Books, movies, and other highlights of 2011

Note:  I take no credit for this idea.  So many other bloggers are doing this right now, so I just thought I'd join in.  :)

January

Saw BBC's Sherlock and added Cumberbatch to my list of definitive Sherlock Holmes's.

March

Read Eugene Onegin, which became my favorite romantic classic and the #1 read of the year.

Saw Jane Eyre, an excellent adaptation.

April

Watched TV clips of the Royal Wedding.  Well, who didn't?  :)

May

Began the first draft of my quasi-steampunk novel.

June

Completed Calculus II and Spanish III and got my wisdom teeth removed.  Fun stuff.

Discovered Debussy.

Finished the 200-line poem I began writing in November 2010.

July

Discovered Alkan and rediscovered Ludovico Einaudi.

Read Under Western Eyes, an amazing, heartbreaking book.

Finished The Marble Faun, my not-so-light summer read.

August

Saw the Canadian Rockies for the first time.  <3

Discovered Star Trek TOS.  Fascinating.

Changed my major to computer science.

October

Discovered Yiruma.

December

Completed English 101.  And that after writing a (Star Trek-inspired) argumentative essay on the threat of androids and robots. *grins*

Finished The Idiot, my second Russian lit read.

* * *

Altogether, I wish I had read more books (these aren't all the books I read, but they're the ones that really stood out).  However, nearly all of the books I read this year I loved, so that's cool.  I also wrote a lot of poetry, so that was at least one (unexpected) accomplishment.  As far as movies go, I would probably say that Sherlock and Star Trek were my favorites.  :) 

Read More

Jane Eyre (2011) movie review

Cast, crew, rating, etc:  Jane Eyre (2011) on IMDB, Plugged In review
Overall rating:  4.5 out of 5 stars. 

My mom, sister, and I went to see this movie when it first came out, and I just re-watched it on DVD.  I was really looking forward to this version, having read the book years ago and watched several pretty good versions (Orson Welles, Timothy Dalton, Toby Stephens).  It's an excellent movie all-round, so I feel weird saying I was very disappointed.  Don't let that discourage you, anyway.  ;)  The trailer already describes the plot, so I'll skip right to the review.

Firstly, the costumes, setting, and cinematography were gorgeous, not disappointing at all!  Yorkshire really looks like Yorkshire, the dresses are really 1840s-50s, and there's even an attempt at Yorkshire accents (not consistent, but a good effort).  Visually, there's never been a better Jane Eyre...the bleakness, candlelit rooms, and bright afternoons are wonderfully Gothic/realistic.  And I know many people don't care for the Victorian hairstyles, but I thought Mia had the prettiest hairstyles in this film. 

The soundtrack was beautiful, too--lots of violin, piano, and strings.  I think it'd be a nice one to listen to even on its own.  :)

Loved the script, overall.  I'm super impressed with how much the scriptwriters fit into two hours, and it doesn't feel incomplete or too fast-paced.  The dialogue is also pretty faithful to the spirit of the book.  This is a Focus Features film; they also made the 2005 Pride & Prejudice, but fortunately the scriptwriting is way more accurate in Jane Eyre.  It's true that Jane's childhood is shown in flashbacks, but I actually liked it better this way--it puts Jane's attitude/character in context and creates some interesting parallels between the two points of her life. 

The PG-13 rating is a huge overstatement.  There's a scene with a wounded character, but it's not nearly as intense as, say, the surgery in Cranford.  Then there's a scene with a closeup of an old painting (i.e. the "nude image" mentioned in the rating), but that's it.  There was one swear word.  Really, the rating is pretty misleading; this is one of the cleanest costume films/TV series around, especially for the intended audience (teens and up).

Moving on to the cast.  Mia is by far the best Jane Eyre I've seen.  I'd seen her before in Alice in Wonderland, but as Jane she has much more acting range.  It isn't easy to portray someone who was psychologically altered by a harsh childhood, yet Mia convincingly portrays that and the Victorian era in her character, with stoicism and stifled emotions.  Not only that, but she definitely comes across as the young and naive nineteen-year-old who Jane is supposed to be.  Perfect casting.

It's too bad, then, that the next important character was very badly cast.  Rochester (played by Fassbender) isn't much like the Byronic hero of the book; instead, he comes across as just plain boring.  There's no mysterious charm and not an ounce of charisma in this portrayal.  He's unconvincing in most of the scenes, whether he's trying to be intimidating, witty, romantic, funny, etc.  His conversations with Jane are mostly awkward and painful to watch; the main exceptions being the proposal and ending scenes.  Other reviewers said he was too good-looking...I didn't think him good-looking at all, though Rochester isn't supposed to be handsome anyway.  Again, while Fassbender played the part well enough, they really should have cast somebody with more stage presence and who fit the role better.

Last character worth mentioning is St. John Rivers (Jamie Bell).  Though he is only in a handful of scenes, St. John is solidly portrayed in all his narrow-minded, austere self-righteousness.  And I never expected to say this, but I ended up liking him better than Rochester.  There's much more chemistry between St. John and Jane, and though we despise St. John's obnoxious behavior, we see that they have things in common. They're neither of them very worldly-wise and they're both trying to do the right thing.  The trouble with St. John is that he's approaching it the wrong way.

All in all, Jane Eyre is disappointing as a romantic film but excellent as a story and adaptation.  Recommended.

Read More

Guest post: Wuthering Heights character analysis

Wuthering Heights character analysis |  Nelly Dean

By Emiko

"The story of Cathy Earnshaw and the wild Heathcliff as they fall in love on the Yorkshire moors spans three generations and is seen through the eyes of the narrators Lockwood and Nelly Dean. Emily Bronte tells of the passion between Cathy and Heathcliff with such vivid intensity that her tale of tragic love has gripped readers for over 100 years." - Amazon

I've decided to do a character-analysis on Nelly (Ellen) Dean, the housekeeper in Wuthering Heights. Not just because she's my favorite character, but because she's just about the only person in the book with a moral character and personality, which provides a great contrast against the other characters. Now I could go on and on about her, but for the sake of space and your patience, I'll try to keep this brief. :)

I went on Google to see which characters in the book other people liked. Heathcliff topped the list. Hareton and the younger Catherine also seemed to be popular. But no one, as far as I read, mentioned Nelly. True, she's not considered a major character. But she narrates the majority of the story, she's in most of the scenes, and she frequently has a part in the dialogue. Not merely housekeeper talk, but when confided in by others, particularly both the Catherines. She look at things from a principled point of view and tries to have a good influence on the less moral characters. Now I'm not saying I agree with everything she says and does. She can be a little superstitious at times, and some things that she did aren't necessarily the things I would've done if I was in her shoes. But compared to most of the other characters in Wuthering Heights, Nelly's by far the most upright and conscientious person in the book. 

Her relationships with the other characters differed from person to person. For example, with Heathcliff and the older Catherine (who were about the same age as herself) it resembles that of two foolish, selfish children and a sensible older sister. Whereas with Hareton, the younger Linton, and also the younger Catherine (yeah, it can be confusing), who are about half her age anyway, she is more like a mother to them when she is around them.

Nelly can be critical and rebuking:

    (Catherine addressing Nelly):  “'...did it never strike you that if Heathcliff and I married, we should be beggars? Whereas, if I marry Linton, I can aid Heathcliff to rise, and place him out of my brother's power.'”

(Later in the dialogue):  'Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind—not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being. So don't talk any more of our separation again; it is impracticable, and--'

    She paused, and her face in the folds of my gown, but I jerked it forcibly away. I was out of patience with her folly!
   'If I can make any sense of your nonsense, Miss,' I said, 'it only goes to convince me that you are ignorant of the duties you undertake in marrying, or else that you are a wicked, unprincipled girl. But trouble me no more with your secrets; I'll not promise to keep them.'

 ...but she always maintained a sense of concern and care for people, no matter how much she disliked or detested them. If she reproves or reprimands, it is for the recipient's own good. 

        (Heathcliff speaking):  'I'm trying to settle how I shall pay Hindley back. I don't care how long I wait, if I can only do it at last. I hope he will not die before I do!'
   'For shame, Heathcliff!' said I. 'It is for God to punish wicked people; we should learn to forgive.'

Overall, I see Nelly as a kind, principled, moral character who is underrated and overlooked too much. I think she played almost as big a part as Heathcliff even, in her own way. But anyway, hope you enjoyed my “brief” character-analysis. :)

Read More

From Eyre to Onegin

Warning: Contains unavoidable spoilers.  :P
 



  After finishing Eugene Onegin, I came to the conclusion that it joined Jane Eyre as being the best romantic classic lit I'd ever read.  While trying to figure out a decisive answer to "why?", it struck me that they both have several essential similarities.




There's the Gothic side, for example.  Jane Eyre is constantly called "Gothic", and Eugene Onegin has its share, too.  The letter-writing scene has a sense of gloom about it, but more eerie is the dream sequence, with its fantastical creatures and irony.  And Byronic heroes?  Enter Edward Rochester and Eugene Onegin.  Both are former socialites, now living out empty lives in empty ancestral houses.  Both despise the high society where they once distinguished themselves.  Both believe they've seen all there is to life and human nature.    



 

Tatyana Larin and Jane Eyre are hardly less similar.  Tatyana is quiet and plain; and she keeps her feelings very much to herself.  So does Jane.  Jane expresses her feelings spontaneously, and so does Tatyana (though more elaborately).  They're both of them rather reclusive, but they're not ashamed of it.  And even when they're at odds with society and circumstances, they stay levelheaded and true to their principles.

Why do we still root for Edward & Jane, or Eugene & Tatyana, even when they seem like such polar opposites?  I guess everyone will have a different answer to this, but mine is summed up in a word: redemption.  Mr Rochester, at the weakest point of his life, repents and finds redemption (though not through Jane, it is important to note).  Eugene Onegin, on the other hand, has already gone through a slighter kind of reform before he meets Tatyana; but either he doesn't see it, and/or it's not fully realised, being too obstructed by the lingering pride and old habits left in his life.  By the end of the story, Onegin hasn't entirely changed; but his story goes farther than that, and we know he has the potential to change.

It's this redemption that turns Edward into a gentleman worthy to be Jane Eyre's "Mr Right".  Likewise, it's the glimmering of this change that makes us hope Onegin will find peace someday.

That is one side of the conflict.  The other side is the struggle that the heroine goes through--following her conscience and not her heart.  In most other romance stories, it's the heroine vs. the anti-heroine, or the heroine vs. society, or the heroine vs. her Annoying Relations, etc...in each of these she is a victim.  But battling one's own human nature is a much more difficult thing.  Jane and Tatyana both pass this ultimate test in their stories; they suffer for it, but they come out the blameless victor in the end.

I think this is the reason I like both of these stories so much.  Jane Eyre and Eugene Onegin are true-love romance stories; but just as much, they are about spiritual growth and spiritual strength, and as much about individuals as they are about couples.

Read More

Bronte

Saw this at Costume Drama Madness:   Brooding Brontës replace Austen as ‘bonnet drama’ returns

I was REALLY excited; I thought it meant we were finally getting an adaptation of Villette and other underrated Bronte books!  But it turns out the article is only about the upcoming Jane Eyre and (yet another) Wuthering Heights films.  Mind you, if it's a good adaptation, I'd love to see another Jane Eyre.  I haven't yet seen the perfect one yet...so far I think the 1983 one is the best.  The 2006 one was accurate in some ways (the self-portrait scene, for example), but it drastically changed the character of Jane Eyre, which really bothers me. 

Now, if this new one is good, and if lots of people like it, it might lead to more Bronte stories being adapted--like Cranford was, after North & South.  I really hope that will turn out to be the case.  :)  The problem is, I'm almost a purist when it comes to Charlotte Bronte's books, so if the films aren't good, I will be exceedingly disappointed.  Exceedingly...

Read More

Book Review: "Love, a crime! No, Shirley;--it is a divine virtue;"

Shirley
by Charlotte Bronte
Edition: After starting with one edition, I switched over to Penguin, which has translations of the French and some interesting notes & character/place info. Translations of the French are a must for me--Bronte doesn't always give indication of what things mean, so if you don't know enough French, it can be a problem. The "character/place info" tells what characters (or places) were based on whom, and I really liked having that, too (in fact, I wish all classic books had that feature).
Overall rating: This is tough....it's so close to being 5 stars. I'll give it a 4.8 out of 5 stars.

[If there are any typos in this review, let me know.]

The story: Britain is at war with Napoleon, and English citizens are at conflict among themselves: the mill owners of Yorkshire bring in new machinery to improve their business, which incenses the working class, whose labour has been significantly replaced. Caroline Helstone--the niece of a misogynist Yorkshire clergyman--meanwhile lives in a dreary, tedious, lonely world of her own, half-longing to meet the mother she had been separated from as an infant, and hoping to be loved by the only person who seems to care for her on her own merits: her unsentimental cousin, Robert Moore, who is a Belgian immigrant and now owner of Hollow's Mill. Life is further complicated with the arrival of young Shirley Keeldar, the heiress of the nearby Fieldhead estate. Shirley takes a decided interest in Hollow's Mill...and in her tenant, Robert.

My thoughts: In short, this is another excellent novel by Charlotte Bronte; not quite as admirable or must-read as Jane Eyre, and not quite as good as Villette; but undeniably, Shirley is a good read. It was actually a page-turner; in every chapter that looked like it would be boring, and every time the narrative changed focus to a different character, I kept reading, and almost every time it turned out to be very interesting and absorbing. Charlotte Bronte is underrated these days in comparison to Jane Austen or even Dickens and Gaskell; she is always associated with Jane Eyre--certainly, it is (IMO) her greatest book, but for some reason, her other books are overlooked and largely disregarded. This really is unfortunate, because both Villette and Shirley deserve to be more read, and Shirley would certainly make an excellent costume drama. Why?

In Shirley, Charlotte Bronte not only writes with her own distinctive style, but there are moments of Dickens and Austen as well. Humour is often shown through quirky, interesting, or absurd characters, as in the three curates introduced in the first chapter: Mr Donne, Mr Malone, and Mr Sweeting. The chapter "The Curates at Tea" was hilarious, and rather Dickensian. As for the Austen-esque aspects, the whole story is set in the Regency era; and the two heroines, Shirley and Caroline, are both described as very pretty--something one expects in Sense & Sensibility, P&P, and Emma, not from the author of Jane Eyre. Shirley Keeldar is also quite different in character than Jane Eyre or Lucy Snowe.

But you know, this novel ought to be titled Caroline, instead; she is really the main character, the heroine the reader (this reader, at any rate) can relate to. She might be pretty, but she's also shy; by nature, she's reserved, but when called upon to host a tea when the annoying neighbours come calling, she does her duty with graciousness and cordiality as best as she can. Her uncle, though not in essence a "bad guy", never gave much thought to her education, and never really befriended her; but she doesn't hold a grudge against him. She's a Cinderella character, in that sense. Nor is she entirely timid, either; when insulted by a Mrs Yorke, she defends herself with as much spirit as Elizabeth Bennet. And though she might sound like one of those characters that is "too perfect", Caroline does have faults; one of which is that she can get rather emotional.

Shirley quickly befriends her; Shirley, in fact, is surprisingly not like Emma Woodhouse--Shirley is kindly disposed to everyone, except those of really bad/intolerable character. Though we don't get much background information about her, she seems to be an orphan; she comes to Fieldhead with her governess, Mrs Pryor, and soon is running the place quite easily. Independent is the word that describes her. She's also slightly a bit of a tomboy--her first name, in fact, had been originally meant for what her parents had hoped would be a boy; she likes to be in charge, and have all the responsibilities and privileges of a gentleman. At the same time, she's still quite ladylike and feminine. While I wouldn't call her one of my favourite characters, she is somewhat likeable in way, and I wasn't expecting to like her.

There is something realistic about characters that aren't 100% wonderful or 100% bad; it takes true talent to be able to write characters like that. Bronte not only did that with Shirley Keeldar, but also with Mr Helstone and Martin Yorke, to name a couple of other characters in Shirley.

The plot is pretty good. It's not brilliant, but it's not boringly realistic (a la Wives and Daughters). Somewhere in between. The attack on Robert's mill and the scenes leading up to it were really exciting--but that part concluded rather disappointingly. The book could have used even more history, and it could have focused even more on the mill-owners vs. workers thing, too. The reader instead sees almost everything through the viewpoint of the female characters, who, naturally, weren't very involved in the conflict--there's no Mrs Thornton, unfortunately. ;) Again, though, this is realistic; and since that is a good reason for the book to be less action-packed, I guess it's ok...

So, you could say that this was a mostly "character-driven" book. I liked most of the "good guys", but my least favourite was Robert's younger brother, Louis, who is teaches French. Consequently, my least favourite parts of the book mainly were the ones that focused on him and his love for...you'll see who. Deep down, Louis is a romantic, poetic kind of guy; having to read about his contemplations, agonies, and loving thoughts gets to be annoying. Happily, they don't take up too much of the book.

Happily, too, Robert Moore is not like Louis--Robert is more likeable, in my opinion. He's handsome and hardworking; you like him from the beginning. Or almost like him. He starts out with one pretty bad fault: selfishness. He's relatively poor and his cloth-making business isn't going well, so it's understandable, but it's selfishness all the same. Robert doesn't really care about what will happen to his workers after they get replaced by looms--he's focused on raising his own fortunes and bringing back the family business to the level of prestige it once had. In a way, he's like Mr Thornton (from North and South), although the situation is worse, in a sense: the Yorkshire people don't ask for higher wages, they ask for jobs. Robert eventually goes through character development and "learns his lesson", however; another proof that Bronte was a good writer.

If you're still patiently reading this wordy review, I will now get to the reason why I didn't give it 5 stars. ;) Probably the one main thing I didn't like about this book was the use of Biblical and mythological references & analogies. Don't get me wrong, I am all for Biblical references, but in this book, they were used a lot and sometimes the reference/analogy seemed irreverent. I don't know if that was intentional, and I don't think the author meant any wrong; she was a rector's (clergyman's) daughter herself, and growing up reading the Bible very often, it probably was second nature for her to make Biblical references when talking or writing. [Not to mention, her books are very Christian and moral as a rule--characters pray, forgive, and repent.] Anyway, as for the mythological stuff, I personally find it silly and boring. She probably read a lot of those stories, however--"classics" as they are--so I guess one can overlook it.

As a romantic novel, it's pretty good, though not as good as Villette. Apparently, Bronte wrote this at a point in life where she was felt she wasn't going to end up marrying anybody; maybe this book reflects that. SEMI-SPOILER: Maybe there's also something halfhearted about the happy ending in Shirley. I don't know. In any case, it's good enough to keep you reading, so that's pretty much what counts, in the end.

In summary: I don't necessarily recommend this as a first Charlotte Bronte book, but if you like Jane Eyre and/or Villette, you'll probably like Shirley, too. I think it was definitely worth reading; and while more history would have been nice, it gave enough insight on the Luddite riots & Napoleonic era, that I did feel like I was reading about something new (to me). :)

Read More