First of all, I'd like to say that each of the 3 times I've seen the 2005 Pride & Prejudice, I really want to like it. And each time, with the first 10 minutes I'm fooled into enjoying it, and then it just lets me down. I rewatched it this Thanksgiving break followed up by a reviewing of Sense & Sensibility(1995) which only made the flaws of P&P more obvious. Admittedly, P&P is one of my favorite books of all time, so any big changes to it makes me a little antsy. Which is why I adore the 5 hour BBC version from 1995--it contains most every scene and develops every storyline. So chopping up this novel into a ~2 hour cinematic piece is like killing my own baby. Well, it's cringe worthy at least. S&S, on the other hand, manages to develop characters and create an accessible story despite it's length.
Anyway, I'd like to point out some of the contrast between these two films:
Tone
P&P: Artsy and maudlin. The cinematography is gorgeous, which isn't a bad thing. The long takes through complicated scenes are to be admired, but unfortunately, it takes precedence over acting and character development. Instead of having characters have scenes together that build emotion and character arcs, odd and overt film metaphors are made: at the Netherfield ball, Elizabeth and Darcy literally end up dancing as if they were the only couple in the room; when Elizabeth is pondering Darcy's first proposal, she stares into a mirror all day, reflecting on her life; when Elizabeth tours Pemberly for the first time, the camera dwells on nude statues, apparently showing her growing sexual attraction to Darcy. Literally.
Not to mention the completely out-of-nowhere and corny 2nd proposal where Mr. Darcy walks through the morning dew toward a sleepless Lizzie on a walk. And then stating that she has "bewitched [him] body and soul." WTF? And don't even get me started on the "Mrs. Darcy" crap at the end. Mostly, the film avoids showing true character development and spends all its time on monologues of drivel and trite film metaphor, apparently making it accessible to modern audiences.
S&S: Simple and humorous. Ang Lee's direction is seamless and unnoticable throughout the film which allows the characters to shine and develop, which I think is truer to Austen's story telling. Her novels aren't about being pretty, but pointing out peculiararities within society. To do so, she focuses on people's words and actions, not asinine metaphor. The humor is also intact in this adaptation. The adapted lines don't stick out like they do in P&P, and blend into Austen's brand of biting observation. And even changes like the youngest sister being a wannabe pirate and Mr. Ferrars actually having a personality makes the story more interesting to a modern audience instead of just dumbing down the discourse.
Lead roles
P&P: I don't hate Keira Knightly in this role. She's an adequate actress and only gets lost in the old-fashioned language on occasion. She's a spunkier Elizabeth, but does well for this adaptation. Matthew MacFadyen is about as milquetoast as they come. For a spunkier Lizzie, he is an impossible match, not because of his douchey behavior, but for his complete lack of personality. He spits out lines with little to no emotion. This description doesn't do the vapid performance justice, since being very emotionally controlled would be an accurate description of Mr. Darcy. But there's no spark of mild flirtation, only close up shots of his hand whenever he touches Elizabeth, that show his attraction to her. Instead of a fiery argument during the 1st proposal, they almost kiss instead of connecting through words. Maybe the director figured out MacFadyen is boring and had to add in visual indications of personality to replace such a lackluster performance. Call me crazy, but I like my romantic leads to have, you know, chemistry. This is just boring. I honestly don't care if they get together, and I mostly blame that on Darcy.
S&S: This being Emma Thompson's baby, she does a lovely job at forming emotion from Austen's words. Certainly her work doing shakespeare contributes to her ability to take complicated language and convey its meaning and nuances. I can't say enough about just listening to her talk. And her portrayal of a very responsible and, by necessity, closed-off sister/daughter is genuine and believable. Kate Winslet is young and her spunk contributes to the ridiculous character of Marianne who is overly sentimental and dramatic. Winslet always plays this type of role well (see: Titanic, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind .) Alan Rickman is always funny, but he does meloncholy well in this film. He even manages to be kind of sexy. Hugh Grant is always a shock to see as Mr. Ferrars, since he's so well known for his floppy-haired modern romcoms, but once the movie settles, so does his character. Grant does well with comedy and being neurotic, so the indecicive Mr. Ferrars suits him well. Overall, a cast well suited for their characters and who speak the language with eloquence and humor.
Costuming/sets/group settings/whatever
P&P: Greasy hair and dirty houses seem to match the artsy tone of the movie. Poverty films well, so I guess they decided to make the Bennet's even poorer than they already were. As far I know, the Bennet's just didn't have a fortune to give their daughters, but they weren't particularly bad off. Which makes dwelling on a pig walking right outside their house an odd choice. Also, Keira Knightly's way too thin for the time period with her dress draping over breastless body [ed. note: I'm not really sure how thin people were in this time period, but Knightly looks too frail to hold up an empire-waist style dress. More of an observation of preference I guess.] But the messier style looked great in ballroom scenes where many people are dancing and having fun. You could actually see why people would have fun with a ball in this film. And that's what it comes down to really: a less cordial, more casual, "modern" style that defines this film.
S&S: Neat, simple and lovely defines this film. Contrast in wealth is shown through an absense in color and fabrics in the homes, which is more subtle than dirt track through the house vs. fancy. But the clothing was well crafted and simple, like the story. Although the wigs are obvious in this film (so curly) and seemed to mismatch eyebrows/coloring a lot. But overall, settings are simple and quiet so when something does happen dramatically, we can focus on the lead characters without being overwhelmed by everything surrounding them.
Music
This is an area where both soundtracks are absolutely gorgeous. Both utilize 19th century musical themes to a film soundtrack, perfect for the time period.
Novel to Screenplay, overall reflection
P&P: Like I stated earlier, this is a brief version of the story. Adapting novels to film always requires cuts to be made, whether in characters or scenes. Unfortunately, P&P is a complex story with subtle, slowly building character development and change. This version just doesn't have the length to give the story a full and deserving treatment. I would submit that they should have cut and rewritten some moments entirely since the strength was in the purely original work. For example, Mr. Wickham, though handsome* has little charm to attract Elizabeth to him so the audience never thinks that he's a real contender for her heart. I would have been fine if they cut him out. In fact, I would have been fine to watch a newly written regency era film with the style. They tacked on enough new stuff at the end that it's practically a new story anyway. So in terms of an adaptation, it fails to capture the tone of the novel and drowns in so many plot points to cover.
S&S: This is a much simpler story. Many of the scenes cut out were those between Elinor and Colonel Brandon and would have only contributed confusion**. But major plot points are intact and changes in character are developed throughout the film. By simplifying an already simple story, the film is able to capture characters since it isn't drowning in plotlines***. Any changes to character, like stated before with Mr. Ferrars, serve to give the audience more of a reason to care about the characters. Added scenes assist in developing a relationship between the characters, which is where the genius of this adaptation lies: character development and observation that is both funny and genuine.
What you should take from this
Go watch Sense & Sensibility--it's humorous and good. And avoid Pride & Prejudice--unless you like trite love stories.
*Kind of like a more mannish version of Orlando Bloom...in other words, Keira Knightly.
**I still think they should end up together, at least in the novel, since they're the least ridiculous characters.
***Seriously.
12/04/2008
12/02/2008
Update
So I'm trying to get my grad school applications done this week (I don't know, procrastinating homework with something that's productive?). I can't really think very well right now, but here are some things that have occurred to me this week:
A very sleepy Kelsy
P.S. Here's my very favorite Hugh Laurie moment ever from "A Bit of Fry and Laurie":
- I've never met an Al(l)i/yson I didn't like.
- "Good Eats," starring the adorably nerdy and glassesed Alton Brown, is like the Billy Nye the Science Guy/MST3K of cooking shows.
- America should probably look into nuclear fusion as an energy alternative.
- Sequined stockings were probably the best choice.
- Hugh Laurie is a fantastic comedic actor. Compare this to this to this.
- I don't function well waking up before 8am.
- I actually want it to snow.
- My Sufjan Stevens (Holiday) Pandora station is the best.
A very sleepy Kelsy
P.S. Here's my very favorite Hugh Laurie moment ever from "A Bit of Fry and Laurie":
11/27/2008
Medley of the Day: Thanksgiving Edition
Led Zeppelin's surprisingly sweet and organ-erific "Thank You".
For a dose of ridiculous funk, Sly & the Family Stone's "Thank You".
And here's a pretty legit Thanksgiving song. Eric Whitacre's "I Thank You God for most this Amazing Day" performed by Polyphony:
Happy Thanksgiving!
For a dose of ridiculous funk, Sly & the Family Stone's "Thank You".
And here's a pretty legit Thanksgiving song. Eric Whitacre's "I Thank You God for most this Amazing Day" performed by Polyphony:
Happy Thanksgiving!
11/24/2008
Livin' the Dream
Sometimes, as I look into my future filled with more schooling, I despair. Cheap apartments and a fairly thrifty lifestyle make me pine for the day that I will be able to afford the following:
A decent mattress- Although my mattress right now manages to be more comfortable than the bare floor, barely.
A bigger than 19" TV- Considering how many movies I watch, it's a tragedy how small my current, borrowed TV is.
A car- Walking and mooching rides only gets you so far.
A classy 3-piece suit- Let's pretend I'll be a professional that would necessitate me owning this. Or I could just have one.
A huge collection of Motown music- Most awesome era of music ever and I want it all.
A large assortment of jackets/coats/cardigans- Outwear is my shopping weakness. I'm not really sure how I've managed to keep my collection at a minimum this long.
A Total Gym- Who knows if I would use this, but I've seen the infomercial a lot, and it looks like fun. Plus, Chuck Norris and Christy Brinkley use it. 'nuff said.
A decent mattress- Although my mattress right now manages to be more comfortable than the bare floor, barely.
A bigger than 19" TV- Considering how many movies I watch, it's a tragedy how small my current, borrowed TV is.
A car- Walking and mooching rides only gets you so far.
A classy 3-piece suit- Let's pretend I'll be a professional that would necessitate me owning this. Or I could just have one.
A huge collection of Motown music- Most awesome era of music ever and I want it all.
A large assortment of jackets/coats/cardigans- Outwear is my shopping weakness. I'm not really sure how I've managed to keep my collection at a minimum this long.
A Total Gym- Who knows if I would use this, but I've seen the infomercial a lot, and it looks like fun. Plus, Chuck Norris and Christy Brinkley use it. 'nuff said.
11/20/2008
Two Tragic WWII Romances
1. The Cranes are Flying (1957) is Soviet Union film directed by Mikhail Kalatozov. It spans just before WWII to the end of the war. Veronika and Boris are a young couple in love, but soon Boris enlists in the army leaving Veronika behind to wait for him. The scene where Boris must leave for war and Veronika can't catch up to him to stay good-bye is heartbreaking. The crowds of people and frantic yelling are filmed to give the whole scope of the frantic situation. The rest of the film focuses mostly on Veronika's side of the story, wondering whether or not Boris made it through the war since no news comes to Veronika or Boris' family.
Much of the film centers around Veronika's relationship with Mark, Boris' cousin. Mark has been in love with Veronika for a long time, but never did anything about it because of Boris. But given Boris' plea to look out for her and also his exemption from the war because of his piano talent, Mark spends a lot of time with Veronika, eventually whittling down her will to resist him.
The scene where Veronika finally gives into Mark is powerful and highly stylized, allowing the music, ambient noise, and physical environment to reflect both characters' emotions:
Through the film we see Veronika grow up. Her dreams have been shattered and must learn what she cares about in life, whether or not Boris makes it. Ultimately, it seems her answer is reaching out and caring for other people, people who aren't selfish and who love their country.
What really captured my attention in this film was scenes like Veronika giving into Mark. I enjoy a film that utilizes all the facets of film to reemphasize a theme or internal thoughts/emotions. It can sometimes be cheesy, but in this case I found it to be effective, bringing life into characters that, for the most part, remain pretty enigmatic in the face. I love seeing styles of film making that differ from the Hollywood norm and this movie supplies that. What an intense drama.
2. I finally saw Atonement (2007) based on the novel by Ian McEwan. I had read the book previously and found Joe Wright's tone to match that of the book*. It's a beautiful, heartbreaking, and absolutely horror of a love story. Robbie and Cecilia are old acquaintances who finally realize/take action on their love for each other one hot afternoon. Unfortunately, Cecilia's little sister Briony sees them interact in ways she doesn't understand and assumes the worst. Misunderstandings ensue, lovers are separated, and redemption is sought.
Much like the novel, the film is made up of gorgeous moments more than a cohesive narrative, and it works. Really, this film is--to quote an old roommate--an eye orgasm. Through rich colors, creative use of focus, and editing, Wright translates McEwan's descriptions well. Here's an example of the visuals at work creating subtle character development:
Despite myself, I was moved to tears**. Film, more so than prose, has that effect on me, especially is there is a lovely score. For the most part, Dario Marianelli's compositions are subtle, but at opportune moments swell into grandeur, effecting me more than it should. At the end of the day, Atonement is a lovely film that wants to be more epic and sweeping than it is, but it succeeds at being an adaptation of very good novel by capturing its tone and tangible descriptions.
*Unlike a certain Jane Austen masterpiece--I will never let that go.
**I swear I'm not usually a sap.
Much of the film centers around Veronika's relationship with Mark, Boris' cousin. Mark has been in love with Veronika for a long time, but never did anything about it because of Boris. But given Boris' plea to look out for her and also his exemption from the war because of his piano talent, Mark spends a lot of time with Veronika, eventually whittling down her will to resist him.
The scene where Veronika finally gives into Mark is powerful and highly stylized, allowing the music, ambient noise, and physical environment to reflect both characters' emotions:
Through the film we see Veronika grow up. Her dreams have been shattered and must learn what she cares about in life, whether or not Boris makes it. Ultimately, it seems her answer is reaching out and caring for other people, people who aren't selfish and who love their country.
What really captured my attention in this film was scenes like Veronika giving into Mark. I enjoy a film that utilizes all the facets of film to reemphasize a theme or internal thoughts/emotions. It can sometimes be cheesy, but in this case I found it to be effective, bringing life into characters that, for the most part, remain pretty enigmatic in the face. I love seeing styles of film making that differ from the Hollywood norm and this movie supplies that. What an intense drama.
2. I finally saw Atonement (2007) based on the novel by Ian McEwan. I had read the book previously and found Joe Wright's tone to match that of the book*. It's a beautiful, heartbreaking, and absolutely horror of a love story. Robbie and Cecilia are old acquaintances who finally realize/take action on their love for each other one hot afternoon. Unfortunately, Cecilia's little sister Briony sees them interact in ways she doesn't understand and assumes the worst. Misunderstandings ensue, lovers are separated, and redemption is sought.
Much like the novel, the film is made up of gorgeous moments more than a cohesive narrative, and it works. Really, this film is--to quote an old roommate--an eye orgasm. Through rich colors, creative use of focus, and editing, Wright translates McEwan's descriptions well. Here's an example of the visuals at work creating subtle character development:
Despite myself, I was moved to tears**. Film, more so than prose, has that effect on me, especially is there is a lovely score. For the most part, Dario Marianelli's compositions are subtle, but at opportune moments swell into grandeur, effecting me more than it should. At the end of the day, Atonement is a lovely film that wants to be more epic and sweeping than it is, but it succeeds at being an adaptation of very good novel by capturing its tone and tangible descriptions.
*Unlike a certain Jane Austen masterpiece--I will never let that go.
**I swear I'm not usually a sap.
Deliciousness in the form of Pumpkin
I made a loaf of pumpkin bread last week. Not only was the combination of pumpkin and chocolate chips absolutely delicious, but it left the apartment smelling all homey and spicy. Here's the recipe from The Essential Mormon Cookbook:
Pumpkin Bread
1/2 cup butter
1 cup sugar
2 eggs
3/4 cup canned pumpkin
1 3/4 cup flour
1 teaspoon baking soda
1 teaspoon cinnamon
1/2 teaspoon salt
1/2 teaspoon nutmeg
1/4 teaspoon ginger
1/4 teaspoon ground cloves
3/4 cup chocolate chips
3/4 cup chopped pecans (optional)
Cream butter, sugar, and eggs. Add pumpkin and mix; set aside. In another bowl sift dry ingredients. Gradually add dry ingredients to creamy mixture. Beat until blended. Add chocolate chips and pecans, if desired. Grease one loaf pan or four mini loaves. Pour batter into pans. For one loaf, back at 350 degrees F for about 1 hour or until inserted toothpick comes out clean. For mini loaves, bake at 350 degrees F for about 35 to 40 minutes. Makes one loaf or four mini loaves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)