewed until 2022, ‘This Is Us’ was the simultaneously heart wrenching and heartwarming drama that changed the game for television this decade. From its phenomenal cast performances to the well thought-out story arcs for each character, the family drama was one of the most significant programmes of the 2010’s. What made the Emmy award winning programme so special this decade was its ability to give each character a personality that felt real. We didn’t like these characters because they were interesting, we fell in love with them because they represented the realities of life. From Kate’s (Chrissy Metz) depiction of heavy insecurities from being overweight to Rebecca's (Mandy Moore) struggle of being a single mother, ‘This Is Us’ is a show about real people, non-fabricated.

24) On My Block, Netflix (2018 - present)

A surprise hit for the streaming platform, ‘On My Block’ was the most-binged show on Netflix during its premiere year. For both seasons that the show has been released, ‘On My Block’ has been an internet sensation, having its audiences watching the show as quickly as possible to avoid spoilers. The youth drama captivated audiences with its relatability, comedy, and the fact that it doesn’t shy away from reality when it touches on gun violence and life for kids in rough neighborhoods.

The show definitely had its impact for the past two years, and it also deserves more. For a show with minimal advertisement to capture the hearts of so many worldwide - and to even best the streaming network’s veteran programming - is a feat that is worth celebrating. ‘On My Block’ is a show that celebrates the underdog in life. It puts young, poor people of colour at the forefront and allows them to tell their own stories - be it dramatic or comedic.

23) Killing Eve, BBC America (2018 - present)

A show that really made a name for itself was the international hit ‘Killing Eve’. The drama starring Jodie Comer from ‘My Mad Fat Diary (2013 - 2015)’ and ‘Grey’s Anatomy (2005 - present)’ star Sandra Oh took the world by storm with its intense and teasingly romantic performances. Oh and Comer became one of the greatest pairings this decade with their love-hate relationship in ‘Killing Eve’. The leads both equally balance each other out with their ability to be both comedic and dramatic whilst teasing both a romance and a constant desire to detonate the other, which is a quality not many can possess. The BBC programme succeeded in a crowded market of dramatic content by ensuring that it was impossible for one woman to have carried the show, as even though Comer has the task of portraying multiple personalities throughout each episode, Oh is just as striking with her nervous, intelligent and chaotic portrayal of the vulnerable and fervid Eve Polastri.

22) Big Little Lies, HBO (2017 - present)

With an all-star cast like this, it would’ve been a real shame had this show disappointed. Luckily, there’s a reason these A-listers joined the show as ‘Big Little Lies’ had us on the edge of our seats each week. Dealing with the influx of made for bingeing TV programmes being released in one set, the cable show had a lot to fight against, as it required fans to stay on board each week whilst retaining the ins and outs of the crime drama. ‘Big Littles Lies’ succeeded in the attention-span battle as each episode was carefully curated so that we wouldn’t forget the important details. Moments were revisited whilst every scene changed the story somehow without adding too much that we got confused.

From the phenomenal cast to the striking writing and directing, the HBO drama is a defining show of the 2010’s as it was one of the few shows that made it almost impossible to log online without reading spoilers. Although it may not have the same hype as another fellow HBO programme, it still held its own and had us writing theories and listening to podcasts to keep us going until the next episode.

21) Brooklyn Nine Nine, NBC (2013 - present)

After being cancelled by FOX in 2018, the show was resurrected by the Gods at NBC and given two extra seasons to last until 2020 (for now!). The irony in this show is that it didn’t make much noise until its cancellation, where the silent fanbase made their voices heard. Although the reaction of fans isn’t quite the reason it got renewed, this still proved to be a pinnacle moment for television in the 2010s. Many shows lose their network, but not many make as much a spectacle as ‘Brooklyn Nine Nine’ did, leading it to becoming one of the most talked about shows of 2018. And there’s a reason for that. The cop sitcom may have its problems, but what it does successfully is give us a reason to root for every character they have (including Hitchcock and Scully!). A constant trope in comedy television is that there tends to be a few characters that are outright awful - at least to the more than casual viewer. But with the now NBC comedy, each one is lovable and has gone on their individually engaging journey throughout the years. Rootable characters are the root to every TV show that touches its viewers’ hearts, and ‘Brooklyn Nine Nine’ does that with every single on-screen persona.

20) American Crime Story, FX (2016 - present)

When it comes to biopics, television hardly gets noted as having some great renditions, but ‘American Crime Story’ is changing that. The debut season that detailed the OJ Simpson trial is probably one of the best seasons of modern television as it cleverly and accurately dictated the trial from the murder up until the verdict, giving viewers as close a look as possible to the reality of the crime. Sarah Paulson gave us a phenomenal performance as Marcia Clark whilst Cuba Gooding Jr. delivered OJ better than anybody imaginable.

The second season was also on par with its predecessor as ‘Glee (2009 - 2015)’ alum Darren Criss lead the show to another year of critical acclaim as Andrew Cunanan in ‘The Assasination of Gianni Versace’. Much like the first season, this one was an award show favourite, and on top of that, solidified Criss as a seasoned actor in the business.

19) When They See Us, Netflix (2019)

Created by Ava DuVernay, the Netflix mini-series focusing on a significant part of the drastic life of The Exonerated Five’s lives. Each of the six episodes carefully detailed their story, ensuring each movement and word connoted the struggle faced by Kevin Richardson, Antron McCray, Yusef Salaam, Korey Wise and Raymond Santana. What lands this show on the list isn’t the critical praise or accolades, but the detail oriented work on display throughout the series. ‘When They See Us’ did what many shows have deterred from over the years, and that was telling a real story with no boundaries. What makes a biopic successful is when it encourages its audience to research the original story after watching it. And after being viewed by over 23 million people less than a month within its release, we saw conversations take place about the Exonerated Five. We went back to watch the original documentary, found out more about the evils of Linda Fairstein, and conversations about the initial arrests grew and grew. ‘When They See Us’ was a phenomenon that created relevant conversations and truly defined this decade.

18) The Good Place, NBC (2016 - 2020)

In 2016, the creator of ‘Brooklyn Nine Nine (2013 - present)’ and ‘Parks and Recreation (2009 - 2015)’ took on a more challenging project as he created ‘The Good Place’; a comedy that tackles the meaning of life and how important we are to each other and the universe. The US comedy has become a staple in comedy as it challenged its conventions whilst keeping up the light-hearted nature we all anticipate. What made the show so special is that it gave us an abundance of extremely imperfect characters and relished in it. From the narcissism to their careless nature, it’s surprising that the season one finale plot twist even took us by surprise, but somehow it did, and that’s because beyond the fact that these people were mostly terrible, they were, above all else, lovable. Throughout the series we learned to love them for their bad sides, and saw that beyond what made them such horrific people, they were pretty decent. ‘The Good Place’ was a show that aimed to prove that humans are more than the good and bad things that they do, and although it has deteriorated in quality in the latter seasons, it still holds quite a large influence over this decade.

17) Veep, HBO (2012 - 2019)

One of the saddest losses of the 2010’s, ‘Veep’ was the excellent kind of programming that this decade will forever be remembered for. Beginning with a slow start, the Julia-Louis Dreyfus lead show stole our hearts with its wit and relevant comedy. ‘Veep’ took on what the world was focusing on - politics and feminism - and put it at the forefront of a primetime TV show. And to ensure we were watching, we received a stellar cast and perfect writing each episode. The political comedy is something that can be rewatched again and again, and never get old, which is why it’s such a shame we won’t be seeing it anymore. But maybe sometimes it’s better to bow out early.

16) Grey’s Anatomy, ABC (2005 - present)

If we’re going to discuss programmes with longevity, ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ has to be on the list. The most successful programme from TV veteran Shonda Rhimes, the medical drama has been a powerful force in the industry. Launching the careers of the likes of Jesse Williams and Golden Globe winner Sandra Oh, ‘Grey’s Anatomy’ can be credited for getting a generation of young adults/teens into television drama. Some of the biggest fans of TV today found their love for the medium through Rhimes’ programme and have remained loyal ever since. Although the show isn’t quite at its peak anymore, it’s still holding strong, and it’s hard to find a television fan that hasn’t been captivated by the drama in the Seattle-based programme. The show has placed this high on the list as it’s had an immense influence on today’s TV (fans) and its longevity is unmatched.

15) Love Island, ITV2 (2015 - present)

Like many British reality shows, it took a year or two for ‘Love Island’ to finally make some noise, but when it did, it was most definitely heard. Making headlines in season two and becoming one of the most watched British shows just a year later, the romance-based reality competition forced viewers across the world to spend their summers with young singles searching for love and an Instagram following. On top of consisting of catty arguments, shocking twists and viral memes, ‘Love Island’ captured the hearts of reality TV fans worldwide for its relatable nature. Young people would tune in every summer to see people just like them search for love in a similar dating pool. On the surface we would be seen taking to Twitter to insist that certain women were being “mugged off” whilst her love interest was simply playing a game, but beyond that it became a starting point for conversations around misogyny, racism, sisterhood and mental gymnastics. From the beginning of the season, patterns would be noticed by audiences when the black contestants would typically be the last ones chosen - in the season five premiere, the final four singles left to be coupled up were all people of colour, three of which were black. The mistreatment of women like Samira Mighty and Yewande Biala would create discourse across the internet on misogynoir, and the constant talk of “tall, dark and handsome” would form interesting dialogue on what that really means. It may not seem like the most cleverly put together show, but everyday it made its worldwide viewers tune in as soon as they could to see the action as it poured out, so that we could interact with each other live. It’s rare for a reality show to be this well loved across the globe, as many competition programmes of the latter half of the decade were usually watched by the country it originally aired in, but the ITV2 show’s ability to create discourse and fanfare is what made it the powerful programme that it is (which was so big that even ‘Saturday Night Live (1975 - present)’ made a sketch about it). With the dating programme’s relatability, youth, easy-to-watch nature and its ability to create a conversation, it became a pinnacle of the 2010s that has had other networks attempting (and failing) to emulate it.

14) The Big Bang Theory, CBS (2007 - 2019)

With its wit, humour and unique take on life as a modern nerd, ‘The Big Bang Theory’ became a frontrunner in the comedy genre for the entire 2010s. Bowing out gracefully in the final year of the decade, the nerd-oriented comedy took the decade by storm, being one of CBS’ most viewed shows for the majority of its stay on the network. What captivated audiences was the simplistic comedy that was stylized as though it was intelligent. The show made basic science-related jokes that those fresh out of Biology class would understand, and thus make the joke somewhat relatable. And that’s not to bash the show for not having funny jokes, because it did, it just had a certain audience to appeal to. ‘The Big Bang Theory’ was never going to be funny in the same way that ‘Barry (2018 - present)’ is. The Jim Parsons-lead sitcom earned its play high on this list as the show was a huge international success. Existing for the entirety of the decade and only leaving because the lead lost interest before the fans did, it’s clear that this was a very beloved television programme, and when it comes to comedy in the 2010s, this will always be brought up.

13) Modern Family, ABC (2009 - 2020)

When it came to comedy in the 2010s, no true fan of the genre ended the decade without loving at least one episode of ‘Modern Family’. The family sitcom which has been followed by similar shows on the same network such as ‘Fresh Off The Boat’ and ‘Black-ish’, remained a dominant force in the genre for the former half of the 2010s. Tying the record for Most wins for Outstanding Comedy Series at the Emmys with ‘Frasier’ (5 wins) from 2010 - 2014, it was a clear critical success and a definite frontrunner throughout the years. But beyond what the critics have said, fans have taken a liking to the show as it offered simplicity with humour. ‘Modern Family’ took an average concept of a dysfunctional but loving family, and detailed how their simple yet outrageous scenarios were relatable to both the audience and each other. Every time we tuned into an episode of the American sitcom, we were given a half an hour of fun, light entertainment that kept us entertained for the entire decade. For those that were in their teens, we related to Haley Dunphy (Sarah Hyland), who was always confused about her path in life and wasn’t always doing the right thing. For those that were seen as the sensible member of the family, we related to Alex Dunphy (Ariel Winter) who, although she appeared to have everything together, she never really did, and relied on her relationship with her sibling in order to feel superior but to also be vulnerable. Gloria Delgado-Pritchett (Sofia Vergara) represented the underestimated yet striking individuals, Claire Dunphy (Julie Bowen) portrayed those with the incessant need to impress their parents, Phil Dunphy (Ty Burrell) was made for the hopeful parents always looking to do the right thing, whilst other kids could find themselves trying to findt their way in Luke Dunphy (Nolan Gould) or Manny Delgado (Rico Rodriguez). Everybody had their place in the family represented in ‘Modern Family’, so we found ourselves attached to see that play out every episode, with its charm, chaos and light-hearted nature. Also, Cameron Tucker (Eric Stonestreet) and Mitchell Pritchett (Jesse Tyler Ferguson) created a space for queer representation that both conformed and challenged the existing conventions, which especially for the beginning of the decade, was quite transformative.

12) Atlanta, FX (2016 - present)

A critical darling from its very first episode, ‘Atlanta’ gave us some of the 2010s most iconic episodes. From the jarring 'Teddy Perkins' episode to the innovatively shot 'B.A.N.' from the first season, this show was daring from its origins. The aforementioned season one episode proved to audiences that ‘Atlanta’ wasn’t an ordinary programme; the experimental production plays out as a talk-show, with some fake commercials being played between the story. With episodes like ‘Teddy Perkins’, the Donald Glover created show delivered one of the most unsettling projects this decade. The original airing on FX even aired with no ad breaks in between, forcing viewers to feel as eerie as intended. ‘Atlanta’ earned its place as one of the most defining shows of the decade as it proved to be daring without failure. Each episode told a story, and with its blend between comedy and drama, it really was a pinnacle programme from this era of blurred genres.

11) House of Cards, Netflix (2013 - 2018)

Netflix’s very first original TV show premiered back in 2013, and although a controversial programme today due to its male lead not knowing how consent works, we can’t deny the power that this show had throughout the years. Without the success of ‘House of Cards’ some of today’s biggest Netflix originals like 'Queer Eye', 'The Crown', 'Sex Education' and ‘Russian Doll’ may have ceased to exist. Due to the impact of the political drama, the streaming platform may not have had enough selling points to take on traditional broadcast television. ‘House of Cards’ may not be held to high regard anymore - with good reason - but it played its role in the golden age of television, and was one of the few significant shows that changed the way we watched television forever.

10) Orange Is The New Black, Netflix (2013 - 2019)

‘Orange Is The New Black’ was one of the few shows that changed TV viewership. Being one of Netflix’s first original programmes, it allowed the market to open up to the idea of binge-watching a programme, and giving traditional cable television a run for its money. But beyond changing how we watched television, the Jenji Kohan production changed what was on television. Prior to its controversial and damaging season four finale, the first three seasons of the show gave fans a welcoming set of episodes featuring strong, real and vulnerable female characters in serious situations and relationships. This continued on until the last season, however since the incident in the fourth season occurred, it took the show until its final installment to truly recover from its quality. But that doesn’t deter from the fact that this show had its impact, and found its way into people’s homes in ways that others couldn’t quite capture. ‘Orange Is The New Black’ created heart-wrenching stories tackling immigration, sexuality, rape, racism and more each episode. What made the show oddly superior to most of its peers is that although the lead was probably the most boring character on the show, the ensemble were so full of life and character that it more than made up for it. With characters such as Nicky Nichols (Natasha Lyonne), Poussey Washington (Samira Wiley) and Taystee Jefferson (Danielle Brooks) grabbing fans’ hearts every time they appeared on screen, it made the prison-based dramady something special. We dealt with Piper Chapman (Taylor Schilling) and her annoying antics so that we could see if Nicky was ever going to find the love and peaceful life she deserved. We dealt with the lead of the show in hopes that her connection with Taystee would give her the justice she fought for throughout the entirety of the programme. ‘Orange Is The New Black’ was far from perfect, but it ushered in a generation of new and diverse programming that put women at the forefront. It got a lot wrong, but as its intention was to change the way we watched TV, it ensured we got what was missing.

9) American Horror Story, FX (2011 - present)

Creator Ryan Murphy was known for some less serious projects prior to this, and although they were successful, this is the project that transcended him into one of the biggest stars of the 2010s. ‘American Horror Story’ premiered to rave reviews from fans and critics alike, and throughout the years placed itself in the meme Hall of Fame with moments like Emma Roberts’ “surprise, bitch”. The show was able to make an almost non-existent genre in TV thrive and survive for almost ten seasons. Fans flocked to this show because it didn’t rely on jump scares to consider itself “horror”. ‘American Horror Story’ created characters who, with visuals combined with their literally insane character work, gave the show the fear factor even blockbuster films of the same genre were missing. Murphy and co. created a cast of characters that although were only ever with us for a season or so, gave us a reason to come back each time. The cast itself are also a flawless set of performers, but it’s the writing from each episode that’s allowed the show to become a pinnacle of television in the 2010s. Also, Sarah Paulson.

8) Rupaul’s Drag Race, VH1 (2009 - present)

Nothing redefined a whole genre of television quite like ‘Rupaul’s Drag Race’. Ushering in a unique and fresh feel to the reality TV competition genre, Rupaul and his clan of drag queens delivered 10 seasons of the show this decade, as well as the four ‘All Stars’ seasons, and the international spin-offs. The show made its mark on the world with the help of the internet, as the viral memes such as Jasmine Masters’ “and I oop!” and Coco Montrese screaming “I’m not joking, b*tch!” were shared millions of times across the world wide web. We also got to see the queens have their lip sync battles impress fans around the globe; from Alyssa Edwards and Tatianna’s “Shut Up And Drive” to Brooke Lynn Hytes vs Yvie Oddly’s “Sorry Not Sorry”, the queens had fans gagging each week.

Drag has been seen as a fairly underground art form for many years, and throughout most of this show’s reign, the idea that it would remain this way was pretty consistent with its fanbase. However, within the latter years of the 2010’s, the queens of the werk-room transcended their talent into global fame, and have allowed drag to become the mainstream work of art it always deserved to be. Each season a talented and fiery bunch of drag queens strut into the werk room to be crowned ‘America’s Next Drag Superstar’. And with its wit, unique storytelling and ability to become instantly viral, ‘Rupaul’s Drag Race’ easily became the best reality show of the 2010’s. The show became so popular that the previously underground medium has given queens success at the Primetime Emmys, and even launched one of its biggest stars - Shangela Laquifa Wadley - into the Oscar winning film ‘A Star Is Born’. The rise to the top was a tough one for the drag competition, as the masses were never clued into the idea of drag as a concept, let alone a show full of openly queer artists, yet through the years the show and its cast prevailed. What made the show so special was that queer audiences could not only see themselves and their stories portrayed on television, but they didn’t have to deal with tragic endings and disrespectful storylines in order to do so. Queer fans could enjoy the programme for its fun nature whilst still feeling represented. And although the racial diversity only picked up towards the later seasons, it is still one of the most diverse programmes on television. The programme isn’t perfect when it comes to diversity and inclusion as it still has to tackle its gender bias, treatment of the queens of colour themselves and the fact that the scene behind the camera is still very much mostly white. But, that’s not to say that it hasn’t made some progress.

7) Black Mirror, Netflix (2011 - present)

It was pretty hard to be a TV fan this decade without hearing of this show, let alone surrendering and watching at least one episode. The science fiction anthology series cleverly took on a varied set of themes and challenged its viewers to question their everyday thoughts and actions. From having a Prime Minister have sex with a pig, to Miley Cyrus’s dramatic portrayal of Ashley O and the iconic San Junipero episode, it’s difficult to not navigate this episode without being entertained by this show one way or another. Although the Netflix programme doesn’t have to focus on long-term storytelling, it does have to convince us to care enough for new characters and stories each episode. The anthology series has allowed many kinds of tales to be told, and has managed to build a dedicated audience each time it returns. From its excellent accolades to its incredible critique, ‘Black Mirror’ is a programme unlike any other, and is by far one of the greatest programmes to come out of the 2010s.

6) Glee, FOX (2009 - 2015)

Although criticized for its inconsistent writing and eventual fan service, ‘Glee’ was a show unlike any other, and remains impactful to this day. The FOX musical dramady did something beyond being a decent show, it paved the way for LGBT+ representation for years following it. If there’s one thing the 2010s should be remembered for, it’s the amount of openly queer characters on our screens (be it good or bad). When ‘Glee’ had one of its leads, Kurt Hummel (Chris Colfer), come out in 2009 episode ‘Preggers’, an iconic moment of television immediately arose. Hummel may have made some questionable decisions since then, but the rest of the show followed suit with giving queer people somebody to see themselves in. Santana Lopez (Naya Rivera) had one of the greatest coming out scenes in 2011, Coach Beiste (Dot-Marie Jones) dealt with being in an abusive relationship in 2012, Wade “Unique” Adams’ (Alex Newell) gender issues were explored in 2015, and Brittany Pierce (Heather Morris) was given positive bisexual representation throughout the series. Although nobody’s story was ever perfect, the show opened the doors for more LGBT+ representation following it. Since its premiere, we’ve seen more (and somewhat better) queer representation in ‘One Day At A Time’, ‘Sense8’, 'The Bold Type', and creator Ryan Murphy's other programmes 'The New Normal' and 'Pose'. ‘Glee’ came at a time when queer youth needed representation more than ever, and it may not have been the best, but it was there, and it taught a generation of teens a whole lot about themselves, and for that, it ranks pretty high on this decade-end list. They also happen to have the most Hot 100 Entries of all time (soon to be topped by Drake, who is only one song behind), and received 18 Primetime Emmy nominations during the peak of the show in 2011, so some may have said it did quite well.

5) Parks and Recreation, NBC (2009 - 2015)

Beginning right at the end of the last decade and ending in the middle of this one, ‘Parks and Recreation’ definitely had a good shot at making an impact throughout the 2010s. And it managed to do exactly that. On top of being one of the few shows to have a worthy series finale, ‘Parks and Recreation’ was a programme that warmed our hearts every single episode and reminded us of a better life in an unfortunate political climate. Leslie Knope was a beacon of light in a dark world, ensuring that despite living what can be described as a simple life, she created something extraordinary. The Michael Schur original ranks so high as it has been a part of one of the most enjoyable kinds of comedies - the mockumentary - and did it extremely well. We’ve seen many shows make their mark amongst this genre, but ‘Parks and Recreation’ was able to do so without the help of a big Primetime Emmy push, and created a devoted fanbase. With the timeless memes and the rewatchable episodes, the citizens of Pawnee gave us some of the most enjoyable moments of the 2010s that will carry us into the 2020s just as well.

4) Fleabag, BBC One (2016 - 2019)

What appeared to be the quiet assassin of 2019 turned out to be one of the biggest shows of the 2010s. Phoebe Waller-Bridge released her one-woman show in 2013 in England and was soon picked up by BBC Three. Whilst the first season had its fair share of attention, it wasn’t until it returned for a second season in 2019 when Waller-Bridge truly left her mark. Viewers across the globe fell in love with the dark yet witty comedy as the show wasn’t afraid to show what figuring it all out was really about. It was dark, it was morally unhinged, it was funny, it was crass, it was flawed, it was simply real. Waller-Bridge captured complicated women in every episode, whilst remaining real and funny. This show - much like the very underrated ‘Chewing Gum’ - gave an honest, humorous voice to regular women just trying to figure life out as oddly and uncomfortable as possible.

3) Pose, FX (2018 - present)

The most vital LGBT+ inclusive show of the latter years of the decade, FX’s ‘Pose’ gave a platform to trans performers of colour with innovative and provocative storytelling. Although the show only arrived in late 2018, it’s earned a place on the list as it has helped push under-represented communities in the world of TV. With the likes of Billy Porter leading this show, the FX programme already had some celebrity prominence to keep it afloat, but beyond that it created stars out of its ensemble. The show has tackled the aids epidemic, life as a black queer person (most notably trans) and the origins of a lot of today’s queer culture. ‘Pose’ has set the tone for the next decade, and not only has become an important aspect of queer culture, but the television industry. As described by star Dominique Jackson in an interview with E!, "these things happened. You can't just sit in the comfort of your suburb and not realise that homelessness has occurred. Most of us who have lived in that time where the fear of contracting HIV and aids, the fear of wanting to work, the fear of walking the streets and not knowing if you're gonna get to your destination because someone is gonna kill you because of their thoughts about what you do in your bedroom, or how you express yourself. These things need to be seen. This is what 'Pose' does. It shows you everything about the juxtaposition between the rise of the Trump era, the literary scene, and the ballroom culture."

2) Stranger Things, Netflix (2016 - 2020)

One of Netflix’s biggest successes since its streaming origins in 2007, ‘Stranger Things’ was a quick fan favourite as soon as it debuted. Initially pitched as a mini-series, the 80’s-based programme became a word-of-mouth success so big that Netflix had no other option but to renew it again, and again, and again (in which 2020 will see its final chapter). What makes the success of this show so fascinating is that it was able to take a mostly child-oriented cast and create a project that attracted the masses beyond that age group. It would’ve been easy for ‘Stranger Things’ to become a Tumblr sensation for a year or two, being forgotten by most subscribers and its existence being remembered only by the GIF sets on inactive blogs, but it was much more than that. The Duffer Brothers allowed the show to reach into the hearts of multiple age groups by tugging on the heartstrings of loving parents with children, kids and teens longing for an adventurous life, and those with a reminiscent/romanticized vision of childhood in the 80’s. ‘Stranger Things’ became more than what was on the tin, and ensured that every viewer was giving a suspenseful and emotional first eight episodes that were so addictive many of forgave the show for its dismal sophomore year.

1) Game of Thrones, HBO (2011 - 2019)

Not only was this Emmy award winning series here for practically the entire decade, but it maintained its prominence for every single one of the years - even during its hiatus in 2018. Whether you loved the show or not, and no matter what your feelings regarding its final season are, there’s no denying that when it comes to the 2010s, ‘Game of Thrones’ will be the one show we will all reminisce on - for better or for worse. With the influx of streaming and on-demand services taking over, this HBO original will probably go down as the last show that we watch together. The programme was so popular that it practically forced its worldwide viewers to watch it beyond 1am on a Sunday night just to avoid seeing spoilers and to be able to talk about it freely the next morning. Even those that didn’t enjoy the show found it difficult to avoid spoilers, and for that, this show is definitely the show of the 2010s.

47 notes · View notes

visitingthefuneralhome · 5 years ago

Text

On Willow’s character arc from Inca Mummy Girl to Halloween

I’m fascinated by how Willow has actually had the least amount of character episodes as of Halloween (barring Giles) - counting Halloween as a character episode for everyone, given the way it splits attention pretty evenly to everybody’s issues. How does Willow become such an important character in the show, when right now she barely seems to feature?

As of now, these are the character episodes (counting character episodes as episodes that put a lead character at the epicentre of the plot, or episodes that take the viewpoint of a character other than Buffy) Cordelia: Out of Mind, Out of Sight; Reptile Boy; (Some Assembly Required) Xander: Teacher’s Pet; The Pack; (Prophecy Girl); Inca Mummy Girl Willow: I Robot, You Jane….?

At the early stages of the show, Xander is somewhat the deuteragonist, as the natural foil for Buffy. His character gives the show a way into the social world of high school as experienced by men, and his episodes are very much about these issues. Cordelia also functions as a foil for Buffy, and her episodes drag Buffy into the world of the rich, the popular, and the unfettered - they both function as access points into other social worlds Buffy and Willow might not be privy to on their own.

As a result, the one time a Willow episode was done, in which the character was used to give insight into the world of the nerds (I Robot, You Jane), that fell apart because the Scoobies are already nerds, so any portrayal of other nerds easily risks falling into absurd caricature. Willow doesn’t offer a neat contrast to Buffy the way Xander or Cordelia do, and so she’s often left to be supporting player rather than at the forefront of story.

And yet, over the course of the past three episodes, the writers have figured out how to make Willow a dynamic character by giving her more to do in the B-plot, and by threading a systematic, intentional growth over the season instead of by giving her big character episodes. (To my memory, Halloween and Phases are the closest things to Willow-centric episodes this season, and even then it’s shared).

In Inca Mummy Girl, Willow decides to try moving on from Xander. This episode is also the first time Oz notices her before meeting her, while she’s in her Inuit costume (problematic!). This moment has been an oft-played card thus far - Willow looking in from the outside (happens in Welcome to the Hellmouth, Prophecy Girl, and When She Was Bad). This is the last time the show will hit this beat, and is a nice way of reminding the viewers of where she is.

In Reptile Boy, Willow helps Buffy sneaks around and then calls out Giles and Angel for treating Buffy badly - her first time snapping at anyone on the show! Here, her moral code and sense of righteousness is blooming, and she is becoming more confident in her views.

In Halloween, this assertiveness is brought to the fore once more as she’s put in the position of taking charge and leading the group, while wearing a sexy ghost costume. She becomes a more adept leader and more comfortable in her own skin - though it’s important to note she does revert to her normal dress next episode! The experience in the costume does not magically change her, but is instead a way for her to realize that she can be multiple versions of herself, and arguably is what leads to her stronger experimentation with fashion over the next few seasons. (Not that Willow-style wasn’t already amazing). This is the last time Oz notices her before What’s My Line - her growth in the early season is complete, and she is about to take her next steps with her meeting Oz. The threading of Oz not only counterpoints her growth here, but is a great way of setting up her future growth seamlessly.

Arguably, this mini character arc and these small moments of character growth and development is what makes Buffy season 2 so damn good, and what makes Willow have the longevity to surpass Xander as deuteragonist by season 3. Even as Xander and Cordelia serve as good foils, being foils makes it difficult for the writers to push them in any one direction (and risk losing their storytelling capacity). They do grow and change, but they become nowhere near as dynamic as Willow does (until Cordelia leaves BtVS, where she has a stronger chance to exist outside of being a foil). Willow doesn’t serve a neat gateway or niche into other high school worlds, and so by necessity the writers have to give her more to do beyond just being a nerd. It is this choice that propels her into being one of the most well-written and developed characters in the Buffyverse.

#btvs #buffy the vampire slayer #willow rosenberg #btvs rewatch 2k20 #inca mummy girl #reptile boy #halloween

16 notes · View notes

grigori77 · 5 years ago

Text

The Works of Ridley Scott - My Top Ten

So I decided I’d drop another series of big post lumps of spam on you guys by rocking my favourite directors’ works by rating my personal favourites of each, and I figured what better place to start than my absolute number one, so here we go - these are my very favourite films of my absolute cinematic IDOL, the master of British auteur filmmakers. Enjoy ...

10. EXODUS: GODS & KINGS

It takes a really ballsy filmmaker to try and make a big budget live action Ten Commandments movie after Cecil B. DeMille’s monstrous Technicolour epic, but guts is something Scott’s never been lacking in, and the result is one of his most striking offerings of recent years, a meaty revisionist take on the Book of Exodus that jettisons most of the mysticism to concentrate on the gritty human struggle at its heart. It’s the story of two warring brothers and the lengths each is willing to go to in order to achieve their opposing ends, and while Scott typically delivers BIG TIME on the spectacle and immersive world-building, where he really shines is as an actor’s director, here rightly focusing on the deeply complex relationship between Christian Bale’s Moses and Joel Edgerton’s Pharaoh Ramesses II. The end result is a lesser known but no less worthy swords-and-sandals epic than his signature entry to the genre.

9. PROMETHEUS

Like many fans of the Xenomorph saga he helped create, I was excited but also understandably wary of his return to the franchise with a proposed “prequel”, and to be honest as an Alien movie this actually is a bit of a mess, trying a little too hard to apply that connective tissue and ultimately failing more than it succeeds (indeed, as a franchise entry, direct sequel Alien: Covenant is a far more successful effort). Personally, I’ve always preferred to simply consider it as a film in its own right, and as a standalone sci-fi horror thriller this is a CRACKING film, insidious, atmospheric, moody and magnificent in equal measure, Scott weaving a sense of dangerous mystery and palpable dread throughout that grips from enigmatic start to devastating finish. Noomi Rapace is an excellent Ripley-substitute, but the true breakaway star of the film is Michael Fassbender as twisted android sociopath David, just as chilling as the horrors he unleashes on his unsuspecting crewmates.

8. THELMA & LOUISE

To be brutally honest, Ridley’s output in the 1990s was largely unimpressive (White Squall left me cold, while 1492: Conquest of Paradise was technically brilliant but discouragingly slow and disjointed, and I think we can all agree cinema would be better off if GI Jane had never happened), but at least he got the decade off to a strong start with this beautiful, lyrical, heartfelt and undeniably powerful tale of unerring friendship triumphing against fearful odds. It may have been directed by a man, but it was written by a woman (Callie Khouri, creator of TV’s Nashville, who rightly won a Best Original Screenplay Oscar for her astounding work) and is unapologetically told from a woman’s point of view, which is finally becoming an accepted thing in blockbuster filmmaking, but back then it was still a new concept, and you have to applaud Scott for being one of its pioneers. It may be most well known these days for giving Brad Pitt his big break, but the film’s focus is VERY MUCH on Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon as the titular friends, forced to go on the run after an innocent night out goes horribly wrong. After becoming one of THE hot ticket date movies of the 90s, it’s still fondly remembered for its heartfelt message, gentle humour and powerful climax.

7. BLACK RAIN

Probably the closest Ridley ever came to capturing his brother Tony Scott’s more popcorn-friendly brand of super-slick, glossy blockbuster fare was this Japan-set fish-out-of-water cop flick, but he couldn’t help adding a real weight and substance to the final product, and the result is one of my very favourite thrillers of the 80s. Michael Douglas was riding high after his Academy Award win for Wall Street, but his performance as hot-headed maverick NYPD detective Nick Conklin has always been my personal favourite, and he shares strong chemistry with a young Andy Garcia as his wise-cracking partner Charlie Vincent, but the film’s understated secret weapon is heavyweight Japanese character actor Ken Takakura as Masahiro, the stoic, by-the-book Osaka police inspector they’re forced to team up with in order to capture rogue Yakuza underboss Sato (a deliciously feral turn from the Yūsaku Matsuda in his very last screen role before his death just months after the film’s release) and bust an international counterfeiting ring. This is definitely Scott’s glossiest film, but there’s hidden depth behind the neon-drenched visuals, the expertly staged set-pieces perfectly countered by a robust story, precision-crafted character work and bucket-loads of emotional heft (especially surrounding the film’s high point, one of the most devastating character deaths in cinematic history). It may not be held in the high regard of many of his more “sophisticated” films, but in my opinion it’s just as worthy of recognition, and I’ll defend it to the death.

6. THE MARTIAN

Scott’s last truly GREAT film (to date, anyway) is also one of his most effortlessly likeable, a breathless, breezy and thoroughly FUN adaptation of the bestselling debut novel of space-exploration geek Andy Weir. Matt Damon must have been born to play Mark Watney, an astronaut in the third manned mission to Mars who is accidentally left for dead on the surface when the crew are forced to evacuate by a catastrophic dust storm; alone and with no means of escape, Watney must use all his scientific smarts to survive long enough for NASA’s desperate rescue mission to reach him. He’s a thoroughly endearing everyman hero we can’t help rooting for, self-deprecating and oozing sass all day long, and in his company the film’s two-and-a-half hours simply RACE by, while one of Scott’s strongest ever supporting casts (which includes Jessica Chastain, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Sean Bean and a glorious scene-stealing cameo from Donald Glover) once again proves that he really is one of the very best actor’s directors around. Thoroughly ingenious, visually stunning and frequently laugh-out-loud hilarious, this is definitely Scott’s most endearing film to date, about as perfect a popcorn flick as you’re gonna find outside the MCU …

5. KINGDOM OF HEAVEN (Director’s Cut)

Certainly the most maligned film in his oeuvre, this has perhaps the most troubled production history of ALL his works, famously mauled in post as 20th Century Fox rushed to get the still unfinished feature ready enough for its summer 2005 release, the clunky theatrical cut understandably met with mixed reviews and somewhat underperforming at the box office. Thank the gods, then, for Scott’s unerring perfectionism – he couldn’t rest with that lacklustre legacy, so he knuckled down and produced what is, in my opinion, the very best of all his director’s cuts, reinstating an unprecedented FIFTY MINUTES of missing material which doesn’t just flesh out character arcs but frequently creates an entirely new, far richer and MUCH more rewarding overall narrative, and the final feature was met with thoroughly well-deserved critical acclaim. Not only is this one of my favourite Ridley Scott films, it’s one of my very favourite historical epics PERIOD, a magnificently rich, sprawling saga of blood, sex, honour and courtly intrigue as we follow blacksmith-turned-knight Balian (Orlando Bloom in one of his very best roles) on his quest for redemption in the Holy Land at the height of the Third Crusade. This is still one of the director’s most expensive films, and EVERY PENNY is right there on the screen, each scene designed to perfection and dripping in astounding period detail, while the sweeping cinematography is some of the very best in his entire catalogue, and the battle sequences so expansively vast they even put Gladiator’s opening to shame. So, far from being his greatest folly, this was ultimately one of Scott’s greatest triumphs, and I can’t recommend it enough.

4. BLACK HAWK DOWN

In my opinion, this is the absolute PEAK of Scott’s cinematic achievements to date as an action director – almost two-and-a-half hours of relentless blood, bullets, smoke and terror that’s as exhilarating as it is exhausting, as emotionally uplifting as it is harrowing, quite simply the DEFINITIVE portrayal of the bonds of brotherhood forged by men under fire. The film tells the story of the Battle of Mogadishu in 1993, 24 blood-soaked hours in which US military forces were trapped behind enemy lines and besieged on all sides by hostile Somali forces after a botched raid saw two Black Hawk helicopters shot down, precipitating a snowballing military catastrophe and a bitter fight for survival. Certainly the film takes many liberties with the historical accuracy (then again that’s pretty much Hollywood’s standard approach regarding true story war movies), but there’s no denying it perfectly captures the desperate chaos the soldiers must have faced on the day, throwing the viewer headfirst into a dusty, noisy hell and refusing to let him out again. The action sequences are some of the finest I have EVER seen committed to film, but the film has just as much heart as guts, tugging our heartstrings and jerking plenty of tears because we really come to care about these boys and what happens to them. Intense, rousing, explosive, provocative – definitely the action highlight of Scott’s oeuvre.

3. ALIEN

It may have some decidedly humble beginnings, but the opening chapter in the other jewel in 20th Century Fox’s sci-fi franchise crown is now considered to be THE greatest science fiction horror film of all time, and rightly so – it’s a textbook example of a flawlessly-executed high-concept “haunted house in space” flick, a master-class in slow-building atmospherics, sustained tension and some truly hair-raising shocks that are as fresh and effective today as they were back in 1979. Not bad for something that started out as a pulpy B-picture script from Dan O’Bannon (co-writer and star of John Carpenter’s cult feature debut and one-time student film Dark Star). The cast is stellar (ahem), dominated OF COURSE by then pretty much unknown young upstart Sigourney Weaver in what REMAINS the greatest role of her decidedly impressive career, but the true star of the film is the creature itself, the late H.R. Giger’s twisted, primal design teased with consummate skill to maximise the stealthy effectiveness of what has become the definitive extraterrestrial nightmare fuel of sci-fi cinema. Ultimately I’m more of an Aliens fan myself, but I don’t deny that this is a MASTERPIECE of the genre, and I f£$%ing LOVE IT.

2. GLADIATOR

It may have been usurped by Kingdom of Heaven as Scott’s most ambitious film, but his first dabble in swords-and-sandals cinema remains the best of his historical epics, and at the time proved to be a MASSIVE shot in the arm for what had long become a flagging, largely forgotten genre, spawning a veritable LEGION of bandwagon-jumping followers. Needless to say, NOBODY does this better than Scott, who brought the opulent excess of ancient Rome and its vast empire to vivid life in all its bloodthirsty, duplicitous detail, from the back-stabbing intrigues of the Senate to the life-and-death drama of the Coliseum. The script is rich and heady stuff (penned as it is by former playwright John Logan), exquisitely performed by a premium-cut cast (particularly impressive was the late Oliver Reed in his very last screen role) and bolstered by some of the most impressive battle scenes ever committed to film, but the true driving force of the film is the ferocious antagonism between the hero and villain, Russell Crowe and Joaquin Phoenix both making the transition from rising-stars to genuine A-listers with major box office clout thanks to their truly electrifying performances. After his relative creative slump in the 90s, Scott’s first offering of the new Millennium proved the start of a major renaissance in his work, and thankfully it’s shown no sign of flagging since …

1. BLADE RUNNER

Not only is this my favourite film by my favourite director, but also what, if I was REALLY PRESSED, I would have to call my very favourite movie EVER. I’m gonna be waxing most lyrical about this in great detail when I drop my big-screen sci-fi Top Ten on here, so I don’t want to talk about it TOO MUCH here … suffice to say this has been a dominant fixture in my favourites since my early adolescence, when I first stumbled across it on TV one Saturday night, and even though it was the theatrical cut with its clunky voice-over and that ridiculous tacked-on happy ending, I was instantly captured by its searing visionary brilliance and dark, brutally nihilistic power, so when Scott finally released his first Director’s Cut I was already DEEPLY in love with this film. Sure, being a Star Wars fan, Harrison Ford will ALWAYS be Han Solo for me (along with Indiana Jones, of course), but my personal favourite role of his career is Rick Deckard, the sleazy, downtrodden and world-weary android-hunting gumshoe stumbling through his most deadly case in the mean streets of rain-lashed cyberpunk megalopolis Los Angeles circa 2019, while Rutger Hauer effortlessly steals the film as his mercurial nemesis, live-fast-die-young Nexus 6 Roy Batty. This is still THE MOST BEAUTIFUL FILM I HAVE EVER SEEN, the visual effects work still standing up perfectly today, the exquisite design work and peerless atmospheric cinematography rightly going on to inform and influence an entire genre of science-fiction both on the big screen and off, and I cannot recommend it enough to anyone who hasn’t already seen it. Deliciously dark, fiendishly intelligent and heart-rending in its stubborn refusal to deliver easy answers or present us with a cathartic HAPPY ending (no matter what the theatrical cut might want you to think), this really is as good as cinema gets.

There you have it, my top movies from the man I personally consider to be the greatest filmmaker around tody, and here’s hoping we’re gonna see a lot more from him yet ... Sir Ridley Scott, knight of the f£$%ing realm ...

#Ridley Scott #sir ridley scott #exodus gods & kings #prometheus #thelma & louise #black rain #the martian #kingdom of heaven #kingdom of heaven director's cut #black hawk down #Alien #gladiator #Blade Runner #greatest director of all time

15 notes · View notes