Category: TV and Film

Discussion of TV shows and movies

Thinking about Shakespeare

Updated on June 25, 2014 by Sandra Schwab

For today’s post, I originally planned to write something about murdered gamekeepers in the winter of 1843/44 (this is the backdrop for my current WIP, which starts with the murder of a gamekeeper), but because that’s a rather depressing topic and because I stumbled across something last night that bowled me over, I’m going to talk about something else.

Or rather, someone.

Mr. Shakespeare.

As you might know, my day job consists of ~~torturing~~ teaching students at Mainz University, and at the moment I’m teaching Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night in one of my classes. One of the problems I always have with teaching a play is that the text doesn’t really come alive until it is performed. I always include a session on the Elizabethan stage, and if I have time enough, I also try to show at least excerpts from one of the many film adaptations of Shakespeare. (And I do like Trevor Nunn’s Twelfth Night with Imogen Stubbs as Viola and the dashing Toby Stephens as Orsino – even though Orsino is a bit of a wet blanket! – and – oh! – the wonderful Ben Kingsley as the fool. I haven’t yet figured out why this adaptation is set in the 19th century, but what the heck!)

So a few weeks ago I was looking for some more detailed info about The Globe, and I checked on YouTube whether I could find something featuring the inside of The Globe. Instead I found a short little film in which David Crystal and his son Ben talk about the pronunciation in Shakespeare’s time. (David Crystal is a linguist who in the eyes of academia has done the unforgivable: He has made his research topics interesting for the unwashed masses. This is generally considered to be A Very Bad Thing.) (Please note the sarcastic tone here. Personally, I think he is rather wonderful, and I heartily recommend his book The Story of English in 100 Words – fascinating stuff!) This is what I found:

(WP is supposed to embed this video, but I haven’t yet managed to embed videos on my own blog. Hmph. So I hope it works here.)

Fascinating, isn’t it?

But it gets even better! Last night I stumbled across this talk by Ben Crystal, where he talks about performing Shakespeare, about developing scenes using the invisible cues within the text itself, and, of course, about the Original Pronunciation.

It’s like… Ooooooh my! Light bulbs!

In the middle of that talk, I had to pause the film and order all of his books on Shakespeare. And then I wrote a quick e-mail to our course administration office and told them I’d like to teach a double dose of drama next term. Including a class on Shakespeare. 🙂

~~~~~

So let’s hear it: Do you have a favourite Shakespeare play? And what’s your favourite film adaptation of Shakespeare?

~~~~~

P.S.: I’m so going to model one of my future heroes on Ben Crystal! 🙂

Posted in Reading, TV and Film | Tagged Sandra Schwab, Shakespeare | 8 Replies

Trivialities and Austen stuff

Updated on March 20, 2014 by Janet Mullany

I went off to brainyhistory.com today to see what happened today a couple hundred of years ago, and the answer is, not much, or at least not much that interested me. A lot of obscure composers were born on this day. There are always a lot of obscure composers having birthdays.

Turning to the letters of Jane Austen–yes, good idea, let’s talk about Jane Austen–March was not a big letter writing month for her. Her letter of March 9, 1814 to Cassandra contains this sisterly gem:

If Cassandra has filled my Bed with fleas, I am sure they must bite herself.–

Cassandra got busy with the scissors on a letter of March 21 2014 to (maybe) Francis Austen but allowed this to remain:

Perhaps before the end of April, Mansfield Park by the author of S&S–P&P may be in the World.–Keep the name to yourself. I shd. not like to have it known beforehand.

Ah, those were the days. You could be all secretive about your impending release and even about your own identity. No facebook. No twitter. No wall to wall squeeing promo. Heaven.

I’ve been having a Jane Austen-ish time recently, doing what I swore I’d never do because there are too many polluting the world, experimenting with a P&P-based book. More about this darling child, maybe, later. I also went out to Minneapolis for a very short trip–Minneapolis in March, not so good–to talk to their JASNA chapter about Austen and servants. Fun, fast, furious, the weather cooperated, whew.

I also read S&S again. I’ve always thought that one of the wonderful things about Austen is that the books change for you every time, and sure enough, it was like reading a whole new book. I last read it in 2011 and this time I was very much aware of it being “about girls filling in their time waiting by the phone for unsatisfactory men who don’t respond in the right way.” (That was from a post I wrote in 2011 on the JASNA-AGM which was about S&S and hearing Andrew Davies talk about his Austen screenplays.) Because, sorry to say, other than being by Austen, it’s not a very good book. There are so many things in it that don’t work, principally Marianne, Elinor, and Edward.

But Mrs. Jennings. Oh gosh, I love Mrs. Jennings. This time around she was the heroine of the book for me. She’s fun. She’s lively. She isn’t afraid to tease Marianne about Willoughby while everyone else tiptoes around her, not daring to ask whether she’s engaged to him or not. And above all despite the meddling, grasping the wrong end of the stick (considerable), and gossip, she’s kind and loyal and sensible. She knows Marianne will get over Willoughby, and ultimately, get over herself.

Let’s hear it for Mrs. Jennings. Here’s a bit of video for you to enjoy–I love the pained expressions of everyone else while she and Sir John Middleton guffaw away idiotically.

Have you been surprised by a minor character when rereading a book? Do share!

Posted in Jane Austen, TV and Film | Tagged Sense and Sensibility | 5 Replies

Adapting Fanny Price

Updated on February 22, 2014 by Myretta

Andrew Davies, who has successfully adapted Sense & Sensibility, Pride & Prejudice, Emma, and Northanger Abbey, has stated that he will never adapt Mansfield Park. And who can blame him? There have been three adaptations of Mansfield Park and none of them really succeed.

In 1983, the BBC produced a miniseries adaptation.

This Fanny Price, in my opinion, is a pretty fair adaptation of the one in the novel. And I do like Nicholas Farrell as Edmund. Unfortunately, the whole thing tends to be a tad soporific. Watch this one if you are suffering from insomnia.

In 1999, Patricia Rozema tried her hand at Mansfield Park

This is an interesting movie, but so not Mansfield Park. The director admitted to creating a new Fanny, one whom she insists includes elements of Jane Austen. Rozema’s Fanny is a writer if that’s what she means. Most of the rest seems to be solely a construct of Ms. Rozema’s imagination. What this adaptation has going for it (in my opinion, anyway) is Jonny Lee Miller as Edmund. I’ll pretty much watch anything with JLM in it.

Most recently, ITV produced an adaptation, televised in 2007.

I’m a huge Jane Austen fan but I must admit to not watching this adaptation in its entirety. I have no idea who this Fanny Price is, giggling and running around Mansfield Park with her hair down. This not my Fanny Price and I’m pretty sure it’s not Jane Austen’s either.

What’s so hard about adapting Fanny? Here’s what I think. Fanny Price is the strong, moral center of this book, but she doesn’t have much of a character arc. The Fanny Price who finally wins and marries the man she loves is pretty much the Fanny Price who came to Mansfield Park as a child. The other characters change around her or not (*ahem* Mrs. Norris), but Fanny remains stalwart and true.

What do you think? Is there a way to adapt Fanny without changing her? Do you have a favorite adaptation? Want to take a stab at one?

Posted in Jane Austen, TV and Film | 7 Replies

Avengers, Archetypes and Poll

Updated on November 22, 2013 by Elena Greene

I often get behind on pop culture, but try to catch up during our weekly Take-out & Video Night. Lately we’ve been watching the Avengers films. While action alone is OK for my husband, but my daughters and I need more. Joss Whedon’s attention to characterization is what makes these movies for us. Every superhero is distinctly different from the others; there’s always internal as well as external conflict. That the franchise is a feast of attractive men also doesn’t hurt (though I’d like to see more female superheroes, too).

I find it amusing that I can discuss the relative hotness of all these superheroes with my daughters. Being writing geeks, we also like to analyze the characterization and plotting and since we are writing geeks, this doesn’t detract from the fun.

Tami Cowden, author of The Complete Writer’s Guide to Heroes and Heroines, has developed a list of romance hero archetypes (read more here). Here’s my attempt to map these superheroes to archetypes. Sometimes more than one category seemed to apply, but OK, characters are like that.

Thor (played by Chris Hemsworth). Bold, nice to look at (such pretty muscles!), not always the brightest (so it’s good he’s paired with a scientist) but honorable. I say he’s a Swashbuckler though Chief and Warrior could also apply.

Captain America (played by Chris Evans). Kind and decent, he could be a Best Friend but also rises to be a Chief and Warrior when necessary. Also a bit of a Lost Soul since he’s out of his original time period. I told my daughters he’s the only Avenger I would allow them to date.

The Hulk (played by Mark Ruffalo). Definitely a Lost Soul but also the Professor. I love that combination!

Hawkeye (played by Jeremy Renner). I say Warrior but would like to see more of him to be sure.

Iron Man (played by Robert Downey Jr.) It’s hard to categorize a “genius, billionaire, playboy, philanthropist”. I say Bad Boy but he also has elements of Chief, Professor, Charmer, Swashbuckler and Lost Soul.

Even though he’s technically a villain, I have to give Loki his hotness dues. My daughters are huge fans but I told them under no circumstances would I allow them to date Loki.

In the original mythology, he is often called a Trickster (a character who shakes things up but isn’t obviously evil). Marvel has made him into a villain. Using the archetypes from Joseph Campbell’s Hero with a Thousand Faces, the Marvel version of Loki has elements of Trickster, Shadow and Shape Shifter. Back to Tami Cowden’s archetypes, on the hero side he could be a Lost Soul but according to her villain archetypes he’d be the Bastard and/or the Traitor. Whatever you call him, he’s fascinating.

So to the poll. Explain/discuss in the comments!

Loading ...

Elena
www.elenagreene.com

Posted in Frivolity, TV and Film, Writing | Tagged archetypes, Avengers, characterization, Tami Cowden | 10 Replies

Wuxia Love

Updated on November 18, 2013 by megan

In addition to loving films and mini-series from the Regency period, and England in general, I also really like wuxia, which are movies featuring martial arts heroes, set in a past historical period, and usually with some sort of love interest.

One of my favorites (perhaps my favorite movie, actually) is House of Flying Daggers, starring Takeshi Kaneshiro, Zhang Ziyi, Andy Lau, and directed by Zhang Yimou. As its Wikipedia entry says, it is more of a love story than most wuxia films, which is perhaps why it is my favorite.

What I love about movies like these (historical period pieces with lots of romance) is that in viewing them the period comes alive, far more than just reading a book about the time. In setting people–real people with foibles, and quirks, and strengths–in a certain period of time, with certain mores, it really makes the history seem like a reality, and not just something from the past.

That’s why I love reading historical romance–I get what it might have felt like to be a person in that time, reacting to the realities of life.

Have you ever seen a wuxia film? What other historical periods have you seen on-screen?

Posted in TV and Film | 5 Replies