DVD Update

•January 28, 2010 • 1 Comment

Jane Campion’s indie film sensation, Bright Star, was released on DVD on Tuesday. Amazon ($19.49) and B&N ($17.63 for members, with Free Shipping! $19.59 to non-members) had the lowest prices.

Emma, now showing on Masterpiece Classic, will be released on Feb. 9 and is available for pre-order on both Amazon ($21.99) and B&N ($22.04).

Return to Cranford, with recently aired on Masterpiece, is also now on DVD. B&N price, $15.74, and Amazon $17.99.

Barnes & Noble is actually having a Buy-2-DVD’s-Get-the-3rd-Free Sale, so now is probably a good time to invest in all three!

Emma (2009) Pt. 1

•January 25, 2010 • 2 Comments

It’s been a long time coming and the wait was certainly worth it.

The latest Jane Austen film, a fresh rendition of the novelist’s 1815 behemoth, adapted by Sandy Welch, has finally made it to the U.S., part 1 premiering on Masterpiece Classic on PBS last night.

****Spoiler Alert****

Emma is not one of Austen’s most popular novels, particularly because of its length and relatively subdued subject matter. There are no terrifying elopements, journeys to seaside resorts, escapades to London, or adventures in haunted abbeys — the action never leaves Highbury or its environs at all; there’s no serious scandal or intrigue, just one well-kept secret that Austen tries to make as dramatic as possible — oh and that little incident with the gypsies. Trudging through Emma the first time was a chore, I’ll admit. I am thrilled that this hefty book is getting its due in a miniseries format (now if they’ll just give Mansfield Park 3+ hours’ justice, I’ll be happy); the two 1996 adaptations did not feel uncomfortably compressed, but every Austen novel deserves to be fleshed out in the full.

For two hours, I was completely transfixed. I did not think the 1996 Gwyneth Paltrow version could be much improved upon, but this hilarious adaptation has really exceeded my expectations. Some of the brief comments I had read worried me, but Part 1 has left me with little to complain about!

We are introduced to Emma, Jane Fairfax, and Frank Churchill as toddlers in Highbury, Emma remaining comfortably at home to be spoilt by her protective father and patient governess, Anne Taylor, while little Jane and little Frank are sent elsewhere. The first five or six minutes worried me; they are extremely fast. The writer decided to incorporate the backstories of all three toddlers into the very beginning, which does give the three characters a unique twist as separated Highbury natives (Jane’s origin is assumed) who are brought together some 18 years later in a strange triangle, but all the names be slightly overwhelming at first, even for someone who’s familiar with the novel. The voiceover narrative was also troublesome; it didn’t feel quite right. It would have been a trick to do backstories without a narrator, and I suppose the Austen’s similar attitude toward the two flawed heroines tempted them as well, but Emma is not Northanger Abbey; there is no distinct narrator’s voice gently chiding the heroine for her misapplied wit, simply Austen’s ever-present dry sarcasm. While it’s forgivable in the beginning, to use it sparsely throughout throws up a red flag that says, “We didn’t know how to convey this emotion otherwise, so we’ll just tell you what Emma is feeling.”

Perhaps to give more credibility to Emma’s belief in her matchmaking skills, we meet the grown-up Emma (Romola Garai) predicting the marriage between her elder sister Isabella and John Knightley. This is a slight deviation in the story, but one I believe works well. One can easily imagine a teenage Emma trying to couple up her friends and family from a young age, and believing herself to have encouraged the first Woodhouse-Knightley attachment.

Overall, I think the casting is very strong. Romola Garai is wonderful with expression, and I don’t believe I could ever tire of watching her. In the scene between her and Harriet regarding Mr. Martin’s proposal letter, Garai’s Emma, in my opinion, captures the essence of the story: a series of silly misunderstandings. I last saw Jonny Lee Miller in Mansfield Park 1999, and thankfully this is a monumental improvement on that film. Just as I didn’t think Paltrow’s Emma could be surpassed, I thought Jeremy Northam’s Mr. Knightley was almost perfect — but my goodness, Miller is giving him a run for his money! “That man is so full of himself I’m surprised he can stay on his horse.” LOL! Watching Miller and Garai play off each other is one of the best Austen dynamics I’ve seen in while. Their row over Harriet’s rejection of Mr. Martin is in my Top 5 Austen movie moments. Arguably, it may be slightly too flamboyant, but it has a modern flair that makes it simply hilarious. Even if the rest of the cast sucked, which they don’t, these two could hold up the series very well on their own.

Mr. Woodhouse’s  (Michael Gambon) cheerful preoccupation with health is adorable; he’s a bit more lively than his novel counterpart, but to have a more somber hypochondriac wouldn’t really fit with the overall spirited feel of this adaptation. Taking him away from his fire (which is where he seems to remain in all the other versions I can remember) and allowing his obsession to be more actively displayed was a good move; his fetish about the perfect assemblage of his scarves, for instance, and his careful observation over the Westons’ wedding cake were all delightful.

Blake Ritson also migrated from a Mansfield Park adaptation, albeit the significantly better 2007 version. Alan Cumming’s Mr. Elton was more of a mockery of the character than a truly desirable bachelor, so it was nice to have a Mr. Elton whom Harriet Smith could easily fall head over heels for, affectation and all. Mrs. Bates (Tamsin Greig), Jane Fairfax (Laura Pyper), and Frank Churchill (Rupert Evans) are all fine enough.

The only two whom I had qualms about were Mrs. Weston (Miss Taylor) and Harriet Smith. Mrs. Weston, played by the beautiful Jodhi May, hardly looks a day over 25. . . and she’s supposed to be Emma’s governess? According to the novel, “Sixteen years had Miss Taylor been in Mr. Woodhouse’s family” (Chap. 1), so if she was at least 18 before she became a governess, that would make her at least 34. Other than her age (which I may have been overestimating simply as a matter of course), I think she is a good Miss Taylor. Perhaps they went for someone closer to Emma’s age to reinforce the idea of Miss Taylor “less as a governess than a friend…Between them it was more the intimacy of sisters” (Chap. 1). I don’t really have much to say for Louise Dylan for Harriet Smith, other than that, in my opinion, she doesn’t feel right for the role. I think her acting is superb, but her outspokenness and resemblance to Kirsten Dunst bothers me.

All that said, I cannot wait for the next two installments. This new Emma is really a treat for anyone, be they a dedicated Janeite or just a costume drama junkie — or both ;)

If you missed last night’s episode, you can watch it on Masterpiece Classics website here until March 9th. There’s a lot of behind-the-scenes goodies on the website too, as well as a Highbury Bachelor Compatibility Quiz (Yay, Mr. Knightley!) and another B&N sponsored Q&A with a Jane Austen expert, Joan Ray. Go check it all out, and don’t forget to watch Part 2 next Sunday on PBS!

The Young Victoria (2009)

•January 7, 2010 • 3 Comments

Another great one!

The Young Victoria, directed by Jean-Marc Vallée, was more along the traditional costume drama lines than Bright Star, but it did not disappoint. The trend for humanistic representations continues, such that I laughed, loved, and cried, all in 104 minutes.

This drama about the first three or so years of Victoria’s reign (which lasted from 1837 to 1901) starts out a little choppy, but settles down after the first 10 minutes or so. As a warning, it seems the Duchess of York (one of the producers) assumes everyone knows her family tree as well as she, and brandishes names and relations and titles all over the place as if this were a family video to be shared over Christmas leftovers. Some of the details about why this character is important and whose side this character is on are hard to follow, so either pay close attention or brush up on your early 19th century British Royal Family knowledge.

Of course, even if you’re not trying to grasp every historical detail, the love story and Emily Blunt’s charming, engaging Victoria are more than enough to make this movie a success. This actress has really come into her own, and it’s so nice to see her as a leading actress in a big historical flick; the depth and vibrancy she brings to a monarch who is best remembered for lending her name to an era of prudishness and often imagined as a dour mourner for the majority of her life (perhaps most identifiable in pictures such as this), is extraordinary…though she might be the perfect example of an actress who is simply too tall and thin for an accurate portrayal. The real young Victoria was considerably more full-bodied than Blunt, and while she is definitely a long ways from the portly Queen Victoria we all know, one can perhaps rationalize this away by saying she let herself go after Albert died.

Having known next to nothing about Prince Albert other than he was a patron of the arts, he has a lovely museum named after him, and Victoria adored him, it was a real treat to see something of his backstory. And you won’t leave the theater without thanking Prince Albert for showing you a dream of a man that is not a sparkly vampire ;) Having watched Pride & Prejudice 2005 just last night, it was amazing to see Rupert Friend turn right around and play a guy who’s good inside and out. His character was probably the most delightful of all in a film of many delightful people. All of the actors conveyed believability very well; not one came across as forced or weak. And, by the by, was Mark Strong’s Mr. Knightley the only decent, non-scheming guy he’s ever played in a period flick? I mean, Lord Blackwood, Sir John Conroy, Wictred, the Duke of Norfolk? He may be a nice guy, but this typecasting leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth every time he’s mentioned.

In short, if you can find The Young Victoria playing anywhere near you, it’s definitely worth the trip. Like Bright Star (which comes out on DVD on January 26th!) it’s a limited release. I was hesitant to see another monarchial movie that reeked with melodrama and artificiality — those are fun in moderation — but this film is different. It’s light, yet serious enough at times to elicit real emotions, and definitely charming. 4 out of 5 stars.

NY Times Review

The Times Review (the critic states, “It’s decorative, but suffers from a stultifying lack of drama.” Actually, it’s nice not to have drama thrown in my face. I want to see something that’s as pure and real as can be. This film isn’t nearly as melodramatic as the Elizabeth movies, though it does have it’s share of soaring music and “big” moments. But what’s refreshing are the smaller moments that don’t feel as forced and awkward as, say, the standing-nude-in-front-of-the-mirror scene from The Golden Age.)

Roger Ebert’s Review

The Daily Mail Review (rather unforgiving, if you ask me; if you want overdramatized conflict, watch some American medical dramas or Gossip Girl, for crying out loud.)

Masterpiece Tonight!

•December 20, 2009 • 1 Comment

Don’t forget! The 2010 Season of Masterpiece Classic begins tonight at 9pm Eastern time on PBS with a rerun of Cranford (tonight’s episode is 2 hours long). I’m excited, and you should be too! What could be better than curling up with a nice costume drama during the Christmas season?

Bits n’ Pieces: Dec. 11

•December 11, 2009 • Leave a Comment

Home today for almost a month! … once I finish back-to-back finals from 3 to 10 pm. Won’t that be fun!

Anyway, just a couple of things on the costume drama front, including the latest update about the film adaptation of Pride & Prejudice & Zombies. Apparently, it’s official, Lionsgate will be the money and Natalie Portman will be starring and producing. Hmmm. Haven’t read this yet, though I am slightly more interested after the week-long Humans vs. Zombies game at UGA (EPIC fun). No word yet on potential dates.

Sherlock Holmes is the big thing on the horizon in Hollywood right now, besides “Dances with Smurfs” — otherwise known as Avatar — and Warner Bros. has released a whole bunch of great movie stills to whet your appetite. Check them out here. Don’t forget to go see it (just not on opening day; I hate the idea of people having to work on Christmas so families can go forget about each other for two hours in a movie theater).

And I just thought this was interesting: “Why we hate Keira Knightley”. Oh plz.

…..

•December 7, 2009 • 2 Comments

Urgh. Finals Week.

I’ve been having a paper-writing party all weekend with John Donne and Jane Austen. The latter was invited, the former was not. Jane and I are still trying to shove Dr. Donne out the door so we can get on with better things.

Masterpiece 2010 Update

•December 5, 2009 • 1 Comment

Winter is just around the corner and that means a new season of Masterpiece Classic! Masterpiece Theater has updated its website for 2010 and released two previews:

**claps hands in glee!**

And what’s even better, this year we don’t have to wait till January! Masterpiece will be having an encore presentation of Cranford from December 20 to January 3, before beginning the new season on January 10 with Return to Cranford. Here’s the schedule once more:

Cranford (Encore) –- December 20, 27, & 3 (120, 60, 120 min.)

Return to Cranford — January 10 & 17 (both 90 min.)

Emma — January 24, 31 & February 7 (120, 60, 60 min.)

Northanger Abbey (Encore) — February 14 (90 min.)

Persuasion (Encore) — February 21 (90 min.)

The 39 Steps — February 28 (90 min.)

Sharpe’s Challenge — March 28 (120 min.)

Sharpe’s Peril — April 4 (120 min.)

The Diary of Anne Frank — April 11 (120 min.)

Small Island — April 18 & 25 (both 90 min.)

Get Excited, Masterpiece Lovers :D

Random Alert! New Moon Review

•November 20, 2009 • 2 Comments

Let me begin by saying that this review is coming from a Twilighter through and through — someone who has read multiple editions of the novels, has spent a weekend at a Twilight convention, and has made a pilgrimage to Forks. There is no doubt in my mind, that for someone who has never read the books and has no interest in the Twilight phenomenon, yes, New Moon will probably not make it on your list of top 10 movies of 2009. I regard Star-Trek in much the same way :)

I liked Twilight (2008). It was artsy and a little rushed, but Catherine Hardwicke captured the feel of the story and the setting nicely. The misty, bluish tones of that film get me every time, and the wide-angle shots of the Pacific Northwest were stunning. The acting was decent, and save for a few corny scenes, I was pleased with this adaptation, and I continue to watch Twilight on rainy days, enjoying it every time.

The year-long, agonizing wait for New Moon was well worth it.

For one thing, Chris Weitz sure knows his audience. He doesn’t mess around with Twilighters or their high regard for the original source material. Scenes from the book that I thought would surely be omitted (the opening dream, for instance, and the bit about relative ages between Jacob and Bella — a scene that adds some critical lightheartedness) left me pleasantly surprised when they managed to work themselves into this 130-minute movie. And for a film all about Bella’s depression, my friends and I genuinely laughed a good bit; why? Because Weitz catered to people who know Twilight. Inside jokes and key book quotes, as well as a thorough understanding of the complicated triangle between Bella, Edward, and Jacob were weaved seamlessly and professionally into a moderately-paced, beautiful, emotionally-fulfilling movie.

Now, the flip-side of knowing the Twilight audience means there were some obviously silly things thrown in. Jacob’s first shirt-removal stunt and his wicked tree-climb, for example. And J. Crew, Banana Republic, or some similar yuppie retailer must have forked over a nice sum of money for Alice’s “vision.” That scene just deserves to be laughed at. The dialogue between E & B at the beginning also verged on the brink of mushiness, but when I remember Louis’s endless philosophical musings in Interview with a Vampire, I can forgive Edward for his tendency towards the romantically profound.

As far as the acting is concerned, Dismal Bella is the perfect role for Kristen Stewart, who plays the same sort of character in all her movies, the female equivalent of Michael Cera. Don’t get me wrong, I love K. Stew: she’s grounded, sarcastic, mature, she doesn’t take crap, and it shows. She’s great at bringing out Bella’s awkward side, but Stephenie Meyer’s Bella is also somewhat of a happy person. Strangely enough, this comes out more in New Moon than it did in Twilight. Maybe it’s a result of Jacob’s radiating personality. In any case, I have no complaints about Stewart’s Bella here.

It had long been known that Edward would be more visible in the movie than his role in the book calls for, via the visions and whatnot, and I was worried it would almost be 50/50 Edward and Jacob movie, but his presence is not excessive. Of course, if it was, I’m not sure even I would complain. Robert Pattinson’s character has improved tenfold since Twilight; Edward stuns in every scene. In the first film, it required a good deal of imagination to see “Edward Cullen the Vampire” when you looked at Pattinson. Now, there is no question whatsoever. I wonder how much of this improvement is Rob’s doing, and how much is Weitz’s directing. Rob screams “Vampire” in New Moon with his stillness and striking smiles, not to mention the pronounced amber eyes and unnaturally pale skin from which all the vamps have likewise improved. You can be proud to wave your Team Edward flag at the end of New Moon.

. . . Or, more likely, you may be tempted to trade in your Team Edward flag for a Team Switzerland flag . . . or, *gasps*, a Team Jacob one. Yes, I said it. I intensely disliked Jacob, but then Taylor Lautner melted my heart. Bella’s inability to give it straight to Jacob for so many chapters finally makes some sense. Taylor should be proud of his perfect 10 performance, and how can you not root for him, knowing the sort of physical training he underwent to keep the part? He is so versatile, changing convincingly from lovable, happy-go-lucky Jake to hormonal, intense, frustrated wolfy Jacob. By the film’s end, all my guy friends were standing solidly on the Team Jacob side of the fence, while I was found myself close to sitting on it.

Due to their prolonged absence from Forks, we don’t see much of the Cullens, which is a shame because I could have sure gone for more Emmett. Eclipse will be his and Jasper’s movie, though, so that’s some consolation for their pathetic lack of lines in New Moon. Ashley Greene’s Alice was still missing something, and to be honest I think the Twilight version of her character was better. The Wolf Pack could have gone for some more acting lessons. Team Human is looking pretty strong, especially if Charlie is included in their lineup — Chief Swan rocks.

I’m not sure what to say about the Volturi. Michael Sheen certainly gave Aro his chilling creepiness, but Marcus and Caius just looked funny. Other than that, I have no opinion on this odd bunch.

Alexandre Desplat’s score is more melodious than Carter Burwell’s electric guitar medley, which was a welcome change. I was not particularly moved by the soundtrack, however. When I listened to the Twilight soundtrack the first time through after seeing the movie, I could immediately place each song with its scene; right now, I am listening to the New Moon soundtrack and I have no recollection of half of these songs, forget trying to match them with any particular scene. They all sort of run together. . . it’s growing on me though.

Some random complaints:

1) What’s with the random motorcycle ride with the creep? I think viewers could have made the jump from Jessica’s “adrenaline junkie” comment to Bella and Jacob’s motorcycles without such a ridiculous, implausible set-up.

2) It only rained once. Um, this is Forks. Granted, I visited for an entire week and saw not one drop of rain, but let’s keep with the stereotype please. The general lack of mist/fog was also disappointing.

3) Edward’s car . . . and those corny Volvo commercials.

4) The unsent e-mails to Alice were a brilliant internal dialogue scheme, but I wish they had extended the Romeo & Juliet theme into these, because the “Paris & Juliet” question is so vital to the book. That’s a small complaint though.

Regarding the ending, I do not believe it could have been done better. The question could not have been left out, nor could they have included Bella’s whimpy answer without leaving everyone with a very bad taste in their mouths. What a perfect set-up for Eclipse!

I loved New Moon :) But before writing it off because it’s Twilight or a supposedly “teen” vampire story, have an open mind and go see it for yourself. It’s a well-done movie and if you didn’t like Twilight, you’ll probably be surprised with this one.

New Jane Eyre

•November 20, 2009 • 2 Comments

According to ComingSoon.net:

Mia Wasikowska (Alice in Wonderland) and Michael Fassbender (Inglorious Basterds) are in talks to star in helmer Cary Fukunaga’s feature adaptation of Charlotte Bronte’s classic novel, Jane Eyre.

Variety says the project is a period piece but will play up the gothic elements of the story about Jane (Wasikowska), a demure governess who discovers her surly employer Rochester (Fassbender) is harboring a dark secret.

British company Ruby Films’ Alison Owen and Paul Trijbits are producing with BBC Films and Focus Features from a script by Moira Buffini.

While I am very excited by this news, umm, good luck making this pretty lady “plain.”

Midnight Tonight!

•November 19, 2009 • Leave a Comment