new posts in all blogs
Viewing: Blog Posts Tagged with: 2012 Sunday Salons, Most Recent at Top [Help]
Results 1 - 25 of 40
How to use this Page
You are viewing the most recent posts tagged with the words: 2012 Sunday Salons in the JacketFlap blog reader. What is a tag? Think of a tag as a keyword or category label. Tags can both help you find posts on JacketFlap.com as well as provide an easy way for you to "remember" and classify posts for later recall. Try adding a tag yourself by clicking "Add a tag" below a post's header. Scroll down through the list of Recent Posts in the left column and click on a post title that sounds interesting. You can view all posts from a specific blog by clicking the Blog name in the right column, or you can click a 'More Posts from this Blog' link in any individual post.
Again, again, again (movies that I watched obsessively) in 2012...Young Victoria (
my post)
The Aristocats (
my post)
The Music Man (
my post)
Men in Black 3 (
my post)
The Dark Knight Rises
One movie that I watched obsessively was Jane Eyre. I watched TEN different adaptations of that one. Half of the adaptations were new to me.
You can read all about that project on this post.
Out of my comfort zone...BUT... I liked it! Batman Begins and The Dark Knight (
my post)
Thor, Captain America, and The Avengers (
my post)
Inception (
my post)
Prince of Persia (
my post)
My comfort zone...period films He Knew He Was Right (
my post)
North and South (
my post)
Pickwick Papers (
my post)
Our Mutual Friend (
my post)
Victoria and Albert (
my post)
Lorna Doone (
my post)
King's Speech (
my post)
Bertie & Elizabeth (
my post)
Classics...The Shop Around the Corner (
my post)
White Christmas (
my post)
Holiday Inn (
my post)
Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (
my post)
High Society (
my post)
On Moonlight Bay (
my post)
It Happened to Jane (
my post)
George Washington Slept Here (
my post)
Can't Believe I didn't write posts for...Loving Leah (2009)
The Magic of Ordinary Days (2005)
My favorite soundtracks...Young Victoria (Ilan Eshkeri, composer)
Inception (Hans Zimmer)
Jane Eyre (Alessio Vlad & Claudio Capponi)
© 2012 Becky Laney of
Becky's Book Reviews
Batman Begins and Dark Knight. I was hesitant to give Batman a try, at first, but I am so glad I did! Even though it isn't a genre I typically seek out, it surprised me with its depth. Both films were intense and compelling. I thought both were well done--good storytelling, good dialogue, good acting, etc. I didn't realize how much
stayed with me until I began reading Paul Asay's
God On the Streets of Gotham which quotes quite a bit from Nolan's films. The scenes have depth and there is always something to think about or consider. The films feel thoughtful and rich. I haven't watched the third film yet; I hope to do so soon! These are films that I'd like to watch again.
Men in Black 3. I have always enjoyed the Men in Black films. So I knew this was one I'd want to watch. I was surprised by how much I LOVED, LOVED, LOVED it. For the first time in this series, there is
something more to the story. Something substantive and rich in meaning and significance. On the surface, it is about men in black trying to save the world, once again. But. That's not the whole story. And this was the first time I felt there was sincerity and authenticity to the characters, the scenes, the story. Plus, it has TIME TRAVEL. The movie begins with a prisoner escaping from prison. Boris wants revenge on the agent who sent him to prison--the agent that caused him to lose an arm. He wants to go back in time and kill Agent K...and that is when J begins craving chocolate milk. I won't talk about what happens or even attempt to discuss what it all means. But. This film is one I LOVED. A film I've seen twice now. (I'm tempted to watch it again but I'm trying to fit some Christmas movies in before Christmas.)
Pittsburgh. Now this is a film (mockumentary/documentary) starring Jeff Goldblum. I would never have picked it up if there hadn't been a Music Man connection. In this "film" Jeff Goldblum is preparing to star in the role of Harold Hill in a local production of The Music Man in Pittsburgh. There are plenty of scenes showing rehearsals and giving a behind-the-scenes look at the show. In this case, the director trying to transform Jeff Goldblum into a somewhat believable Harold Hill. It was interesting to see him singing the songs I know so well--76 Trombones, Ya Got Trouble, etc. But there are more stories to follow in the film. Stories that didn't exactly interest me as much. I am glad I watched it even though I'd probably not watch it again.
White Christmas is one of my favorite Christmas movies. I don't LOVE it as I do Holiday Inn. But I enjoy it. There are some really enjoyable scenes in White Christmas. The musical number "Sisters," the song-and-dance number "The Best Things Happen While You're Dancing," the train scenes, and, of course, the opening and closing scenes with the focus on the song White Christmas. The ending IS magical.
Muppet Christmas Carol. This is one of my FAVORITE Christmas films. It's so quotable too! I just love this adaptation of Charles Dicken's The Christmas Carol. I love that it's a musical. The music is just perfect. It is ESSENTIAL to view it with "When Love Is Gone" however even if that means watching it in full screen instead of widescreen. According to Amazon (and wikipedia) the song is NOT included in the newest Blu-Ray and DVD releases.
© 2012 Becky Laney of
Becky's Book Reviews
I recently watched Miracle on 34th Street, Christmas in Connecticut, and Shop Around the Corner.
I really love Miracle on 34th Street (1947), I love how it gives viewers both Thanksgiving and Christmas. I love watching Doris and Susan change throughout the film, how they both come to "believe." I love the romance of Doris Walker and Fred Gailey, I thought it was very sweet and lovely. And I just love Kris Kringle, of course. His time on trial is one of the highlights of the film. Love to see all the letters to Santa come into the courtroom! And the ending of this one is just right!!!
Christmas in Connecticut (1945) is a film I've seen only twice. It's classic romantic comedy. Secrets, everybody has secrets in this film! Elizabeth Lane, the heroine, writes a housekeeping column where she shares tips on cooking, keeping house, raising children, etc. Her secret? She's single, living in an apartment--her column boasts that she lives on a farm in Connecticut--and she can't even cook. Her boss wants her to invite a war hero to the farm to spend the holidays with her. She has every intention in the world of saying no. But she ends up inviting her boss too. What's a girl to do? Where can she find a husband, a baby, a farm on such short notice?! She does have someone who has been extremely eager to marry her even knowing that she doesn't love him at all. But what about the other details? Her would-be-husband, Mr. Sloane, is a man who prides himself on all the details, but does she trust him enough? How will she ever convince anyone that she knows what she's doing?!
It is a romance, but an odd romance with dozens of secrets.
Shop Around the Corner (1940) stars Margaret Sullavan and James Stewart. It is an odd romance that may feel quite familiar to viewers even if they've not seen it. For this basic plot is found in both In the Good Old Summertime (1949) starring Judy Garland and Van Johnson, and You've Got Mail (1998) starring Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks. I prefer Shop Around the Corner. The film is set in Budapest in a little gift shop. Two clerks fight together all the time not aware that they are each others pen pals. Alfred Kralik discovers the truth first, and that's when things get interesting! There are some lovely scenes in this one. There is contrast in this film, as this young couple is falling in love, viewers see the break down of another relationship solely through the eyes of the husband who has just learned of his wife's infidelity. His crushed spirit and loneliness adds darkness and depth to the film. The film is in many ways about the human need to connect with others, to find friendship, love, family, a place to be loved and accepted. There are so many wonderful scenes in this one. I enjoyed all the connections between the characters. The dialogue was GREAT.
© 2012 Becky Laney of
Becky's Book Reviews
The House Without a Christmas Tree. Gail Rock. 1974. 84 pages.
It had been years since I first read this one. This is a reflective book about a memorable-though-slightly-tricky Christmas. The narrator is reflecting on the Christmas of 1946. Readers meet a young girl who lives with her father and grandmother. Her father doesn't exactly know how to show love, affection, or concern for his growing-up daughter. In fact, he fails to see her as a human being, as the grandmother bravely points out in a tense scene. The child has no memories of her mother--who died the year she was born--and she's struggling to find her place in the home. She loves her father, but, she rarely feels approved of by her father. Every day no matter how hard she tries to please him, to interact with him, he puts her aside and/or criticizes her. Perhaps readers aren't told this is a year-round occurrence, perhaps it is jumping to conclusions, for maybe he is just crankier around Christmas, but, regardless he is a difficult person to love. In this one, the little girl wants a Christmas tree but is refused. It's not a matter of money--merely preference. The little girl misunderstanding this does think it more a matter of her father's stinginess and unwillingness to 'waste' money on something so trivial...so when she has an opportunity to win a tree, she does so with pride and hope...
The ending is predictable, I imagine. Most readers will guess that somehow, someway she will get her tree and somehow manage to make a connection with her father. But. It is a story worth reading at least once. (Though it is in some ways a children's book, there are a few words sprinkled throughout that some parents may want to know about before they read it aloud or share it with their children. I do think they are authentic to the story revealing the character of the father in his anger/rage.)The movie. Well, I thought the movie stayed close to the book which was nice. And I thought the movie did a nice job capturing the tone of the book, especially capturing the heroine's love of art and her creativity. It is a good reflective, historical Christmas movie. But it isn't a favorite.
Read The House Without a Christmas Tree- If you enjoy historical fiction with a holiday theme
- If you enjoy coming-of-age stories with a holiday theme
© 2012 Becky Laney of
Becky's Book Reviews
High Society (1956) has always been one of my favorite movies, and one of my favorite musicals. High Society stars Bing Crosby, Frank Sinatra, and Grace Kelly. (Also features Louis Armstrong!) It adds a jazz element to the story not found in the original. Philadelphia Story (1940) is a movie I've only seen twice. It stars Katharine Hepburn, James Stewart, and Cary Grant. Philadelphia Story has greater complexity perhaps in the plotting. The plot was simplified and/or clarified for the retelling in High Society. Some of the best lines in High Society are straight from Philadelphia Story. It was interesting to watch Philadelphia Story since I am so familiar with High Society. What I noticed most are the differences--in dialogue, in scenes, in story and plot--between the two. For example, in Philadelphia Story Macaulay ("Mike") Connor is actually a writer with a published book, though not a writer-who-can-support-himself. One of the conflicts between Tracy and Mike is that she offers to help him out financially enabling him to quit his reporting job. But he finds her offer condescending, he doesn't want to live off someone else. Another difference is Dexter's "drinking problem" which doesn't quite carry over in High Society. Because viewers know that one of the reasons she split with her first husband was her disapproval of his drinking habits, of how he acted when drunk, that makes her fall from grace--getting drunk and flirting around--all the more telling. George also has more lines, I believe, in this one. In High Society he was a pathetic character from start to finish. I did enjoy Philadelphia Story. How could I not enjoy it? It has CARY GRANT!!! And Grant and Hepburn made some WONDERFUL films together--I've enjoyed so many of them! I'm not sure I love it more than High Society though. It is a good movie, a good romantic comedy. And it would be easy to recommend!
© 2012 Becky Laney of
Becky's Book Reviews
I had so much fun watching Snow White and Cinderella that I decided to watch Sleeping Beauty. This is a Disney film that I'm not that familiar with. While I enjoy the song "Once Upon a Dream," the movie isn't as much a favorite of mine. It has playful and argumentative fairies, true, but for me it's just not as magical a movie. (Though I must admit that Prince Phillip is better developed as a character, especially when compared with Prince Charming from Cinderella.) Watching the behind-the-scenes feature helped me to appreciate this one a little more. The Disney film doesn't exactly resemble the fairy tale--at least not as told in the
Blue Fairy Book. But. That might not be a bad thing!!!
I also decided to watch Enchanted. I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the movie Enchanted. It is such a great feel-good film. So fun, so playful, so satisfying, so giddy-making!!! I love the songs, the story, the characters; I just love it all. I think it was fun to watch Enchanted again after having just seen Snow White, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty.
Do you have a favorite scene from Sleeping Beauty or Enchanted?
© 2012 Becky Laney of
Becky's Book Reviews
Cinderella is a lovely film. I don't think Walt Disney's Cinderella is as lovely and romantic as it could be, or should be. But as an animal fantasy, or, cat-and-mouse adventure it works quite well. Prince Charming doesn't matter in Cinderella, for the most part. His personality and character are practically nonexistent. (Unless you want to say that he waltzes well?) Almost all of the animal characters (even Bruno and the horse) get more time and attention. Gus is probably my favorite, favorite mouse. But all the mice--including Jacques--are fun additions to the story. I really appreciate the cat-and-mouse scenes with Lucifer (and sometimes Bruno). And Cinderella herself is lovely, I enjoy the opening scenes of the film, and just love A Dream Is A Wish Your Heart Makes. I also LOVE Sing Sweet Nightingale. In one of the special features (I think it was under Backstage Disney, The Cinderella that Almost Was?) there is mention of how at one time there was a music teacher and discussion of how the scene was much longer (and probably funnier). I watched all of the Special Features of the 2005 release, and almost all of them were fascinating and well worth the time!!! (There's even a clip of Perry Como, the Fontane Sisters, and Ilene Woods singing together.) And I love the ending, of course, when she's rushing down the stairs trying to get her turn to try on the slipper...it can be quite magical at times.
Do you have a favorite scene or favorite song? Is this your favorite adaptation of Cinderella?
© 2012 Becky Laney of
Becky's Book Reviews
I recently watched Iron Man (2008), The Incredible Hulk (2008), Iron Man 2 (2010), Thor (2011), Captain America (2011) and The Avengers (2012). Each film had strengths and weaknesses in my opinion. I did prefer the first Iron Man to the second. (Tony Stark's ego in Iron Man 2 was beyond obnoxious, taken way past any tolerable extreme. And there were so many absolutely ridiculous things in the film.) I enjoyed The Incredible Hulk more than I thought I would. I found the story (minus the ridiculous fight scene at the end) quite compelling.
Two definitely stand out as being my favorites: Captain America and Thor! I loved Thor!!! I really, truly loved it. I enjoyed Thor and his conflict with his brother, Loki. I liked seeing how his "fall" to Earth helped him to be a better "god" in a way. I really enjoyed seeing Stellan Skarsgard, Natalie Portman, and Kat Dennings. Also the Thor and Jane Foster romance was very fun to see!!! There were just some great scenes--great moments there. And I definitely LOVED Captain America. It was a great movie. I enjoyed the character, Steve Rogers/Captain America. I enjoyed the setting of the film, World War 2, and I liked getting a glimpse of Tony Stark's father, Howard. I loved seeing this good guy become a great hero. Great story, great characters, good dialogue.
Did I enjoy The Avengers? Yes. Did I love it? Not really. I did LOVE Thor and Captain America. I really enjoyed their scenes in this one, for the most part. And I loved some of their lines in the film. There were many, many enjoyable moments throughout the film--not just with Thor and Captain America--but with many if not all of the "heroes." But there was just too much fighting overall. A movie where one fight scene leads to another to another to another to another to another to another with barely anything in between...is not my kind of movie. I want more story. I definitely saw improvement in Tony Stark's character, and so I definitely liked this one much better than Iron Man 2. So I definitely liked this one; loved in some places, just liked in others. I am very glad I watched these movies.
© 2012 Becky Laney of
Becky's Book Reviews
I decided to reread The Hunger Games before watching the film adaptation of The Hunger Games. It was a great opportunity for me to revisit this great dystopia. I think I want to reread the rest of the series now, I'm curious to see if my feelings change as I revisit the story.
I thought the adaptation worked really well. In fact, it may be the best adaptation of a novel to film that I've seen in recent years. What details were changed in the movie seemed to make complete sense. While novels will always allow a reader more of a chance to get to know characters, I thought the movie did a GREAT job with the characters. (For example, I thought the movie did a GREAT job at portraying the relationship between Rue and Katniss. It was amazing.) While the "love triangle" annoyed me in the book, I wasn't as bothered by the portrayal on film. Perhaps because a few silent scenes can convey much more than
whining words on a page.
I do think the film was able to capture some things better than the book. I thought they did a GREAT job with the hunger games. I thought they did a great job at showing the corruption of the system, of how calculated, heartless and manipulative the games are. I thought the behind-the-scenes look at how the games are manufactured were great. As a reader you get a little of that, of course, because Katniss seems always aware of the fact that there is an audience, etc. But I thought the film did a great job at bringing everything to life.
Have you seen this one? What did you think? Do you prefer the book or the movie?
© 2012 Becky Laney of
Becky's Book Reviews
I recently watched Bertie & Elizabeth, The Story of King George VI & Queen Elizabeth. I just LOVED it. After watching and LOVING
King's Speech, I wanted to know more about this royal couple...and I found Bertie & Elizabeth to be equally compelling and satisfying. It also provides a fuller portrait of this royal family, of this at times dysfunctional royal family. (The conflict between brothers was so well done!!! And Wallis Simpson makes for an intriguing villain in this one.)
I loved this biographical film. It follows his life from his courtship of Elizabeth to his funeral. I loved it as a romance. I loved it as a feel-good film showing that anything is possible with hard work, determination, courage and diligence. I also found the section on World War II to be fascinating!
I would definitely recommend this one!!!
Have you seen this one? What did you think?
© 2012 Becky Laney of
Becky's Book Reviews
Return to Me is one of my favorite feel-good films. It's definitely an emotional film, I won't lie. The beginning, oh the beginning, it gets me every time. But it's a hopeful healing film, the kind that values family and friendship and living life to the fullest and making the most of your life. I love the relationships in this one, I do, the friendships, the sense of community, of belonging. I love how easily Bob is accepted into the group, and how Bob does treasure these new relationships. And I absolutely adore the courtship of Grace and Bob, I do. It is magical and giddy-making. I love almost all of the characters--or at least the characters we're meant to care about. (I wasn't so fond of "water-lady"). It has its dramatic moments, of course, but it also has its humorous ones. And there are just some scenes that are WONDERFUL. (I love the bowling scene, for example, also the scene with "At Long Last Love." Well, I love most scenes.) If I could change just one little thing in this one, it would be some of the language in the film. Still there is enough in this film that makes it more than worthwhile. I just love it!!!
Have you seen it? Did you like it?
© 2012 Becky Laney of
Becky's Book Reviews
I recently watched the first season of the BBC Robin Hood series. While I didn't exactly LOVE it, I did find it compelling enough to keep watching. I'm not sure when I'll try to watch the rest of the series. But at some point, I probably will go back to the show. I like quite a few things about the show. For one, it has Richard Armitage. He plays Guy of Gisbourne. I like the action, in many ways. Though it doesn't really compare to Errol Flynn and Basil Rathbone. Much (played by Sam Troughton) was probably my favorite character overall. I enjoyed him even more than Robin Hood (played by Jonas Armstrong). In some ways the show does improve after the initial episodes, in other ways, however, I thought the show declined. There was definitely promise and potential. Overall, I liked the basic idea of the series, but individual episodes disappointed or frustrated me. The costume design definitely disappointed me.
Have you seen this series? Did you like it? Should I watch season 2?
Watch Robin Hood, the BBC series
- If you enjoy the story/legend of Robin Hood and don't mind modern changes to the story (dialogue, costumes, stories and plot twists)
- If you enjoy BBC dramas
- If you enjoy action with a little bit of romance
- If you enjoy action, adventure stories. Lots of chasing, fighting, escaping, etc.
© 2012 Becky Laney of
Becky's Book Reviews
While I've always enjoyed the occasional episode of Perry Mason, this summer I decided to watch the entire first season of Perry Mason--all thirty-nine episodes! It was WONDERFUL treat for me. And just what I needed after spending so many weeks with Jane Eyre! I enjoy many things about the show. I love the mysteries; I love trying to guess who really did it. I love the characters and the relationships, particularly the teasing banter. It is great to see Perry Mason and Hamilton Burger in the courtroom! And I've always enjoyed Lieutenant Arthur Tragg too.
What I've come to love are the small things, the little details, of each episode that make it unique. So even though it might be tempting to say that all episodes are the same, I'm not sure that is really true. (But even if it is true, it wouldn't be a bad thing. Especially in the case of Perry Mason.) To me the judge of a "good" show or a "great" show is how it does with repeated viewings. Any show can entertain once or once in a while, but to stay interesting no matter if it's your first time or your fifth time, that's what counts.
Watch Perry Mason
- If you like mysteries and murder mysteries
- If you enjoy courtroom dramas
- If you enjoy classic TV shows
© 2012 Becky Laney of
Becky's Book Reviews
Aristocats is one of my favorite animated films! It is charming and delightful. I love the characters. I love the story. I love the songs and the score. I love it all.
Which cat is your favorite? O'Malley? Duchess? Berlioz? Toulouse? Marie? Or perhaps one of the jazz cats? I love them all, but I especially love the kittens.
I definitely love Roquefort the mouse!!! I recognized his voice immediately! He's voiced by Sterling Holloway who voiced Winnie the Pooh?! And he wasn't the only voice I recognized! So many talented voices in this one!!! The dogs Napoleon and Lafayette were great fun in this film!!! They were voiced by Pat Buttram and George Lindsey. (Lindsey voiced Trigger in Robin Hood; Buttram voiced the Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood). O'Malley is voiced by Phil Harris who was Baloo in The Jungle Book and Little John in Robin Hood. Duchess is voiced by Eva Gabor. I also liked the geese in the film, Abigail and Amelia!!!
Do you have a favorite scene or a favorite song?
© 2012 Becky Laney of
Becky's Book Reviews
I love watching musicals, and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers is one of my favorites. It's not that I love each and every song, there are only a few musicals that I can say I love EVERY song. But I love so many things about it. To me it's a fun, feel-good film. I love how Millie teaches the remaining single brothers how to court a woman, how to make conversation, how to dance, etc. I love the barn-raising scene. That section is one of my favorites!!! I love the singing and dancing. I also love the song the women sing as the snow falls and the seasons change. That whole sequence has always been a favorite of mine. And there are plenty of scenes that make me smile every time! While I don't necessarily like the attitude of all of the characters, all of the time, there is just enough about the film for me to love. It is also interesting to me that my "favorite brother" continually changes.
Do you have a favorite musical?
© 2012 Becky Laney of
Becky's Book Reviews
Watch The Egg and I
- If you like Claudette Colbert
- If you like Fred MacMurray
- If you like black-and-white romantic comedies
- If you like funny movies about city people trying their hand at farming; in this case raising chickens
- If you want to meet Ma and Pa Kettle
- If you enjoy movies like GEORGE WASHINGTON SLEPT HERE and MR. BLANDINGS BUILDS HIS DREAM HOUSE.
Watch High Society
- If you like Bing Crosby
- If you like Frank Sinatra
- If you like Grace Kelly
- If you like Louis Armstrong
- If you like musicals (this one is Cole Porter)
- If you like jazz and jazz festivals
- If you like The Philadelphia Story
- If you like romance
- If you like classic movies
- If you like movies that explore human frailty; this movie has some great characters, great scenes.
Watch Puss in Boots
- If you love the character Puss in Boots from the Shrek movies
- If you are interested in the character's back story
- If you love twists on fairy tales
- If you love cats
- If you have a high tolerance level for Humpty Dumpty
© 2012 Becky Laney of
Becky's Book Reviews
I recently watched two episodes of Miss Marple: Sleeping Murder and Moving Finger! I really enjoyed both movies, though, I admit to liking Moving Finger more because that happens to be one of my favorite Christie mysteries.
The Moving Finger is about a not-so-quiet village being plagued with poison pen letters--anonymous accusations sent through the mail. Almost everyone in the village--with one or two exceptions--has received one. Several murders occur before Miss Marple arrives to help solve the case. I love this mystery because of the characters and the added romance.
The Sleeping Murder is another mystery that I've read. But it wasn't memorable to me. I watched this one without remembering any of the clues or who did it! Which was nice, I suppose! It's tricky to know what to do. On the one hand, I like to be surprised when reading the actual mystery, I wouldn't really want to know who did it ahead of time. But I like to be surprised when watching the movie too.
Watch Miss Marple
- If you're a fan of the books
- If you enjoy mysteries
- If you like mysteries set in the past
© 2012 Becky Laney of
Becky's Book Reviews
I recently watched the 2000 adaptation of Lorna Doone starring Richard Coyle as John Ridd and Amelia Warner as Lorna Doone. (Also notable, Martin Clunes as Jeremy Stickles, and Aidan Gillen as Carver Doone). This historical romance was quite lovely! I do love period dramas! And I'd definitely recommend this one to anyone who loves period dramas and historical romance--even if you've never read the book or plan on reading the book.
It is quite fast-paced, especially when compared with the novel! It is romantic and exciting and oh-so-intense.
Especially the ending.
I just LOVED Richard Coyle as John Ridd. Then again, I tend to LOVE Richard Coyle. And Aidan Gillen made a dramatic, oh-so-dangerous villain. He made Carver Doone so much more interesting, I thought. A truly memorable villain!
I thought this film did a great job with the characters, the characterization!!! And the romance was lovely.
Have you seen this one, what did you think?
© 2012 Becky Laney of
Becky's Book Reviews
I recently watched an "adaptation" of Lady Audley's Secret. How much does the movie have in common with the book? Well, I could be generous and say ten percent--maybe even fifteen percent, but, essentially NOTHING. True, the movie shares a title with the book. True, the movie features characters called: Michael Audley, Alicia Audley, Lady Audley (Lucy Graham), Robert Audley, George Talboys, and Phoebe and Luke Marks. As does the book. True, Lady Audley has a secret or two. But that is where the similarities end. For the most part.
Perhaps the BIGGEST difference between the movie and the book is in the character of Robert Audley. Other than his first name being Robert, and his last name being Audley, you can just assume that the movie version is completely different--and by different I mean OPPOSITE. Well, technically I guess both Robert Audleys are nephew to Michael Audley. But as far as character, personality, morals, motivations, intentions, and actions go, they are about as opposed as they can be.
If I had to describe the Robert Audley from the movie, I'd say he was lusty, vengeful, and a complete jerk. He LUSTS after his uncle's wife, Lady Audley, something so far removed from the book it is almost impossible to believe that the people responsible for this movie even read the book--did they even own a copy? He doesn't just lust from afar, he goes about grabbing her and kissing her. And then there's the whole sneaking up and watching her in a state of undress through a slightly-open-but-mostly-closed door, her private room. A place he had no business lingering in the first place. Never mind him just happening to find the door that way. And then the way he turns around and kisses Alicia when she discovers him---DISGUSTING. In the book, Robert was equally indifferent to Alicia, who did want him to propose one day, and to Lady Audley. He definitely wasn't chasing after Lady Audley trying to convince her to run away with him! And while it is true that Lady Audley tells her husband that she thought it was unwise to have Robert around just because he might accidentally fall in love with her instead of Alicia, it was a tactic on her part. She wanted him out of the house, she wanted him out of the neighborhood. This Robert--the movie Robert--is not exactly indifferent to Alicia, he leads her to believe that they will be married. You can't mistake words like "will you marry me?" So Robert just appears to be a JERK (to put it very nicely) to Alicia.
George Talboys. Poor George. So little screen time, and what time you were on screen, well, Robert your dear friend, was more interested in Lady Audley. How were viewers to ever guess that your relationship with Robert actually mattered? That your friendship with Robert actually was the motivation behind almost all of the novel after your mysterious disappearance?! No, poor George, you didn't enter into Robert's thoughts at all, hardly. It would have helped things, perhaps, if the movie-Robert had bothered to track down your family, to share his convictions, to meet your father and sister. It would have perhaps shown that Robert just wasn't OBSESSED with Lady Audley instead of Lady Audley's "secrets."
Does motivation matter? Is it so very, very, very important that Robert investigate the disappearance of his friend George because he loved George, that he wanted justice for his friend, that he sincerely thought something horrible had happened and he needed answers? I think so. When you make Robert's sole motivation
I could gush on and on about He Knew He Was Right. This adaptation of an Anthony Trollope novel is practically perfect. It is both true to the book and completely delightful all on its own. Meaning that you don't have to have read the book in order to enjoy it completely, though, after watching this one you may want to pick up the book! I know watching this one made me want to reread the book!!!
So what did I love about this one? I loved that it was true to the book. Now, I've read here and there that this movie is flawed because the subplots are supposedly more interesting than the main story line, that there is something wrong with this movie because viewers care more for the minor characters than the major ones. I disagree. Here's why. This would only be a problem or a flaw IF the movie gave more screen time to the minor characters (Nora Rowley, Hugh Stanbury, Aunt Jemima Stanbury, Dorothy Stanbury, Brooke Burgess, Reverend Gibson, Camilla French, Arabella French, Mr. Glascock, etc.) than Anthony Trollope devotes to these same characters in his novel. If you've read the book, you KNOW that Anthony Trollope spends a great deal of time with these characters. In particular, he gives GREAT attention to both Dorothy Stanbury and Nora Rowley.
These two young women receive equal attention to Emily Trevelyan. The successful romances of Nora and Hugh and Brooke and Dorothy provide contrast to the unhealthy deteriorating romance of Louis Trevelyan and Emily. Viewers see--briefly see--the romance between the "main characters" of Emily and Louis. But except for the first few minutes and the last few minutes--these two are anything but happy and together. The obstacles for this couple all occur after the wedding, after the honeymoon, after the birth of their son. In fact, he's a toddler when the problems begin. Essentially, I see Emily and Louis as one story line, true, but not necessarily the "main" story line. The other story lines receive equal time and attention in the novel, and, it is only fair that they receive the same amount on screen. I don't think Trollope thought in terms of "major" characters and "minor" characters. Not the way we do. I think there is enough depth and substance in his characters that even so-called "minor" characters feel real and interesting.
. Viewed solely in terms of the "main" story, the break down of a marriage, the nervous break down of a man, Louis Trevelyan, the story is truly tragic. Here we have a happy home torn apart, broken and divided. And why? Because of one man's insistence that he is right, that his perception of reality is the only right percept
This week I'm sharing my thoughts on the 1996 film,
Jane Eyre. This adaptation stars Charlotte Gainsbourg as Jane Eyre and William Hurt as Edward Rochester.
I have been having so much FUN watching all these adaptations of Jane Eyre. You might not think it would be fun to watch Jane Eyre and only Jane Eyre for weeks at a time, but, surprisingly enough I am having a delightful time with this project of mine. Why? Even though not every adaptation gets every, little thing right, even though some interpretations of Bronte's original novel don't make me giddy in delight--even though a few scenes in a few adaptations make me cringe--I have found enough to enjoy in each and every adaptation.
For the most part I enjoyed this adaptation of Jane Eyre. I really enjoyed William Hurt as Mr. Rochester. I think he did a good job in capturing Charlotte Bronte's hero. Perhaps he isn't fully-fully realized or brought to life in this adaptation, a few scenes are missing, a few exchanges are missing, but, for the most part he plays the role right. (The gypsy-fortune-teller scene is missing from this adaptation. And some of the couple's conversations are cut short or eliminated from this abridgment.)
The film did a good job in adapting two tricky scenes. I thought this film did a great job in portraying the first meeting between
Mr. Rochester and Jane Eyre. This is closer to how I imagined it from the book. Perhaps this stood out to me because I thought it was done so horribly in the 1997 adaptation.
The second scene that has proved oh-so-tricky to get right is after-the-non-wedding, post-big-reveal scene. This movie gets a passing score not so much for what it does, but for what it doesn't do. It isn't a monstrous temper tantrum or a make-out session. Rochester isn't yelling, screaming, grabbing, pushing, pulling, or demanding.
NOW, what happens after she leaves, well, that certainly deviates from the book!!! Perhaps it took inspiration from the 1934 film?
Overall, this one does take liberties with the book. It is not as faithful as it could be. St. John Rivers is not her cousin, he is rector at Gateshead or near Gateshead. She meets St. John Rivers and his sister, Mary Rivers, not in her desperate hour of need when she's running away from Mr. Rochester, but, instead when she goes to visit her dying Aunt Reed. She returns to them after her bitter disappointment, but, they are already acquainted with her. She does inherit her money (unlike the 1997 adaptation) but she's never as desperate and friendless in this one. For St. John Rivers and his sister know they are taking care of a wealthy heiress.
Today I'm sharing my thoughts on the 1997 adaptation of Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre. This film stars Samantha Morton and Ciaran Hinds.
Was it faithful to Charlotte Bronte's novel? No and Yes. OR, if you prefer, yes and no. Did every character from the book make it into the film? NO. Did every scene from the book make it into the film? NO. Did every important character and every important scene make it into the film? Well? I don't know how to answer that.
For example, in this adaptation, Jane does NOT learn that the Rivers are her cousins, and she does NOT inherit the money from her dead uncle. Rosamond Oliver and Mary Rivers have both disappeared from this adaptation. But how important are the Rivers to the story as a whole? Do people love Jane Eyre because she runs away and spends time with cousins she didn't even know she had? Or is the romance itself most important to readers and viewers?
Another example, in this adaptation, Jane does leave Thornfield Hall to visit her dying aunt, but, if you blink you'll miss it. Because within seconds of her leaving she's returned. We're told she spent a month there, but, we don't see a minute of it. You have to ask yourself if you love Jane Eyre because of those scenes, that time spent with her dying aunt, and her Reed cousins, or do you love Jane Eyre because of the main story with Mr. Rochester and his mad wife.
Was it faithful to the book where it counted the most? Was it faithful in the character of Jane Eyre? Was it faithful in the character of Mr. Rochester? Did it do justice to their romance? Were the scenes between Jane and Edward done properly? Did the actors interpret the characters in a way that was true to the book? Did anything feel off?
I happened to enjoy Samantha Morton as Jane Eyre. I really, really liked her in this role. I thought she did a great job being Jane. I loved her narration, for example. I thought she did a good job with getting the character right. She is definitely a good reason to watch this adaptation.
As for Ciaran Hinds, well, it's hard for me to say. For one thing, a couple of his scenes made me want to cringe. Truly. I did not like the way he portrayed Mr. Rochester. There were a couple of scenes I thought he was TOO angry, TOO violent, TOO forceful, TOO scary, TOO intimidating, TOO dramatic. Particularly the oh-so-crucial after-the-non-wedding, post-big-reveal scene. His temper tantrum is just so out of character. He's way too physical, too physically abusive--bordering on it anyway. And the whole scene just makes me cringe. That is NOT the way it's supposed to go, that is NOT how it was handled in the book.
And at times I felt Hinds' Mr. Rochester was not dimensional enough, sure, he got a few of the emotions down, but, did he capture the full complexity of Bronte's hero?! I'm not sure he did. Also, on a more personal note, the mustache and sideburns bothered me. From certain angles, I
kept seeing Tennessee Ernie Ford. (When I wasn't thinking of this
Last Sunday, I reviewed my favorite adaptation of Jane Eyre starring Zelah Clarke and Timothy Dalton. This Sunday, I am ready to discuss the 2006 adaptation of Jane Eyre starring Ruth Wilson and Toby Stephens. This was the first time I've seen this adaptation since discovering the other one. And it had been a good two years since I'd seen this adaptation, so I was more than happy to reacquaint myself with this film!!!
So, you already know that this one isn't my favorite, favorite, favorite Jane Eyre. But I thought I would share specifically what I liked and didn't like about this adaptation.
I loved Georgie Henley as the young Jane Eyre. I just LOVED her! This adaptation hardly spends time on Jane's childhood, but for what we do see in those short minutes it was love. Granted, I will always see her as Lucy (from The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe), and so that does bias me a little in her favor. But I thought they included just enough of her childhood to flavor the movie.
I loved Christina Cole as Blanche Ingram. Out of all the Jane Eyre adaptations I've ever seen--four or five at this point?--she is the BEST Blanche I've ever seen. The scenes with Blanche and the other house guests worked so incredibly well. Viewers know that Mr. Rochester is just using Blanche to make Jane Eyre jealous, that he is manipulating both women. But we also get a sense that Blanche is using him as well, that she sees him purely as status and wealth. And so it's easy to excuse Mr. Rochester perhaps. Still, he's technically in the wrong.
There were a few scenes that I liked (a little) better in this adaptation. For example, when Jane Eyre "saves" Mr. Rochester when his bed curtains are on fire. The aftermath of that fire when they're talking and he holds her hand. It is in the 1983 adaptation too, of course. But in this movie, viewers see Jane Eyre go back to bed. And the emotion she conveys actually reminds me a bit of "
I Could Have Danced All Night" from My Fair Lady. Viewers catch a glimpse of Jane Eyre's love for Mr. Rochester, and how she holds him dear, and how she is treasuring up his touch of her hand. It could be viewed as silly, I suppose, but I think it's heartfelt too.
Adele. The scene where we first meet Adele was nicely done. I liked meeting her in this way, with her singing and "performing" in French. The subtitles translating the song were quite effective. They conveyed to the viewers part of Adele's tragic background. And I think we do catch glimpses of her neediness, her desperation for love and acceptance and family. True, she may appear a brat, a horribly spoiled brat, but, I think there is something more that could be there. But this isn't Adele's story, and, it's easy to forget about her completely.
Her cousins. Well, in this adaptation St. John Rivers does not come across as a horrible-horrible-horrible man. For better or worse depending on how you read Bronte's novel! And his sisters do have a young, vibrant feel about them in this adaptation. In the 1983 adaptation, they appear much older, much more settled, content with what little they have and not expecting life to offer them any entertainment or thrills.
I do think this adaptation does a better job with ambiance, capturing the gothic elements of the novel, and the movie is more sophisticated and polished in terms of sets, scenery, costumes, soundtrack, etc.
But. This movie does take liberties with the story and the characters. Mr. Rochester's scenes with Jane Eyre aren't necessarily going to be from the book, or true to the book, or true to the spirit of the book. In some scenes
Today I'll be sharing my thoughts on TWO adaptations of Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre, both adaptations are from the 1970s, but they are so DIFFERENT from one another. One I'd definitely recommend, the other, well, not so much.
I'll start with the one I wouldn't really recommend, the 1970 adaptation starring George C. Scott and Susannah York. The only thing that *may* save this one from being the worst
Jane Eyre ever it is my recent discovery of the 1949 TV episode adaptation of Jane Eyre starring Charlton Heston and Mary Sinclair. And then there is always the 1934 adaptation with Colin Clive and Virginia Bruce. So it would not be an easy automatic decision.
What can I say about this adaptation of Jane Eyre? Susannah York did NOT make a convincing Jane Eyre. While this couple managed to still have a twelve year age difference, it wasn't because she was so young, quite the reverse. She was over thirty and trying to play a young woman of eighteen, nineteen, or twenty. It did NOT work well. In my opinion. She was not convincing in her role as a young, plain governess. And I had a hard time believing in the romance of this couple. George C. Scott, likewise, did not make a convincing Mr. Rochester. In fact, none of the actors--at least the human ones--were quite believable in their roles in this movie. (The horses and Pilot did okay for the most part.) Now, some did better than others. I won't lie. Not everyone was equally horrible. And part of the trouble could have been the script. (The Rivers family are not her cousins, she doesn't receive an inheritance, etc. Also the Reed family does not appear at all.)
I believe there are some issues with some DVD productions being extremely low quality--in terms of picture quality, sound quality, etc. And I do believe that played a role in why I found this one so painful to watch. But only partly. Because better sound quality wouldn't necessarily have made me appreciate the score to this film any better. I found it very intrusive. It just didn't feel like it was written for this movie.
The second adaptation I will be discussing is the BBC adaptation of 1973. This adaptation is shorter than the 1983 adaptation starring Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. But. It is faithful--quite faithful--to the book. A few might even say more faithful. Then again a few might say it wasn't as faithful as it might first appear to be. (For example, this one does have Mr. Rochester dressing up as a gypsy and telling fortunes! However, this Jane is not fooled for even half a second. Before she even goes to see the gypsy, before she even hears him speak, she claims to have known it was Mr. Rochester all along. He's not able to really talk with her in disguise at all. The scene is not as vulnerable perhaps. So on the one hand, Jane's "cleverness" is maintained and she never loses control, but, is that a good thing? Is this interpretation the best one?
Here's the 1983 one for comparison.)
Is this adaptation for every viewer? Probably not. It is just over four hours in lengt
Do I have thoughts and opinions on the newest adaptation of Jane Eyre? Of course, I do!!! But they have calmed down a little since my first viewing of the film last fall. My first impression was that it was a horrible adaptation. It felt like they shuffled the pages of the script and didn't care to sort them out properly again. I just didn't understand why anyone would want to play around with the timeline and pacing. Why start the movie with Jane Eyre on the run? Why put viewers on the same page with the Rivers family? Why start there?! If you've never read Jane Eyre--never seen a movie version--it could prove VERY confusing to say the least. And I can only guess that it would influence one's impression of Mr. Rochester when we do
finally meet him. Knowing from the start that this love story ends badly--with tears, angst, desperation, she's RUNNING away, etc.
Would this movie make any sense at all if you'd never read Jane? Is there enough of a story there for viewers to piece together the proper story? I can never answer that because I've read Jane Eyre and I've seen Jane Eyre countless times. I didn't necessarily find it confusing--in terms of story--more puzzling in terms of WHY did they choose to interpret it this way? The two are not the same, I know!!! The story does feel rushed, in a way, especially if you're more accustomed to a longer adaptation (2006, 1983, 1973). But it doesn't feel AS rushed as it used to feel to me since I've seen other adaptations that were comparable in length (1944, 1996, 1997, 1970). And compared to the hour-long adaptations I've seen (1934, 1949) this one was
so much better.
My first impression of Michael Fassbender in the role of Mr. Rochester was not favorable. Seeing it again, I've softened a little. At first, I thought he got so little time on screen that it would be absolutely impossible to like him--or love him--for his character, personality, charisma, whatever you want to call it. But. Now that I've seen some other (shorter) Jane Eyre adaptations, I realize that it's not so horrible after all. Other adaptations--longer adaptations--give you MORE to love, perhaps. They may add different dimensions to the character of Mr. Rochester--for better or worse--and have their own way of interpreting Mr. Rochester, bringing him to life from the pages of a novel. But I think he does try. One reason why I had such a strong dislike for this portrayal was in how he chose to "react" to Jane's resolution to leave. His anger, his violence, his temper was SO out of control, so over the top. But having seen the 1997 film starring Ciaran Hinds, I have a different perspective. His rage doesn't seem as over-the-top to me because Hinds performance was even worse. Granted, I still don't "like" this scene; it still makes me uncomfortable. But I've seen worse now.
My first impression of Mia Wasikowska in the role of
View Next 14 Posts
Christmas celebration is going to be happening ones along with the lovely splendor of flowers as displayed in the address www.giftbasketsfrance.fr specially meant for those staying away in France. Enjoy bonding with your dear ones along with these flowers.