- Essay outline didn't get a "fail".
- Worked on my steampunk novel, with a successful attempt at writing a flashback.
- Saw somebody in a sasquatch costume, walking through town.
- Saw somebody else in a gingerbread man costume.
- Finished part I of The Idiot and fell in love with Prince Myshkin.
- Listening to more Yiruma.
- Church tomorrow.
- No school on Monday.
- Weekend's not over yet. :)
Saturday, 29 October 2011
Friday, 28 October 2011
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.
Wednesday, 26 October 2011
Monday, 24 October 2011
Studying. Opposing viewpoints, musical intervals, and Russia & the FSU republics during the 16th century.
Writing. Not.
Listening. Just started listening to Yiruma. His music is kind of like Einaudi's, except more cheerful.
Reading. Tried The Trial, aka the agonizing life of Joseph K., ladies' man, who gets arrested, angsty, and lost in government buildings. Also tried The Winter Queen, The Poe Shadow, and King Solomon's Mines, all of which I may or may not finish. Just started The Idiot, by Dostoyevsky.
Piano pounding. Debussy's Reverie.
Watching. Will Sonnett and Star Trek Original Season 2.
Thinking. About my irrational lack of energy and its unfortunate effects upon my extracurricular projects.
Friday, 21 October 2011
Recently we watched George Elliot's Middlemarch (1994). Now, I've never read the book and have only seen it once before, years ago; so I was almost watching it for the first time.
The main thing that stood out to me was the gorgeous cinematography. Middlemarch has a very vivid, Victorian, magic-realism style to its filming. It uses color-grading very carefully, and does not limit itself to one style/theme. Maybe there was influence from the Sherlock Holmes TV series--Middlemarch has the same look, only richer and on a bigger scale.
On a similar note, I loved the scenes in Rome, because I could just imagine it was an adaptation of The Marble Faun (Hawthorne). There are even characters that look like Hawthorne's--Dorothea, Miriam; Ladislaw, Donatello; etc.
The main characters themselves are rather aggravating. I liked Ladislaw (the painter) the best, which isn't saying much. On the other hand, the Dickensian "multiple-plot & mystery" was very interesting. The main thing I didn't like about the plot was due to the script--there wasn't enough time spent on the main romance (i.e. the couple who get the final kiss), and way too much time spent on the others.
The story seems to be mainly about bad choices. Unhappy marriages are the main feature.
The mystery was kind of skimmed-over. It felt more like it was "there", without being very important in itself.
Some of the supporting characters are quite good...Fred, Mary, and the uncle (Dorothea's).
Despite the misery of various characters, the characterization feels lacking in something. Probably because one doesn't come to care much about the characters, and when bad things happen, it's not as emotionally affecting as in, say, a Dickens or Gaskell story. Middlemarch seems to suppose to be character-driven, but the characters aren't driving and the plot's barely strong enough to take over. There is no what you might call a strong character...good, evil, or otherwise. I personally find this to be exceedingly unrealistic.
Overall, though, I still enjoyed Middlemarch; it's a good one to re-watch, once in a while. I'd recommend it for the cinematography, if nothing else.
The main thing that stood out to me was the gorgeous cinematography. Middlemarch has a very vivid, Victorian, magic-realism style to its filming. It uses color-grading very carefully, and does not limit itself to one style/theme. Maybe there was influence from the Sherlock Holmes TV series--Middlemarch has the same look, only richer and on a bigger scale.
On a similar note, I loved the scenes in Rome, because I could just imagine it was an adaptation of The Marble Faun (Hawthorne). There are even characters that look like Hawthorne's--Dorothea, Miriam; Ladislaw, Donatello; etc.
The main characters themselves are rather aggravating. I liked Ladislaw (the painter) the best, which isn't saying much. On the other hand, the Dickensian "multiple-plot & mystery" was very interesting. The main thing I didn't like about the plot was due to the script--there wasn't enough time spent on the main romance (i.e. the couple who get the final kiss), and way too much time spent on the others.
The story seems to be mainly about bad choices. Unhappy marriages are the main feature.
The mystery was kind of skimmed-over. It felt more like it was "there", without being very important in itself.
Some of the supporting characters are quite good...Fred, Mary, and the uncle (Dorothea's).
Despite the misery of various characters, the characterization feels lacking in something. Probably because one doesn't come to care much about the characters, and when bad things happen, it's not as emotionally affecting as in, say, a Dickens or Gaskell story. Middlemarch seems to suppose to be character-driven, but the characters aren't driving and the plot's barely strong enough to take over. There is no what you might call a strong character...good, evil, or otherwise. I personally find this to be exceedingly unrealistic.
Overall, though, I still enjoyed Middlemarch; it's a good one to re-watch, once in a while. I'd recommend it for the cinematography, if nothing else.
Thursday, 13 October 2011
I usually begin these posts with a description of the morning's weather. ;) Today, I'll make it brief and (not so) witty: fog.
The trouble with deductions--off on a totally different topic, here--is that you cannot know whether they are correct or not without walking up to your subject and asking them some very extraordinary and irritating questions. Sherlock Holmes's rudeness, which so jarred on Watson's nerves in Ch. 1 of The Sign of Four, seems to me to be a kind of naive callousness. It came from a raw, abrupt, irrepressible search for the answer to a problem, which, in Holmes's brain, presents itself as a puzzle first and a personal matter second. There is an almost Spock-like (to tie Star Trek into it!)...an almost Spock-like lack of emotion in Holmes's deductions. He obtains brilliance but, unbeknownst to himself, pays for it dearly. Their viewpoints were first broadened and then limited, incredibly limited, by logic.
But I make a point of saying Holmes is almost like Spock. There is at least one important difference; and that is, Holmes has an imagination. Spock has very little. Holmes's vivid imagination, which Lestrade & co. so often scorned, actually assists him in his logic. It's what makes him take up the bizarre and seemingly trivial cases, and we get epic quotes like:
On a similar note, there are indeed people who emphasize the "machine" side of Holmes, people who even consider him to have an android-like way of thinking. But if that were so, I don't think he would have dueled Moriarty. I think if Holmes were really all that cold-blooded, he would have let Moriarty continue to commit crimes in order that he (Holmes) would have something to solve.
Well, I'm going to go read Kafka and drink coffee now. ;) Also have an essay to write this afternoon.
Speaking of school, we had our first history test yesterday. I think I have Vladimir I's biography totally memorized now...
The trouble with deductions--off on a totally different topic, here--is that you cannot know whether they are correct or not without walking up to your subject and asking them some very extraordinary and irritating questions. Sherlock Holmes's rudeness, which so jarred on Watson's nerves in Ch. 1 of The Sign of Four, seems to me to be a kind of naive callousness. It came from a raw, abrupt, irrepressible search for the answer to a problem, which, in Holmes's brain, presents itself as a puzzle first and a personal matter second. There is an almost Spock-like (to tie Star Trek into it!)...an almost Spock-like lack of emotion in Holmes's deductions. He obtains brilliance but, unbeknownst to himself, pays for it dearly. Their viewpoints were first broadened and then limited, incredibly limited, by logic.
But I make a point of saying Holmes is almost like Spock. There is at least one important difference; and that is, Holmes has an imagination. Spock has very little. Holmes's vivid imagination, which Lestrade & co. so often scorned, actually assists him in his logic. It's what makes him take up the bizarre and seemingly trivial cases, and we get epic quotes like:
You will remember, Watson, how the dreadful business of the Abernetty family was first brought to my notice by the depth which the parsley had sunk into the butter upon a hot day.And, apart from that, his imagination helps keep him human.
On a similar note, there are indeed people who emphasize the "machine" side of Holmes, people who even consider him to have an android-like way of thinking. But if that were so, I don't think he would have dueled Moriarty. I think if Holmes were really all that cold-blooded, he would have let Moriarty continue to commit crimes in order that he (Holmes) would have something to solve.
Well, I'm going to go read Kafka and drink coffee now. ;) Also have an essay to write this afternoon.
Speaking of school, we had our first history test yesterday. I think I have Vladimir I's biography totally memorized now...
Monday, 10 October 2011
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.
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. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
