Okay, I'm throwing this in here partially for a laugh, because it's really insane. Did you know that Barak Obama is distantly related to both President Bush and Brad Pitt? Not to mention the fact that Hilary Clinton is related to Angelina Jolie and Camilla Parker-Bowles?
Talk about weird.
Monday, March 31, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Do Hard Things
Alex and Brett of the blog "Rebelution" released their first book on tuesday! Furthermore the book ranked #5 on the overall Amazon bestseller list, and #1 on the Christianity list! This is amazing! (Especially remembering that these guys are only 19!)
Check out this page for more details...and then maybe consider going over to amazon to buy it! (No, I haven't yet, but I'm sure I will eventually)
Check out this page for more details...and then maybe consider going over to amazon to buy it! (No, I haven't yet, but I'm sure I will eventually)
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
On Writing...
Considering that I listed my occupation as "author" I've written surprisingly little about my own writing projects. The main reason for that is simply that I don't want to risk my ideas being stolen. Also, I've heard that if you post any of your writing online, that counts as being "published" and can mess things up when you go to get the final work published by an actual publishing company.
However, I do like to discuss some of the ideas running around in my head...and Master Xavier from Catholic Discussion recently did a similar post, so we can make it the "Theme of the Week" or something...right Paul?
The following ideas are my own and directly copying them without my permission counts as plagarisim.
My current trilogy revolves around three sisters, each who take a seperate journey in time or space (earth space, not outer space) to resolve a historical/legandary cycle of distruction that is repeating itself in a differant time (modern or otherwise).
Each of the sisters also has a male counterpart who plays an equal role in ending (or, as I call it, straightening) the cycle. My heroines are not "warrior princesses" and, to the best of my ability, their roles are feminine in nature.
Something that has only developed recently is that each of the girls actually represents an element. I already knew that they each had a flower/plant, but the element part of it rather surprised me. This isn't original with me, each member of the Fantastic Four, for example, also represents an element. However, it was a rather cool discovery.
Theia, (her name is actually Aletheia, which is the Greek word for truth) the eldest, represents water. She is usually peaceful, but can become quite fierce if necessary, has unseen depths, and will work away steady at something until she achieves it. Her flower is the Scottish Thistle. Also, the other characters often notice that her eyes are the color of water- somewhat hard to place.
Lizzie, the first twin, represents fire. She is hotheaded and passionate, with a great zest for life. She is also the most physically attractive of the sisters. Her flower is the English Rose.
Rachel, the second twin, represents earth, and is in many ways the opposite of Lizzie. She is quite, nurturing, (life-giver), gentle, yet firm in her resolve. Her "plant" is a tree, but I am not certain if it will be a certain kind of tree, or just a tree in general.
The sisters all make appearances in each other's stories, but the books that are "theirs" are really "their" story. However, their brother Joel (the middle child) will be going along with Lizzie for her adventure. He's not the hero of her story though.
There are also my three heros. However I am not going to reveal their names at this point, because they would give away too many plot secrets of books 2 and 3. (Especially 3).
The reason I am making this post now is because I have reached (actually, passed) the halfway point in my major revision process. I had to do some intensive reworking, which includes almost completely rewriting about 4 or 5 chapters. I had one section originally set in Wales that I had to move to France. However the upside of all that was that I got to introduce one the major characters for book 2 that I am extremely excited about. He's rather young and cocky right now, so it will be interesting to see how he matures as I continue writing!
Well, that's all for now, folks. If all goes well I'll be able to start the publication process later this year. Whether or not it'll ever hit the bookstore shelves remains to be seen.
However, I do like to discuss some of the ideas running around in my head...and Master Xavier from Catholic Discussion recently did a similar post, so we can make it the "Theme of the Week" or something...right Paul?
The following ideas are my own and directly copying them without my permission counts as plagarisim.
My current trilogy revolves around three sisters, each who take a seperate journey in time or space (earth space, not outer space) to resolve a historical/legandary cycle of distruction that is repeating itself in a differant time (modern or otherwise).
Each of the sisters also has a male counterpart who plays an equal role in ending (or, as I call it, straightening) the cycle. My heroines are not "warrior princesses" and, to the best of my ability, their roles are feminine in nature.
Something that has only developed recently is that each of the girls actually represents an element. I already knew that they each had a flower/plant, but the element part of it rather surprised me. This isn't original with me, each member of the Fantastic Four, for example, also represents an element. However, it was a rather cool discovery.
Theia, (her name is actually Aletheia, which is the Greek word for truth) the eldest, represents water. She is usually peaceful, but can become quite fierce if necessary, has unseen depths, and will work away steady at something until she achieves it. Her flower is the Scottish Thistle. Also, the other characters often notice that her eyes are the color of water- somewhat hard to place.
Lizzie, the first twin, represents fire. She is hotheaded and passionate, with a great zest for life. She is also the most physically attractive of the sisters. Her flower is the English Rose.
Rachel, the second twin, represents earth, and is in many ways the opposite of Lizzie. She is quite, nurturing, (life-giver), gentle, yet firm in her resolve. Her "plant" is a tree, but I am not certain if it will be a certain kind of tree, or just a tree in general.
The sisters all make appearances in each other's stories, but the books that are "theirs" are really "their" story. However, their brother Joel (the middle child) will be going along with Lizzie for her adventure. He's not the hero of her story though.
There are also my three heros. However I am not going to reveal their names at this point, because they would give away too many plot secrets of books 2 and 3. (Especially 3).
The reason I am making this post now is because I have reached (actually, passed) the halfway point in my major revision process. I had to do some intensive reworking, which includes almost completely rewriting about 4 or 5 chapters. I had one section originally set in Wales that I had to move to France. However the upside of all that was that I got to introduce one the major characters for book 2 that I am extremely excited about. He's rather young and cocky right now, so it will be interesting to see how he matures as I continue writing!
Well, that's all for now, folks. If all goes well I'll be able to start the publication process later this year. Whether or not it'll ever hit the bookstore shelves remains to be seen.
Monday, March 24, 2008
If Gandalf had Instant Messenger
YahooMail, apparently, is using LOTR as a marketing point to show off some new features. Here is a hilarious short movie about how Gandalf and Frodo could have utilized their services...
10 Most Historically Inaccurate Movies
My brother called this to my attention last week, and lo and behold the same link showed up again at Christianity Today Movies! So how could I not share it with the rest of you?
Of course, without even seeing it, I knew Braveheart was inaccurate (it wasn't even accurate to the book it was supposedly inspired by!). And there aren't too many other surprises here. My only question is why movies like "King Arthur" and "Kingdom of Heaven" didn't get listed. I guess they simply didn't have the fame to be worth the time.
Of course, without even seeing it, I knew Braveheart was inaccurate (it wasn't even accurate to the book it was supposedly inspired by!). And there aren't too many other surprises here. My only question is why movies like "King Arthur" and "Kingdom of Heaven" didn't get listed. I guess they simply didn't have the fame to be worth the time.
Friday, March 21, 2008
"Make 'em laugh, make 'em cry, make 'em wait"
According to novelist Wilkie Collins (contemporary of Charles Dickens) this is the recipe for a good novel. I'm not certain that he's made me cry yet, but he certainly has made me laugh and even more certainly made me wait for the answer to the mystery.
I should say mysteries, because so far I've been able to read the two best known of his novels, The Woman in White and The Moonstone. Both of them, though slightly dry for the first few pages, soon picked up speed and completely absorbed me- even though The Woman in White was on my laptop and I could only read all 800+ pages on my laptop screen. (The books are free to download from Project Gutenburg- but I opted to buy The Moonstone.)
The novels could be catagorized as "gothic" (as many novels in those days were) and yet they are just as likely to be called the first in the long and prosperous line of detective novels. They are mysteries, as well as romances, with a touch of the strange (though not unnatural). They are English, yet they are connected to things foreign.
The Woman in White first came to my attention when I was in London, as the musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber was playing at the time and there were posters for it everywhere. Then it continued to follow me by being mentioned several times over at Narniaweb by members that I respected. Finally I downloaded the thing onto my computer (being at the time away from a library) and proceeded to read it on my laptop.
I had cheated, however, to make sure that it wasn't a ghost story, by reading the Wikipedia synopsis of the musical. The book, however, is quite differant and there were several surprises still in store for me.
The Woman in White is the tale of a young art teacher, Walter, and two half-sisters Marian and Laura (his students). He falls in love with Laura, the younger (and more beautiful) of the sisters, but their differance in situation makes it impossible to marry. She is, furthermore, promised to marry an old friend of her father's. Things become more complicated, however, when a woman dressed in white appears, warning Laura against the marriage. Laura, however, honors her dead father's wishes and marries her betrothed, but not without premonitions of the evil that is later to befall her and her sister under the man's roof. Marian (the ugly sister and the book's real protagonist) and Walter must set out on a quest to unravel the mystery intent on distroying their lives. Murder, madness and mistaken identity weave their way through this narrative, ending in a most astonishing solution.
However, even more astonishing in conclusion is The Moonstone, which, unfortunately, was once again somewhat spoiled for me by having seen the Wishbone version as a child. The novel holds so many more layers, though, that there was a great deal I was unaware of.
In this one, a famous Indian diamond, used in Hindu religious rituals, is stolen by a British officer, who then maliciously bequeathes it to his niece to revenge himself against his sister. He knows that the Indian priests will stop at nothing to recover the diamond. True to his expectation, woe is wreaked upon the house of Verinder, and young Rachel turns against her faithful suitor, who then mounts an investigation to discover what really happened to the diamond.
In both of these novels Wilkie Collins employs an unusual but effective narrative style. Both books are "compilations" assembled by the heros (Walter and Franklin), consisting of individual narratives of the principle charaters at the point in the story when they were present. These narratives consist of firsthand accounts from the heros, one heroine, one butler (who turns to Robinson Crusoe in any difficulty), a coroner's report, a zealous but misguided reformer, a doctor specializing in opium, an invalid uncle with impossible nerves, and finally (to top it all), a report from one of the villians himself.
The mixed narrative style is fascinating, giving a depth and amusement to the book, as well as a sense of realisim, since in real life, it is minor characters (like butlers) who see the most. It also preserves the mystery of the novel, since we are kept guessing at things (such as why Rachel has turned so adamently against Franklin) that would be quite clear if the heroine herself had narrated the novel.
So if you're looking for early 19th century literature, and you're not in the mood for Austen or Dickens, and feel like trying a mystery...I heartily recommend Wilkie Collins.
I should say mysteries, because so far I've been able to read the two best known of his novels, The Woman in White and The Moonstone. Both of them, though slightly dry for the first few pages, soon picked up speed and completely absorbed me- even though The Woman in White was on my laptop and I could only read all 800+ pages on my laptop screen. (The books are free to download from Project Gutenburg- but I opted to buy The Moonstone.)
The novels could be catagorized as "gothic" (as many novels in those days were) and yet they are just as likely to be called the first in the long and prosperous line of detective novels. They are mysteries, as well as romances, with a touch of the strange (though not unnatural). They are English, yet they are connected to things foreign.
The Woman in White first came to my attention when I was in London, as the musical by Andrew Lloyd Webber was playing at the time and there were posters for it everywhere. Then it continued to follow me by being mentioned several times over at Narniaweb by members that I respected. Finally I downloaded the thing onto my computer (being at the time away from a library) and proceeded to read it on my laptop.
I had cheated, however, to make sure that it wasn't a ghost story, by reading the Wikipedia synopsis of the musical. The book, however, is quite differant and there were several surprises still in store for me.
The Woman in White is the tale of a young art teacher, Walter, and two half-sisters Marian and Laura (his students). He falls in love with Laura, the younger (and more beautiful) of the sisters, but their differance in situation makes it impossible to marry. She is, furthermore, promised to marry an old friend of her father's. Things become more complicated, however, when a woman dressed in white appears, warning Laura against the marriage. Laura, however, honors her dead father's wishes and marries her betrothed, but not without premonitions of the evil that is later to befall her and her sister under the man's roof. Marian (the ugly sister and the book's real protagonist) and Walter must set out on a quest to unravel the mystery intent on distroying their lives. Murder, madness and mistaken identity weave their way through this narrative, ending in a most astonishing solution.
However, even more astonishing in conclusion is The Moonstone, which, unfortunately, was once again somewhat spoiled for me by having seen the Wishbone version as a child. The novel holds so many more layers, though, that there was a great deal I was unaware of.
In this one, a famous Indian diamond, used in Hindu religious rituals, is stolen by a British officer, who then maliciously bequeathes it to his niece to revenge himself against his sister. He knows that the Indian priests will stop at nothing to recover the diamond. True to his expectation, woe is wreaked upon the house of Verinder, and young Rachel turns against her faithful suitor, who then mounts an investigation to discover what really happened to the diamond.
In both of these novels Wilkie Collins employs an unusual but effective narrative style. Both books are "compilations" assembled by the heros (Walter and Franklin), consisting of individual narratives of the principle charaters at the point in the story when they were present. These narratives consist of firsthand accounts from the heros, one heroine, one butler (who turns to Robinson Crusoe in any difficulty), a coroner's report, a zealous but misguided reformer, a doctor specializing in opium, an invalid uncle with impossible nerves, and finally (to top it all), a report from one of the villians himself.
The mixed narrative style is fascinating, giving a depth and amusement to the book, as well as a sense of realisim, since in real life, it is minor characters (like butlers) who see the most. It also preserves the mystery of the novel, since we are kept guessing at things (such as why Rachel has turned so adamently against Franklin) that would be quite clear if the heroine herself had narrated the novel.
So if you're looking for early 19th century literature, and you're not in the mood for Austen or Dickens, and feel like trying a mystery...I heartily recommend Wilkie Collins.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Favorite Last Lines of a Novel
Jeffrey Overstreet posted this over at his blog today. I always think it's amazing what "100" lists people can think of! This one is noteworthy...particularily since they did include my favorite last line (or at least, the one that comes most readily to mind).
‘It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.’ –Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities (1859)
What surprised me was that Emma got a mention as well...hmmm...makes me wonder who put the list together and how they decided upon it...
‘It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.’ –Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities (1859)
What surprised me was that Emma got a mention as well...hmmm...makes me wonder who put the list together and how they decided upon it...
As You Like It
I feel somewhat duty-bound to write up a short review of this film, particularily since the major Christain review sites didn't. (I don't believe it was released to theatres, at least in the US, so that's why).Shakespeare's comedy, As You Like It is the story of duos. Two young women, two pairs of two brothers, two fools, two pairs of couples....two devoted servants....the list goes on and on. And in all of these there is some differance in that one represents the light, and the other represents the darker side of life. Even with the young women (Rosalind and Celia), Rosalind is the one abandoned, and the one that chooses to employ the masculine disguise for deeper purposes, while Celia is merely along for the ride.
In short, one Duke is banished to the Forest of Arden and his brother takes his place. The Good duke's daughter, Rosalind, is banished, and her faithful cousin (daughter of the evil duke) runs away with her. Both girls take on the disguise of shepherds- but Rosalind wears the (rather unconvincing) garb of a man.
Meanwhile there is another pair of brothers, Oliver and Orlando. Oliver banishes his younger brother, Orlando- (who happens to be in love with Rosalind).
All of these eventually end up in the Forest of Arden, where many crazy things happen...and Rosalind teaches Orlando to be a proper lover- in the guise of a shepherd boy, Ganymede, "acting as" Rosalind.
Because this is a comedy, it does, of course have a happy ending. If, of course, you consider four weddings to be happy. Fear not, I shall not tell you whom they occur betweeen.
Now, onto Branagh's version.
First of all, I must say that the premise of this adaptation is one of the more unique Shakespearean twists I've seen in years. The whole thing (originally, I believe, in France) takes place in 18th century Japan. As such we have the music, costume and scenery of Japanese culture. It more or less works, though I felt the Japanese culture could have been utilized even more in making this adaptation truely work. As such, after the beginning scenes, it felt more like a backdrop than a plot device.
The other interesting feature is the mixed race cast. Rosalind and her family are white traders/merchants, and Orlando and his family are black...I'm not sure what. I assume that they are traders as well. Then, of course, a very few supporting cast members are actually Japanese. (I was hoping that Orlando would be Japanese, but I suppose they couldn't get good enough actors). The whole premise is probably a bit jarring for those who expect a typical Shakespearing all-white cast- but those who saw Kenneth Branagh's brilliant casting of Denzel Washington in Much Ado About Nothing (like me) will be prepared and delighted by this breach of conventions.
But while Orlando was portrayed perfectly, Rosalind was less delightful. I hate to say this because I loved Bryce Dallas Howard's work in "The Village" but I feel she was rather cramped in this role. It's a difficult role because for half of the movie, Rosalind is in the garb of a man. The difficulty for any director is how to keep his actress's feminity, while at the same time portraying a convincing "man." Howard is simply too pretty to be mistaken as a man, and the lack of dirt on her face or deeping of her voice makes this even harder to believe. I'm assuming this whole scenario worked rather better in Shakespeare's time, when all the characters were played by men anyhow!
The film is rated PG and pretty much for the bawdiness of the "happy fool," Touchstone. His part is mercifully downplayed in this film, but still, it's worth skipping the scene with he and his lady love, Aubrey in her...goat hut? Definetly not for children.
Also, Orlando engages in a Japanese style wrestling match in the early part of the film, and the loincloth doesn't really cover the buttocks very well. (The scene is crucial to the movie, however, and establishes in a few brilliantly nuanced looks, the instant attraction between Rosalind and Orlando).
It is also worth commenting on the rather awkward "courtship" that occurs when Rosalind-in-disguise-as-Ganymede-the-man makes Orlando "pretend" that she is Rosalind. Nothing happens, but there's one point at which it seems like they are going to kiss...and it's just awkward when you consider that Orlando is supposed to believe that Rosalind is, at this point in the movie, a man! (However unconvincing) The ideal situation is not to dwell on this too much.
I absolutely adored Branagh's last Shakespearean Comedy, Much Ado About Nothing. It was witty, and lighthearted and just plain fun to watch. As You Like It is, at it's heart, a bit more twisted. It can be done with all the humor of Much Ado (as my college friends proved last year in a delightful staged reading!) but can also be rather...odd. It is odd. The characters and situations are rather wacky. I've never been fond of this particular play.
If you enjoy Shakespeare, or As You Like It, or Kenneth Branagh's directing (although he's not as strong here), then this is worth watching. However it is weak enough that if you don't have background with one of these, you may find yourself wondering "what is the point of this anyhow?"
Friday, March 14, 2008
The Silver Chair
An interesting and insightful article about C.S. Lewis's book The Silver Chair, written by one of my favorite modern authors, Regina Doman.
Don't worry, I'll be writing some things of my own soon! Besides finishing the P&P series, I've got some other literary things I want to tackle. Just want to share the fruits of my web browsing with you all!
Don't worry, I'll be writing some things of my own soon! Besides finishing the P&P series, I've got some other literary things I want to tackle. Just want to share the fruits of my web browsing with you all!
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
To Die in Jerusalem
Click here to read Christianity Today's interview of a young Israeli filmmaker who just finished making a documentry about two teenaged girls who died in a Jerusalem bombing- one was the bomber, the other was a victim.
The documentry, titled "To Die in Jerusalem" looks very interesting. Apparently it's available to buy online, but I have no idea whether it is close-captioned or not for hard-of-hearing folks like me. However, the Middle East situation is always important to stay in touch with, and I think this interview is worth reading, even if you can't get a copy of the documentry itself.
The documentry, titled "To Die in Jerusalem" looks very interesting. Apparently it's available to buy online, but I have no idea whether it is close-captioned or not for hard-of-hearing folks like me. However, the Middle East situation is always important to stay in touch with, and I think this interview is worth reading, even if you can't get a copy of the documentry itself.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Orual's Complaint
Click here to see a film project I filmed and directed last spring for my "Modern Mythmakers" class.
The film is titled "Orual's Complaint" and is inspired by C.S. Lewis's book, "Til We Have Faces." In the book, the main character, Orual, looses her sister, Psyche, to an unseen god. (This is a retelling of the Greek myth of Psyche and Cupid.) The story, though set in a pagan world, explores the same hardships that a non-christain faces when one of their family members turns to Christ.
In my short film, I explored this concept, using Orual's complaint against the god's as the narration, and interweaving the story of Orual and Pysche with that of a pair of modern day sisters going through the Christain scenario I explained above.
The film is about seven minutes long, and was filmed in two afternoons. My brother helped me with some of the special effects and music editing.
(Note, I do not appear in the film, which is rather unusual for a project of mine.)
The film is titled "Orual's Complaint" and is inspired by C.S. Lewis's book, "Til We Have Faces." In the book, the main character, Orual, looses her sister, Psyche, to an unseen god. (This is a retelling of the Greek myth of Psyche and Cupid.) The story, though set in a pagan world, explores the same hardships that a non-christain faces when one of their family members turns to Christ.
In my short film, I explored this concept, using Orual's complaint against the god's as the narration, and interweaving the story of Orual and Pysche with that of a pair of modern day sisters going through the Christain scenario I explained above.
The film is about seven minutes long, and was filmed in two afternoons. My brother helped me with some of the special effects and music editing.
(Note, I do not appear in the film, which is rather unusual for a project of mine.)
Monday, March 10, 2008
P&P vs. P&P part 2: Major Characters- the Ladies
Let's begin with the most obvious, shall we?
Miss Elizabeth Bennet.
Played in the A&E version by the lovely Jennifer Ehle, and in the 2005 version by the equally lovely Keira Knightley.
I know some viewers can be annoyed by Keira Knightley, but I happen to be one of her fans, so I'm not using that argument against her portrayel as Lizzy.
Actually, I think both women portrayed our heroine in very similar ways. I was watching them, and found that they actually use many similar mannerisims. I don't know if that was unintentional, or if Knightley or her director made a concious decision to imitate Ehle.
Lizzy Bennet is 20 years of age, and is known for her liveliness. She is the second prettiest of the Bennet sisters (as well as the second oldest) and is intelligent, fond both of reading and of walking. Both Knightely and Ehle do a wonderful job of portraying all of this. Ehle, however, comes across as a bit older (26 at the time), a bit more mature in her views, and it seems less likely that she would make the flawed character judgements that Lizzy does. Knightley is younger (20) and brings a bit more youthful energy to the role. This is no critique of Ehle herself, merely a questioning of whether she was a bit too old to play the part. She certainly took what she had and used it very well.
With Jane Bennet, Lizzy's older, sweeter and prettier sister, the A&E version did not do quite so well. Unfortunately their actress was pregnant at the time- having seen pictures of her later I can say she is a much more attractive lady than she appears on screen. However, in P&P I simply cannot accept her as Jane, for all of her sweetness, because Jane is over and over again declared to be the prettiest of the sisters. The 2005 version was daring enough to cast a secondary role that risked overshadowing the leading lady and in doing so they were more faithful to the Jane created by Austen.
Let me say now- looks are important. In a book we can overlook them, but on screen we must enjoy watching the characters- especially if we are asked to love them. When the production is 5 hours long, physical attractiveness is even more important.
It is because I love Jane that I make this distinction. I want to like her- she is one of the sweetest creatures to walk the pages of a novel and it is important that this translates to screen. Unfortunately so much of loving her depends on watching her- something that I cannot enjoy in the A&E version. Especially when they repeatedly say that she is prettier than Ehle's Lizzy- which I think any viewer would agree is an erroneous statement.
*sigh*
I'll deal with Mrs. Bennet and Lydia next and get the worst of the A&E critiques out of the way. In fact, my issues with them are so similar, that I shall treat them as one. (The same critiques go to Lady Catherine de Borough, by the way).
There is a certain kind of acting that works for the stage- and there is another kind of acting that works for film. On stage, over the top, caricature acting can be quite funny and enjoyable to watch. However, it simply doesn't work on film. I felt that Lydia, Mrs. Bennet and Lady Catherine, while quite funny in their own way, simply did not work on film. I could not take them as real people.
Now, that is one way to view those characters. Certainly they could be represented that way from reading Austen. However, when the rest of the movie takes itself seriously and attempts to portray events "realistically" it is quite jarring to find these characters that are so obviously exaguated.
Now in the 2005 version the actors were given many of the same lines, the same mannerisims, and yet they played them realistically, using those words and actions in a way that makes sense and is believable.
I'll come back to this topic again when I discuss Mr. Collins.
However, lest this post be seen as too harsh against the A&E version, I will discuss a rather intriguing character last.
Charlotte Lucas was, I thought, admirably portrayed in both versions. Yet she is portrayed differantly- and once again, looks have something to do with it.
A&E's version of Charlotte is actually rather pretty. And I'm not certain her age is mentioned. Thus her move to marry Mr. Collins appears less desparate and more cool and calculating.
2005's Charlotte is much more obviously plain, and her conversation with Lizzy reveals her desparation. She is 27- she doesn't want to be a burden to her parents.
And yet both portrayels are realistic. The first, is perhaps, a less sympathetic view, and perhaps a little less likely, and yet I like to see this character played both ways. A woman could marry Mr. Collins out of sheer desperation- or simply because one wants a house of one's own and doesn't particularily care who one is married to. (They're not exactly the same thing- if you've seen both versions more than once, I think you'll understand what I mean.)
Actually, although I suspect that my earlier comments will generate more controversy, I am most curious to hear the opinions that you all have of Charlotte Lucas/Collins. Do you prefer one of the portrayels, and if so, why?
Miss Elizabeth Bennet.
Played in the A&E version by the lovely Jennifer Ehle, and in the 2005 version by the equally lovely Keira Knightley.
I know some viewers can be annoyed by Keira Knightley, but I happen to be one of her fans, so I'm not using that argument against her portrayel as Lizzy.
Actually, I think both women portrayed our heroine in very similar ways. I was watching them, and found that they actually use many similar mannerisims. I don't know if that was unintentional, or if Knightley or her director made a concious decision to imitate Ehle.
Lizzy Bennet is 20 years of age, and is known for her liveliness. She is the second prettiest of the Bennet sisters (as well as the second oldest) and is intelligent, fond both of reading and of walking. Both Knightely and Ehle do a wonderful job of portraying all of this. Ehle, however, comes across as a bit older (26 at the time), a bit more mature in her views, and it seems less likely that she would make the flawed character judgements that Lizzy does. Knightley is younger (20) and brings a bit more youthful energy to the role. This is no critique of Ehle herself, merely a questioning of whether she was a bit too old to play the part. She certainly took what she had and used it very well.
With Jane Bennet, Lizzy's older, sweeter and prettier sister, the A&E version did not do quite so well. Unfortunately their actress was pregnant at the time- having seen pictures of her later I can say she is a much more attractive lady than she appears on screen. However, in P&P I simply cannot accept her as Jane, for all of her sweetness, because Jane is over and over again declared to be the prettiest of the sisters. The 2005 version was daring enough to cast a secondary role that risked overshadowing the leading lady and in doing so they were more faithful to the Jane created by Austen.
Let me say now- looks are important. In a book we can overlook them, but on screen we must enjoy watching the characters- especially if we are asked to love them. When the production is 5 hours long, physical attractiveness is even more important.
It is because I love Jane that I make this distinction. I want to like her- she is one of the sweetest creatures to walk the pages of a novel and it is important that this translates to screen. Unfortunately so much of loving her depends on watching her- something that I cannot enjoy in the A&E version. Especially when they repeatedly say that she is prettier than Ehle's Lizzy- which I think any viewer would agree is an erroneous statement.
*sigh*
I'll deal with Mrs. Bennet and Lydia next and get the worst of the A&E critiques out of the way. In fact, my issues with them are so similar, that I shall treat them as one. (The same critiques go to Lady Catherine de Borough, by the way).
There is a certain kind of acting that works for the stage- and there is another kind of acting that works for film. On stage, over the top, caricature acting can be quite funny and enjoyable to watch. However, it simply doesn't work on film. I felt that Lydia, Mrs. Bennet and Lady Catherine, while quite funny in their own way, simply did not work on film. I could not take them as real people.
Now, that is one way to view those characters. Certainly they could be represented that way from reading Austen. However, when the rest of the movie takes itself seriously and attempts to portray events "realistically" it is quite jarring to find these characters that are so obviously exaguated.
Now in the 2005 version the actors were given many of the same lines, the same mannerisims, and yet they played them realistically, using those words and actions in a way that makes sense and is believable.
I'll come back to this topic again when I discuss Mr. Collins.
However, lest this post be seen as too harsh against the A&E version, I will discuss a rather intriguing character last.
Charlotte Lucas was, I thought, admirably portrayed in both versions. Yet she is portrayed differantly- and once again, looks have something to do with it.
A&E's version of Charlotte is actually rather pretty. And I'm not certain her age is mentioned. Thus her move to marry Mr. Collins appears less desparate and more cool and calculating.
2005's Charlotte is much more obviously plain, and her conversation with Lizzy reveals her desparation. She is 27- she doesn't want to be a burden to her parents.
And yet both portrayels are realistic. The first, is perhaps, a less sympathetic view, and perhaps a little less likely, and yet I like to see this character played both ways. A woman could marry Mr. Collins out of sheer desperation- or simply because one wants a house of one's own and doesn't particularily care who one is married to. (They're not exactly the same thing- if you've seen both versions more than once, I think you'll understand what I mean.)
Actually, although I suspect that my earlier comments will generate more controversy, I am most curious to hear the opinions that you all have of Charlotte Lucas/Collins. Do you prefer one of the portrayels, and if so, why?
Friday, March 7, 2008
Pride and Prejudice vs. Pride and Prejudice pt. 1
This is the intro post to what will be a series of posts comparing the A&E version (with Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle) to the 2005 version (with Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFayden). There is way too much controversy on "which is better" and I simply want to get my thoughts down once and for all.
I believe I'm a fairly decent authority on Austen's works, though by no means an expert. However I've watched and read the books enough times that I think I can do a fairly accurate critique.
Also, I've had quite a bit of experience in film production (including scriptwriting) so I will be bringing those skills to this analysis as well.
Areas I would like to examine are:
Characters- major
Characters- minor
Screenplay
Costume
Set design
Production design/Cinematography
I believe I'm a fairly decent authority on Austen's works, though by no means an expert. However I've watched and read the books enough times that I think I can do a fairly accurate critique.
Also, I've had quite a bit of experience in film production (including scriptwriting) so I will be bringing those skills to this analysis as well.
Areas I would like to examine are:
Characters- major
Characters- minor
Screenplay
Costume
Set design
Production design/Cinematography
First of all, I will say up front that I enjoy the 2005 version better. Both versions have their strengths and weaknesses. However I want to acknowledge that bias up front.
Also, it is extremely important to point out that they are not both movies. The A&E version is a mini-series. the 2005 version is an actual film. This is most important in the screenplay section and I will discuss this differance in more detail there.
For now I will say that the main differance between the versions (besides the length) is that the A&E version is more of a "play" whereas the 2005 version is much more realistic. In my comparisions I will explore just what makes the one feel more "real" than the other. I will also discuss which one is more true to Austen.
So if you haven't watched both versions yet, go do so, then come back and get ready to comment! I'm sure there will be a lot to discuss!
Monday, March 3, 2008
Cheaper by the Dozen
My sister and I have been rereading some old favorites...."Cheaper by the Dozen" and "Belles on their Toes" by Frank Gilbreth and Ernestine Gilbreth Carey. Our copies are unbelieveably old- 1949 and 1950, and belonged to library systems before the ended up in our hands, so I have no idea how many times they've been read over the years. They're in quite good condition...though...
No, I'm not writing a post on antique books. Rather, I would like to introduce you to the Gilbreth family, if you have not already had the pleasure of meeting them elsewhere!
Frank and Ernestine were numbers 5 and 3 (respectively) of twelve children who were raised by the most remarkable Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, founders of motion study.
Motion study, is quite simply, the method of eliminating unneeded motions to make any job more effecient. Mr. Gilbreth, besides being a sucessful building contractor, was also a consultant to factories and other operations to assist them in speeding up their production rate.
But the hilarity of the books comes when Mr. Gilbreth brings his motion study techniques to his home and tries them out on his children...and the books are full of delightful stories of this family's madcap escapades and surprisingly efficient (no pun intended) way of managing twelve children.
We made quite a sight rolling along in the car, with the top down. As we passed through cities and villages, we caused a stir equaled only by a circus parade.
This was the part that Dad liked best of all. He'd slow down to five miles an hour and he'd blow the horns away at imaginary obstacles and cars two blocks away. The horns were Dad's calliope.
"I seen eleven of them, not counting the man and the woman," someone would shout from the sidewalk.
"You missed the second baby up front here, Mister," Dad would call over his shoulder.
Mother would make believe she hadn't heard anything, and look straight ahead.
Pedestrians would come scrambling from side streets and children would ask their parents to lift them onto their shoulders.
"How do you grow them carrot tops, Brother?"
"These?" Dad would bellow. "These aren't so much, Friend. You ought to see the ones I left at home."
Whenever the crowds gathered at some intersection where we were stopped by traffic, the inevitable question came sooner or later.
"How do you feed all those kids, Mister?"
Dad would ponder for a minute. Then, rearing back so those on the outskirts could hear, he'd say as it he had just thought it up:
"Well, they come cheaper by the dozen, you know!"
But what I really love are Mr. Gilbreths innovative ways of teaching his children everything from typing on a keyboard to sailing a catboat. He instinctively knows how to make his children want to learn, without forcing them. For an instance...to teach them Morse code on their summer vacation...
After lunch he got a small paint bruch and a can of black enamel, and locked himself in the lavatory, where he painted the alphabet in code on the wall.
For the next three days Dad was busy with his paint bruch, writing code over the whitewash in every room in The Shoe. On the ceilinb in the dormitory bedrooms, he wrote the alphabet together with key words, whose accents were a reminder of the code for the various letters. It went like this: A dot-dash, a-BOUT; B, dash-dot-dot-dot, BOIS-ter-ous-ly; C, dash-dot-dash-dot, CARE-less CHILD-ren; D, dash-dot-dot, DAN-ger-ous, etc.
When you lay on your back, dozing, the words kept going through your head, and you'd find yourself saying, "DAN-gerous, dash-dot-dot, DAN-gerous."
He painted secret messages in code on the walls of the front porch and dining room.
"What do they say, Daddy?" we asked him.
"Many things," he replied mysterious. "Many secret things and many things of great humor."
We went into the bedrooms and copied the code alphabet on pieces of paper. Then, referring to the paper, we started translating Dad's messages. He went right on painting, as if he were paying no attention to us, but he didn't miss a word.
"Lord, what awful puns," said Anne. "And this, I presume, is meant to fit into the category of 'things of great humor.' Listen to this one; 'Bee it ever so bumble there's no place like comb.' "
"And we're stung," Ern moaned. "We're not going to be satisfied until we translate them all. I see dash-dot-dash-dot and I hear myself repeating CARE-less CHILD-ren. "
No, I'm not writing a post on antique books. Rather, I would like to introduce you to the Gilbreth family, if you have not already had the pleasure of meeting them elsewhere!
Frank and Ernestine were numbers 5 and 3 (respectively) of twelve children who were raised by the most remarkable Frank and Lillian Gilbreth, founders of motion study.
Motion study, is quite simply, the method of eliminating unneeded motions to make any job more effecient. Mr. Gilbreth, besides being a sucessful building contractor, was also a consultant to factories and other operations to assist them in speeding up their production rate.
But the hilarity of the books comes when Mr. Gilbreth brings his motion study techniques to his home and tries them out on his children...and the books are full of delightful stories of this family's madcap escapades and surprisingly efficient (no pun intended) way of managing twelve children.
We made quite a sight rolling along in the car, with the top down. As we passed through cities and villages, we caused a stir equaled only by a circus parade.
This was the part that Dad liked best of all. He'd slow down to five miles an hour and he'd blow the horns away at imaginary obstacles and cars two blocks away. The horns were Dad's calliope.
"I seen eleven of them, not counting the man and the woman," someone would shout from the sidewalk.
"You missed the second baby up front here, Mister," Dad would call over his shoulder.
Mother would make believe she hadn't heard anything, and look straight ahead.
Pedestrians would come scrambling from side streets and children would ask their parents to lift them onto their shoulders.
"How do you grow them carrot tops, Brother?"
"These?" Dad would bellow. "These aren't so much, Friend. You ought to see the ones I left at home."
Whenever the crowds gathered at some intersection where we were stopped by traffic, the inevitable question came sooner or later.
"How do you feed all those kids, Mister?"
Dad would ponder for a minute. Then, rearing back so those on the outskirts could hear, he'd say as it he had just thought it up:
"Well, they come cheaper by the dozen, you know!"
Cheaper by the Dozen, pages 21-21
But what I really love are Mr. Gilbreths innovative ways of teaching his children everything from typing on a keyboard to sailing a catboat. He instinctively knows how to make his children want to learn, without forcing them. For an instance...to teach them Morse code on their summer vacation...
After lunch he got a small paint bruch and a can of black enamel, and locked himself in the lavatory, where he painted the alphabet in code on the wall.
For the next three days Dad was busy with his paint bruch, writing code over the whitewash in every room in The Shoe. On the ceilinb in the dormitory bedrooms, he wrote the alphabet together with key words, whose accents were a reminder of the code for the various letters. It went like this: A dot-dash, a-BOUT; B, dash-dot-dot-dot, BOIS-ter-ous-ly; C, dash-dot-dash-dot, CARE-less CHILD-ren; D, dash-dot-dot, DAN-ger-ous, etc.
When you lay on your back, dozing, the words kept going through your head, and you'd find yourself saying, "DAN-gerous, dash-dot-dot, DAN-gerous."
He painted secret messages in code on the walls of the front porch and dining room.
"What do they say, Daddy?" we asked him.
"Many things," he replied mysterious. "Many secret things and many things of great humor."
We went into the bedrooms and copied the code alphabet on pieces of paper. Then, referring to the paper, we started translating Dad's messages. He went right on painting, as if he were paying no attention to us, but he didn't miss a word.
"Lord, what awful puns," said Anne. "And this, I presume, is meant to fit into the category of 'things of great humor.' Listen to this one; 'Bee it ever so bumble there's no place like comb.' "
"And we're stung," Ern moaned. "We're not going to be satisfied until we translate them all. I see dash-dot-dash-dot and I hear myself repeating CARE-less CHILD-ren. "
Cheaper by the Dozen, pages 122-123
And so on, and so forth. The second book, "Belles on Their Toes" is the story of Mrs. Gilbreth and how she held her family together after the death of her husband. However, I won't quote more here in fear of boring you all excessively. I will say, however, that the books are a thousand times better than the new Steve Martin movies that have recently come out, and other than the title and the fact that both families have twelve children, there is virtually no resemblance between them.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
Have a laugh
I promise that I shall rarely post something as silly as this, but a friend sent it on to me and I laughed so much that I thought I might as well give my readers a smile too...
Spread the Stupidity
Only in America .......do drugstores make the sick walk all the way to the back of The store to get their prescriptions while healthy people can buy cigarettes at the front.
Only in America ...do people order Double cheeseburgers, large fries, and a diet coke.
Only in America .....do banks leave both doors open and then chain the pens to the counters.
Only in America ......do we leave cars Worth thousands of dollars in the Driveway and put our useless junk in the garage.
Only in America ...do we buy hot dogs in packages of ten and buns in packages of eight.
Only in America ...do we use the word 'politics' to describe the process so well: 'Poli' in Latin meaning 'many' and 'tics' meaning 'bloodsucking creatures'.
Only in America . ..do they have drive-up ATM machines with Braille lettering.
EVER WONDER ...
Why the sun lightens our hair,But darkens our skin ?
Why women can't put on mascara with their mouth closed?
Why don't you ever see the headline 'Psychic Wins Lottery'?
Why is 'abbreviated' such a long word?
Why is it that doctors call what they do 'practice'?
Why is lemon juice made with artificial flavor, and dishwashing liquid made with real lemons?Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?
Why is the time of day with the slowest traffic called rush hour?
Why isn't there mouse-flavored cat food?
Why didn't Noah swat those two mosquitoes?
Why do they sterilize the needle for lethal injections?
You know that indestructible black box that is used on airplanes? Why don't they make the whole plane out of that stuff?!
Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?
Why are they called apartments when They are all stuck together?
If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
If flying is so safe,Why do they call the airport the terminal?
On second thought...a lot of these questions are actually quite thought provoking! Do comment!!!
Spread the Stupidity
Only in America .......do drugstores make the sick walk all the way to the back of The store to get their prescriptions while healthy people can buy cigarettes at the front.
Only in America ...do people order Double cheeseburgers, large fries, and a diet coke.
Only in America .....do banks leave both doors open and then chain the pens to the counters.
Only in America ......do we leave cars Worth thousands of dollars in the Driveway and put our useless junk in the garage.
Only in America ...do we buy hot dogs in packages of ten and buns in packages of eight.
Only in America ...do we use the word 'politics' to describe the process so well: 'Poli' in Latin meaning 'many' and 'tics' meaning 'bloodsucking creatures'.
Only in America . ..do they have drive-up ATM machines with Braille lettering.
EVER WONDER ...
Why the sun lightens our hair,But darkens our skin ?
Why women can't put on mascara with their mouth closed?
Why don't you ever see the headline 'Psychic Wins Lottery'?
Why is 'abbreviated' such a long word?
Why is it that doctors call what they do 'practice'?
Why is lemon juice made with artificial flavor, and dishwashing liquid made with real lemons?Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?
Why is the time of day with the slowest traffic called rush hour?
Why isn't there mouse-flavored cat food?
Why didn't Noah swat those two mosquitoes?
Why do they sterilize the needle for lethal injections?
You know that indestructible black box that is used on airplanes? Why don't they make the whole plane out of that stuff?!
Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?
Why are they called apartments when They are all stuck together?
If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?
If flying is so safe,Why do they call the airport the terminal?
On second thought...a lot of these questions are actually quite thought provoking! Do comment!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)