Capitalism - Feudalism without the Kings
Tax the Rich
Movie Monday
OK, I know that the NJ Gov Christie is the "gift that keeps on giving" but I would be remiss not to include Democratic stupidity along side his perennial bullying.
No US Prez should even say (especially when he is officially speaking as the US Prez): 'the United States will always have Israel's back.' WTF? What gall to speak for the US in perpetuity in regard to foreign policy! What gall to use a colloquial "having one's back" in reference to policies which could ultimately lead to death and destruction! Has the US completely looped away from reality into a violent, jargon-filled video game? I shudder for the world.
On to some quick movie reviews because this was a wacky weekend during which I got to see movies I never expected to see:
First the newest Jane Eyre. And first, the truth: there is only one movie of the three I'm reviewing which I saw from top to bottom. No, I didn't fall asleep. I did say it was a wacky weekend so I didn't get to pick up Jane Eyre until the scene where she meets Rochester for the first time. Therefore, I may have missed a fascinating good early movie with the interaction of Jane at her aunt's home and then the orphanage. But I didn't get to see that so I'm just going to review Jane and Rochester. (Note: I think there may have been flashbacks - or the whole movie was a flashback.)
Jane Eyre is really the first book of the Twilight saga except written centuries ago and written so, so much better. Read any of the Bronte sisters, even after you move beyond the need for Gothic love, and you'll be reading superb literary craftsmanship. Having said that, no young girl is reading the Brontes for their writing skill. They are reading them (Charlotte and Emily; Anne is lesser known) for the dark passions. Passions which are developed to an insane fullness in Wuthering Heights but passion which is also ever lurking just below the surface in Jane Eyre.
So, if you are going to film JE, you must capture this passion. You must make the viewer believe that Rochester sees in Jane a vivacity of intelligence he hungers for as much as he hungers for her body. You must portray Jane as reciprocating this love/lust but also due to her class and upbringing understanding ruin may lie ahead for her. (I still remember the book Jane's rejection of Rochester's final proposal to her to be his mistress [when hope of marriage was lost]; societal rules won the day but very reluctantly.)
None of the above occurs in this movie. There is no chemistry between Jane and Rochester. They are just two actors reading lines from a well-loved source. In fact I would not have been surprised if Jane had turned to Rochester and rejected him with: Sir, I am a lesbian. Never, did I "feel" their connection. (Watch Firelight, 1997 if you want to see chemistry with a similar plot.) Terribly disappointing. Even Welles and Fontaine in the 1943 Jane Eyre, made during the wicked Production Code time period, nailed the passion.
The Eagle: what is it with directors and their desire to make historical dramas? Clive Owens in King Arthur; Colin Firth in The Last Legion and now Channing Tatum in The Eagle. It really does have a stupid premise: Tatum goes to Britian to retrieve the Roman eagle standard his father lost in battle there and find out what happened to the ninth legion he commanded. It's your typical Roman meets barbarian movie in the vein of the old cowboys and Indians US movies where the Indians were always very, very bad. Example here is the barbarian warlord murdering his very young son; thankfully off camera. So just like our present day foreign invasions, the Romans are the noble ones; everyone else is a barbarian. A nice touch, perhaps the only one, is when the slave becomes the master. Oh, the slave is of the barbarian race but he has lived with the Romans so we know he's a good guy. A typically bad historical drama with interesting racist undertones.
And finally, Pirates Of The Caribbean, On Stranger Tides........ Oh, it's just awful. Watch it if, to you, Johnny Depp can't make a bad movie. Talk about beating a dead horse!
See you next week.
OK, I know that the NJ Gov Christie is the "gift that keeps on giving" but I would be remiss not to include Democratic stupidity along side his perennial bullying.
No US Prez should even say (especially when he is officially speaking as the US Prez): 'the United States will always have Israel's back.' WTF? What gall to speak for the US in perpetuity in regard to foreign policy! What gall to use a colloquial "having one's back" in reference to policies which could ultimately lead to death and destruction! Has the US completely looped away from reality into a violent, jargon-filled video game? I shudder for the world.
On to some quick movie reviews because this was a wacky weekend during which I got to see movies I never expected to see:
First the newest Jane Eyre. And first, the truth: there is only one movie of the three I'm reviewing which I saw from top to bottom. No, I didn't fall asleep. I did say it was a wacky weekend so I didn't get to pick up Jane Eyre until the scene where she meets Rochester for the first time. Therefore, I may have missed a fascinating good early movie with the interaction of Jane at her aunt's home and then the orphanage. But I didn't get to see that so I'm just going to review Jane and Rochester. (Note: I think there may have been flashbacks - or the whole movie was a flashback.)
Jane Eyre is really the first book of the Twilight saga except written centuries ago and written so, so much better. Read any of the Bronte sisters, even after you move beyond the need for Gothic love, and you'll be reading superb literary craftsmanship. Having said that, no young girl is reading the Brontes for their writing skill. They are reading them (Charlotte and Emily; Anne is lesser known) for the dark passions. Passions which are developed to an insane fullness in Wuthering Heights but passion which is also ever lurking just below the surface in Jane Eyre.
So, if you are going to film JE, you must capture this passion. You must make the viewer believe that Rochester sees in Jane a vivacity of intelligence he hungers for as much as he hungers for her body. You must portray Jane as reciprocating this love/lust but also due to her class and upbringing understanding ruin may lie ahead for her. (I still remember the book Jane's rejection of Rochester's final proposal to her to be his mistress [when hope of marriage was lost]; societal rules won the day but very reluctantly.)
None of the above occurs in this movie. There is no chemistry between Jane and Rochester. They are just two actors reading lines from a well-loved source. In fact I would not have been surprised if Jane had turned to Rochester and rejected him with: Sir, I am a lesbian. Never, did I "feel" their connection. (Watch Firelight, 1997 if you want to see chemistry with a similar plot.) Terribly disappointing. Even Welles and Fontaine in the 1943 Jane Eyre, made during the wicked Production Code time period, nailed the passion.
The Eagle: what is it with directors and their desire to make historical dramas? Clive Owens in King Arthur; Colin Firth in The Last Legion and now Channing Tatum in The Eagle. It really does have a stupid premise: Tatum goes to Britian to retrieve the Roman eagle standard his father lost in battle there and find out what happened to the ninth legion he commanded. It's your typical Roman meets barbarian movie in the vein of the old cowboys and Indians US movies where the Indians were always very, very bad. Example here is the barbarian warlord murdering his very young son; thankfully off camera. So just like our present day foreign invasions, the Romans are the noble ones; everyone else is a barbarian. A nice touch, perhaps the only one, is when the slave becomes the master. Oh, the slave is of the barbarian race but he has lived with the Romans so we know he's a good guy. A typically bad historical drama with interesting racist undertones.
And finally, Pirates Of The Caribbean, On Stranger Tides........ Oh, it's just awful. Watch it if, to you, Johnny Depp can't make a bad movie. Talk about beating a dead horse!
See you next week.
No comments:
Post a Comment