Random Alert! New Moon Review

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

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!

Tuesday Trivia: Pugs!

[Lady Bertram] was a woman who spent her days in sitting, nicely dressed, on a sofa, doing some long piece of needlework, of little use and no beauty, thinking more of her pug than her children, but very indulgent to the latter when it did not put herself to inconvenience. . . (MP Ch. 2)

Ah, Lady Bertram and her beloved lapdog upon whom she cannot even find the brainwave to bestow a proper name. Pug is mentioned a few times in Mansfield Park and nearly always shares the screen with her lazy owner in the two most recent film adaptations (1999 [bleh!] & 2007).

According the AKC, China is the likeliest place of origin for the Pug, who probably served as a pet in the Tibetan monasteries; “the breed next appeared in Japan and then in Europe, where it became the favorite for various royal courts.” According to legend, the Pug really gained royal favor when William I of Orange’s Pug alerted him to the approach of the Spanish army at Hermingny in 1572, saving the prince’s life as well. From then on the Pug was the official dog of the House of Orange, and when William II came to the throne of England in 1689 with his wife Mary II, he brought many Pugs with him, the ones belonging exclusively to the Royal Family bearing orange collars. Another Pug named “Fortune” also nobly served a royal, Josephine Bonaparte, by carrying secret letters in his collar to Napoleon during her imprisonment; before Josephine, Marie Antoinette herself owned a pug named “Mops”, as shown in Sofia Coppola’s 2006 film. George III of England and his family owned many Pugs, so Jane Austen would have certainly been familiar with the breed, just as we are familiar with Elizabeth II’s love of Corgis. Pugs, like Chihuahuas today, were the ideal accessory for any fashionable lady.

Obviously, the filmmakers can be excused for obtaining a modern Pug for the production, as only a very poorly bred specimen would resemble the Pugs of the late 18th/early 19th centuries. From art of the time, we can see that Pugs of that era had more prominent muzzles, still retained a brow bone, were more leggy, and had tails with various curling. Their ears were often cropped to enhance the expression, though this sometimes resulted in a deaf dog if the wounds became infected. The black mask on a short, shiny Fawn coat was the most desired coloring, though black specimens did appear in litters on occasion only to be killed or abandoned. Queen Victoria however owned some Black Pugs, and an influx of them from China in the late 19th Century, coinciding with the rise of dog shows, increased their popularity. The sculpture below is of William Hogarth’s Pug “Trump”, and Pugs feature prominently in his art (though his dog looks more like a bully terrier, such as a Staffordshire, than a Pug).

Eventually, the Pug lost out to the Pomeranian and Pekingese for the top lapdog spot — and of course the ubiquitous English bulldog won over the country in later decades, especially amongst the Y-chromosome set — though it remains one of the most popular breeds to this day.

For a literary analysis of the Pug, check out “Slipping the Leash: Lady Bertram’s Lapdog” in JASNA’s Persuasions.

Bright Star 2009

After Beau Brummell, it’s hard to go wrong — and Bright Star doesn’t.

SPOILER WARNING

This 119-minute film, directed by Jane Campion, debuted at Cannes in May and was received with great praise. Unfortunately, it’s not playing in big theatres across the country, though it is likely infinitely better than half the things out there right now. This film is has raised the bar for costume dramas, though it is more along the lines of a visual poem, than the standard period flick.

The first thing one notices is the beautiful score (which is thankfully available for purchase). Music can redeem or condemn a mediocre film, and though Bright Star is hardly mediocre, rarely does a score compliment the tone of a film so harmoniously. The cello pieces are simply breathtaking.

I went into the movie with a standard high-school education on John Keats’s works and nebulous remembrance of what I had read in previous years about him; the name of his beloved was Fanny Brawne and he died at age 25 from tuberculosis — and something about Hampstead Heath. But no prior knowledge of Keats is necessary to appreciate this film, and I would almost say those who know nothing will have a more intoxicating experience. I am anxious to discover more about the character Mr. Brown, a man who was obviously significant figure in the young poet’s life, yet of whom I remember reading nothing. Of course, this film is as much Fanny Brawne’s story as it is Keats’s, and watching this somewhat unknown woman develop is enthralling.

The acting by both Ben Whishaw and Abbie Cornish is spectacular. Whishaw has been criticized for being “flimsy”, or something to that effect, but I believe his ability to make Keats’s so beautifully human has simply been misinterpreted — all of the actors have mastered the Art of Humanity. Bright Star is a dynamic movie, dominated by neither comedy nor drama nor tragedy as some historical films are, but infusing all of these into an emotionally pure glimpse of the true lives of real people, separated from us by years alone. As I watched Fanny crawl onto her bed and sit cross-legged reading, I was hit by the realization that I had been blinded; costume dramas, for all their brilliance and beauty, had unconsciously elevated these people in my mind to a point of near sublimity — Bright Star brings them softly down again. The interactions between the characters are complicated and sometimes make little sense, but that’s life, is it not?

The idea that Fanny Brawn was an avid costumer surprised me. The movie makes it clear that she lived solidly in the middle class, but I suppose with decent fabrics, a hand for sewing, and an eye for design, one can look quite fashionable in entirely handmade clothes. Even today it is amazing what some people can do with old jeans and wares from Goodwill. Save for the pink ruffled thing she wears in the rain scene, Fanny looks beautiful in everything outfit and still retains, quite appropriately, that girl-next-door quality.

Perhaps that is why this movie is so touching. It’s the classic next-door-neighbor romance, and it’s all true!

There’s not a dull moment in Bright Star — and for a subject matter about poems and love, it takes a true artist to pull that off in a two-hour production. Jane Campion harmoniously blends breath-taking visuals, historical details, Keats’s stunning poetry, and honest sentiment into a dream of a film. I give it 5 out of 5 stars.

Check out these Reviews:

The Independent: “Bright Star”

Telegraph: “Bright Star, review”

The Times: “Bright Star”

New York Times: “Bright Star”

Bits n’ Pieces: Nov. 14

I found this news spoof regarding the Austen-esque flirting phenomenon amongst single women in Britain priceless. With the current popularity of her novels, it would not at all surprise me if, under the influence, some ladies resorted to such tactics

This Times article about Britain’s demand for Georgian houses is enlightening; though the appeal of such homes is nothing new to costume drama lovers, the figures might be!

Buyers will pay a significant premium for homes from the period (typically between 1720 and 1840) — an average of 43%, according to data from the online portal Globrix, which has been crunched by Savills. The research shows that this is the most highly prized of all eras, beating Edwardian and Victorian into second and third place respectively.

In London, buyers will pay up to 83% more for a Georgian gem, with a three-bedroom property costing about £1.4m on average. In the northwest and northeast of England, comparable houses carry 65% and 53% premiums.

Wow. Those premiums can amount to considerable sums! Though, as the author pointed out, one might get a return on one’s investment if a film company decides to make one’s family home the next Norland Park.

 

Remember when I said The Young Victoria would be opening in November? Scratch that. It won’t be till December 18th, and even then, it will be a limited showing. In the meantime, go see Bright Star and New Moon!!

 

And lastly, the BBC announced its new winter programming, which looks amazing for those who get to enjoy some of these specials and shows. *Turns on the only show worth watching in Athens, Cake Boss*

 

Tuesday Trivia: “I confer Precedence”

In Vanity Fair 2004, after the outlandish exotic dance orchestrated by Lord Steyne, the King (George IV, formerly the Prince Regent) declares that Becky Crawley (nee Sharp) must sit next to him at dinner. It seems unbelievable that this scandalous lady would be allowed to do such a thing, as Lady Gaunt (who has obviously been coerced into performing in the pageantry herself) boldly points out to his Highness. The King replies, “I am the King, Lady Gaunt. I confer precedence.”

As Venetia Murray states in her excellent work An Elegant Madness,

The Prince Regent, for example, changed the accepted order whenever it suited him: at one of the Duke of Clarence’s parties, he went against all the rules of protocol by giving precedence to his brother’s mistress, Mrs Jordan, over a Duchess. (21).

In effect, the George IV does the same thing here, placing Becky — though a married woman, practically Steyne’s courtesan — over a whole host of aristocrats and members of the ton.

Beau Brummell (2006)

“There are but three great men of our age, myself, Napoleon and Brummell, but of we three, the greatest of all is Brummell.”

— Lord Byron

For a film about one of the most desirable men of the Regency starring one of the most desirable British actors, I would have thought it impossible for Beau Brummell: This Charming Man to disappoint.

This 2006 biopic about the man responsible for the simple yet sophisticated men’s fashion of the early 19th century — fashion that still dominates today — comes across much like Mansfield Park 1999: it feels all wrong. From the shoddy cinematography, to the shaky history, to the unrealistic social scenes, the entire movie is just uncomfortable to watch.

George Bryan “Beau” Brummell is such an interesting and influential historical figure, it is tragic how little justice this film does to his story — as in, there is no story at all. An audience at least deserves to know how a commoner like Brummell manages to get on a first-name basis (which I find almost impossible to take seriously) with the Prince of Wales, a man remembered for his vanity, pride, and sense of station. Instead, we find Brummell already the Prince Regent’s right-hand man with no backstory whatsoever. For clarification purposes, Brummell was the grandson of a self-made valet, born into a well-to-do family, but a commoner nonetheless. The Prince met the 15-year-old Brummell one day in Green Park, and offered the handsome boy a place in his regiment, the fashionable 10th Hussars. But when exactly Beau had the brainwave that “less is more” and invented the Dandy is unknown:

By what means a young man, neither noble nor rich, nor particularly talented, managed to persuade society not only to follow his lead in fashion but to regard him as the ultimate authority remains unclear. (An Elegant Madness; Murray, 29)

Self-confidence seems to have been his making, and he had an abundance of it, which is made clear in the film. His arrogance was legendary, but so was his charm. It seems unlikely, however, that he would have been so loose with the Prince Regent in the company of others — more due to the Prince’s own pride than Brummell’s. Hugh Bonneville’s Prince is downright charitable in this film, which was certainly not the case with his touchy historical counterpart. The manly bonhomie between the two of them was significantly exaggerated. I also have a hard time believing Brummell and his valet/master servant Robinson (Phil Davis) would have been on such an equal footing, or that Robinson would have accompanied Brummell dressed as if an acquaintance rather than a servant — but perhaps the Beau would tolerate only the best wardrobe even for his man.

The nude dressing scenes are another example of modern “bromance” sneaking into a costume drama. Being invited to watch the Beau at his toilette was an honor, this much is true, but under no circumstances would the observation begin from the nude. A Captain Jesse arrived to watch the Beau dress and found, much to his delight and surprise, that he could see Brummell in the early stages of his toilette through the cracked door and the reflection in a mirror; even when supposedly in private, Brummell was recorded wearing trousers and a robe (Murray, 26). And in his biography Beau Brummell: The Ultimate Man of Fashion, Ian Kelley refers to the “half-naked toilette” (82) that the Prince Regent would attend in a discussion about the speculated physical intimacy between the Prince and Brummell; if it was a naked toilette, Kelley would have certainly mentioned it here.

Kelley also believes the evidence that Brummell and Lord Byron (played by Matthew Rhys) were romantically involved is “flimsy” (203), though he does devote considerable time to the subject. Byron definitely had a thing for young men, but Murray states in An Elegant Madness,

[...] Brummell is not on record as ever having shown any serious interest in women. He was not homosexual, merely uninterested in sex, and far too much of a narcissist to be bothered with loving anyone else. (31)

Whatever the facts, I can forgive the filmmakers for their interpretation. The idea of Beau Brummell and Lord Byron together — two unattainable, enchanting, dazzling men, the heartthrobs of the Regency — is, understandably, too good to pass up.

I’m also not sure whether or not the shaky, dizzy camera shots were meant to be “artistic”, but when it gives you a headache, something is definitely wrong. Used sparingly, these shots are wonderful for emphasizing chaos, confusion, drunkenness, etc., but when a character is examining a piece of muslin? That’s just pointless. And to open a film with a prolonged, shaky, zoomed-in shot of the sexy star getting dressed? That’s counterproductive. The film lacks many wide-angle shots overall, allowing for very little “breathing room.” A “stuffy” costume drama indeed.

There are some delightful lines and scenes (i.e. “the making of a Dandy”) in this film taken straight from Brummell’s biography, but on the whole, Beau Brummell is a disappointment. I would have loved to see more about the Carlton House Set, or a scene of Brummell holding court at White’s bow window — his trademark pastime. What we get instead is the fall of Beau Brummell, rather than the magnificent rise. James Purefoy delights us once again with his delicious frock-coat-and-trousers-wearing self, complete with those magnificent sideburns so reminiscent of Rawdon Crawley in Vanity Fair 2004, but that is the only reason I am going to bother buying the DVD. 2 stars.

Tuesday Trivia: King Arthur’s History

The 2004 film King Arthur claimed to be “the untold true story behind the legend,” and while this is an overstatement on many levels,that the filmmakers found an interesting figure in history to upon which to base their new Arthur is undeniable. While scholars have searched high and low for sufficient evidence to prove the existence of Arthur and found nothing substantial enough to confirm the myth, Jerry Bruckheimer & Co. stumbled upon some existing research about one “Lucius Artorius Castus” and had a field day with the idea.

Lucius Artorius Castus lived in the 2nd century AD, and served as the Roman commander of the Sixth Legion in Britain, stationed at Hadrian’s Wall in the north, the massive barricade that stretched from Newcastle to Carlisle; his grave in the Balkans makes that much clear. The Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius defeated a group of Sarmatian warriors above the Black Sea in 175 AD, and he conscripted the remaining 8000 into the Roman army; of these 5500 were sent to Britain as reinforcements along the Great Wall. The best archeological evidence of their presence here comes from the Roman fort at Ribchester, but there is no evidence linking them with Lucius Artorius Castus. Nevertheless, some scholars have surmised that many Sarmatians did serve under Artorius and his name became a sort of honorary title for great warriors — it has even been speculated that the entire Arthurian legend can be traced back to these press-ganged Sarmatians (see “The Sarmatian Connection” by C. Scott Littleton). A curious theory indeed, and one that enabled 21st-century filmmakers to fashion a King Arthur along both modern ideals and “new” historical evidence.

This would of course mean that the film was set two centuries too late, right? Not quite; the filmmakers do at least acknowledge the difference in dates:

[The Sarmatians'] leader, Artorius Castus, is the offspring of a marriage between a Roman and a British woman. He may be either a descendant of the original Lucius Artorius Castus, prefect of the VI Vecxtrix Legion and commander of the Sarmatian warriors in exile, or simply a leader who took the name Artorius as a title. (Production Notes)

The heavy Sarmatian influences in the film (horse traditions, battle standards, armor, etc.) are the result of the filmmakers squeezing the Sarmatian theory for all it’s worth. And while the history is simply shaky at best and the film no closer to proving the existence of Britain’s most elusive national hero, King Arthur works. Perhaps if the producers had not made such fanciful claims regarding the movie’s historical validity, the critics would have found less to hate. Admire its creativity, but ignore its “facts”

Happy Halloween!