|
|
|---|
Friday, October 10, 2008
I know that this is not really a movie either, it’s a mini-series, but I never saw it on tv – in fact, the first time I saw Pride & Prejudice was on VHS and I checked it out from the library. Yeah, that sounds so old and gives me fond memories of high school. The reason I am including this mini-series here is that prior to the recent Joe Wright version of Pride & Prejudice the mini-series was the definitive version.
This mini-series is about six hours long and I never thought another adaptation of the book could be made that could top this version. What the BBC mini-series has that no other filmic version does is save for the books epilogue the entire story is in the mini-series. To the best of my knowledge no film version of Pride & Prejudice has been able to include everything in the novel.
However, after seeing the newest version I do have to say that I like the cast in the Joe Wright version just a little bit more. Both casts are excellent, but the BBC version uses actors that are pretty obviously not the same age as the characters, and what bothers me most is that they are semi-close to the age but obviously skew older. This stands out to me most in the character of Lizzie who is supposed to be about 20 through most of the tale and very obviously looks to be at least in her mid-twenties.
What I find most interesting though is the differences in the characters between the two versions; I think it is a perfect example of how a different director/writer can totally change the feel of something. This is most obvious through Mr. & Mrs. Bennet (played by Benjamin Whitrow & Alison Steadman in the BBC, and Donald Sutherland & Brenda Blethyn in the Wright version). In the BBC version the parents are shrill, aggravating and seem to dislike each other intensely, and very rarely seem to get along with or really care for their daughters and Mrs. Bennet seems to only want to get her daughters married to get money; in the Wright version Mr. Bennet is calm and caring, showing affection for all of his daughters and even his wife, and Mrs. Bennet’s obsession for getting her daughters married obviously seems to stem from wanting them to be taken care of.
Both versions are very good, and I highly recommend watching both if you’re interested in seeing the differences in how the same story can be adapted. However, I do have to say that if push comes to shove I would chose the Joe Wright version over the BBC version simply because of the choices that were made in putting that film together to make it a beautiful whole.
Director: Simon Langton
Writer: Andrew Davies
Lizzie: Jennifer Ehle
Mr. Darcy: Colin Firth
Jane: Susannah Harker
Lydia: Julia Sawalha
Mrs. Bennet: Alison Steadman
Mr. Bennet: Benjamin Whitrow
Mr. Bingley: Crispin Bonham-Carter
Kitty: Polly Maberly
Mary: Lucy Briers
Miss Bingley: Anna Chancellor
Mrs. Hurst: Lucy Robinson
Whickham: Adrian Lukis
Mr. Collins: David Bamber
Charlotte: Lucy Scott
Elizabeth Bennet: Lady Catherine, in marrying your nephew, I should not consider myself as quitting that sphere. He is a gentleman, I am a gentleman's daughter. So far we are equal.
This mini-series is about six hours long and I never thought another adaptation of the book could be made that could top this version. What the BBC mini-series has that no other filmic version does is save for the books epilogue the entire story is in the mini-series. To the best of my knowledge no film version of Pride & Prejudice has been able to include everything in the novel.
However, after seeing the newest version I do have to say that I like the cast in the Joe Wright version just a little bit more. Both casts are excellent, but the BBC version uses actors that are pretty obviously not the same age as the characters, and what bothers me most is that they are semi-close to the age but obviously skew older. This stands out to me most in the character of Lizzie who is supposed to be about 20 through most of the tale and very obviously looks to be at least in her mid-twenties.
What I find most interesting though is the differences in the characters between the two versions; I think it is a perfect example of how a different director/writer can totally change the feel of something. This is most obvious through Mr. & Mrs. Bennet (played by Benjamin Whitrow & Alison Steadman in the BBC, and Donald Sutherland & Brenda Blethyn in the Wright version). In the BBC version the parents are shrill, aggravating and seem to dislike each other intensely, and very rarely seem to get along with or really care for their daughters and Mrs. Bennet seems to only want to get her daughters married to get money; in the Wright version Mr. Bennet is calm and caring, showing affection for all of his daughters and even his wife, and Mrs. Bennet’s obsession for getting her daughters married obviously seems to stem from wanting them to be taken care of.
Both versions are very good, and I highly recommend watching both if you’re interested in seeing the differences in how the same story can be adapted. However, I do have to say that if push comes to shove I would chose the Joe Wright version over the BBC version simply because of the choices that were made in putting that film together to make it a beautiful whole.
Director: Simon Langton
Writer: Andrew Davies
Lizzie: Jennifer Ehle
Mr. Darcy: Colin Firth
Jane: Susannah Harker
Lydia: Julia Sawalha
Mrs. Bennet: Alison Steadman
Mr. Bennet: Benjamin Whitrow
Mr. Bingley: Crispin Bonham-Carter
Kitty: Polly Maberly
Mary: Lucy Briers
Miss Bingley: Anna Chancellor
Mrs. Hurst: Lucy Robinson
Whickham: Adrian Lukis
Mr. Collins: David Bamber
Charlotte: Lucy Scott
Elizabeth Bennet: Lady Catherine, in marrying your nephew, I should not consider myself as quitting that sphere. He is a gentleman, I am a gentleman's daughter. So far we are equal.
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
I remember watching Heart and Souls when I was a kid and loving it, but I remembered nothing about it. I mean nothing. I discovered it again while on my mission to watch Robert Downey Jr. movies.
Heart and Souls is a delightful film that really reminds me of the old romance movies and comedies that were made in the fifties; there is just an innocent carefree spirit about it that makes it a delight to watch.
The film begins in 1959 when Thomas’s parents are on the way to the hospital to have their first baby; however, they are delayed in doing so by a bus accident that kills Harrison, Penny, Julia and Milo, four individuals that should not have died yet. Since it is well before their time of death they are given a chance to complete their lives by using Thomas, who was born in his parents car when they were delayed by the accident – the only problem is they don’t know this until Thomas is in his thirties. They spent his childhood as his “imaginary” friends that only he could see, until his parents fear he has mental problems and they make themselves invisible to Thomas too. When they are finally told that Thomas was supposed to be their helper to finish their lives Milo, Harrison, Julia and Penny reveal themselves to Thomas again – to his shock.
No one in the film is bad; every character is played in such a way that they are endearing and memorable. However, the true shining star of this film is of course Robert Downey Jr. This film is his follow-up to Chaplin and again proves how vastly talented the man is. At one point in the film each of the ghosts enters his body and he takes on their characteristics and mannerisms: without skipping a beat he is capable of becoming a small town girl, black woman, a repressed musician with stage fright and a crook. It was brilliant to watch.
I do recommend this movie because it’s a very refreshing, light, fun, clean, genuine, actor driven, romantic comedy that really does feel pulled out of another era.
Director: Ron Underwood
Writers: Brent Maddock, S.S. Wilson, Gregory Hansen, & Erik Hansen
Thomas: Robert Downey Jr.
Harrison: Charles Grodin
Penny: Alfre Woodard
Julia: Kyra Sedgwick
Milo: Tom Sizemore
Hal the Bus Driver: David Paymer
Anne: Elizabeth Shue
Harrison: Who came up with this ridiculous concept anyway? Resolve your entire life in one bold stroke? What if I fail? And I will. I'll fail. I'm telling you. I always fail. Then my whole life will be a complete failure.
Thomas: No offense, Harrison. But you died a failure because you never tried.
Heart and Souls is a delightful film that really reminds me of the old romance movies and comedies that were made in the fifties; there is just an innocent carefree spirit about it that makes it a delight to watch.
The film begins in 1959 when Thomas’s parents are on the way to the hospital to have their first baby; however, they are delayed in doing so by a bus accident that kills Harrison, Penny, Julia and Milo, four individuals that should not have died yet. Since it is well before their time of death they are given a chance to complete their lives by using Thomas, who was born in his parents car when they were delayed by the accident – the only problem is they don’t know this until Thomas is in his thirties. They spent his childhood as his “imaginary” friends that only he could see, until his parents fear he has mental problems and they make themselves invisible to Thomas too. When they are finally told that Thomas was supposed to be their helper to finish their lives Milo, Harrison, Julia and Penny reveal themselves to Thomas again – to his shock.
No one in the film is bad; every character is played in such a way that they are endearing and memorable. However, the true shining star of this film is of course Robert Downey Jr. This film is his follow-up to Chaplin and again proves how vastly talented the man is. At one point in the film each of the ghosts enters his body and he takes on their characteristics and mannerisms: without skipping a beat he is capable of becoming a small town girl, black woman, a repressed musician with stage fright and a crook. It was brilliant to watch.
I do recommend this movie because it’s a very refreshing, light, fun, clean, genuine, actor driven, romantic comedy that really does feel pulled out of another era.
Director: Ron Underwood
Writers: Brent Maddock, S.S. Wilson, Gregory Hansen, & Erik Hansen
Thomas: Robert Downey Jr.
Harrison: Charles Grodin
Penny: Alfre Woodard
Julia: Kyra Sedgwick
Milo: Tom Sizemore
Hal the Bus Driver: David Paymer
Anne: Elizabeth Shue
Harrison: Who came up with this ridiculous concept anyway? Resolve your entire life in one bold stroke? What if I fail? And I will. I'll fail. I'm telling you. I always fail. Then my whole life will be a complete failure.
Thomas: No offense, Harrison. But you died a failure because you never tried.
Friday, October 3, 2008
Anyone who has seen The Fountain knows that you would never describe Aronofsky's work as simple or mainstream; that being said, The Wrester is by far Aronofsky’s most simple and mainstream story even though it is really nothing of the sort.
The Wrestler is the beautifully told tale of Randy “The Ram” a pro wrestler that hit it big in the 80’s, but the film is not about him then, it’s about him now – it’s been 20 years since his glory days and he is now living in poverty and obscurity. The only thing Randy has been able to hold onto is his love of wrestling and the charge he gets from the crowd so he continues to wrestle in any match he can find. The only problem is that the only part of his life that Randy understands and can control is his wrestling and when he tries to change that balance and have a life outside of wrestling and move past his days in the ring he is unable to do so.
In classic Aronofsky fashion this film is so layered that my brother and I were able to debate for quite awhile what the subtext in the film was, and even though we each had different thoughts neither of us could prove the other wrong.
While this is the most mainstream and easily digested of all Darren Aronofsky’s tales it is by no means a flat story and used many of the themes he loves to deal with. This film deals with aging, materialism, family and a character that seeks to regain prominence. Thematically I would say it is closest to Requiem for a Dream - just not nearly as disturbing or depressing.
One thing that truly makes Aronofsky’s films stand out from some other contemporary filmmakers is the performances he is able to get out of his actors and The Wrestler shows this yet again primarily through Mickey Rourke as Randy. I can honestly say that Rourke deserves an Oscar nomination for this film, and I had no idea he was capable of the sheer raw emotion he brings to this film.
I know that The Wrestler will not be a box office smash, it will actually probably piss off a lot of people that see it. However, for those that want to see a moving, relevant film I do recommend it.
Director: Darren Aronofsky
Writer: Robert D. Siegel
Randy “The Ram”: Mickey Rourke
Cassidy: Marisa Tomei
Stephenie: Evan Rachel Wood
The Wrestler is the beautifully told tale of Randy “The Ram” a pro wrestler that hit it big in the 80’s, but the film is not about him then, it’s about him now – it’s been 20 years since his glory days and he is now living in poverty and obscurity. The only thing Randy has been able to hold onto is his love of wrestling and the charge he gets from the crowd so he continues to wrestle in any match he can find. The only problem is that the only part of his life that Randy understands and can control is his wrestling and when he tries to change that balance and have a life outside of wrestling and move past his days in the ring he is unable to do so.
In classic Aronofsky fashion this film is so layered that my brother and I were able to debate for quite awhile what the subtext in the film was, and even though we each had different thoughts neither of us could prove the other wrong.
While this is the most mainstream and easily digested of all Darren Aronofsky’s tales it is by no means a flat story and used many of the themes he loves to deal with. This film deals with aging, materialism, family and a character that seeks to regain prominence. Thematically I would say it is closest to Requiem for a Dream - just not nearly as disturbing or depressing.
One thing that truly makes Aronofsky’s films stand out from some other contemporary filmmakers is the performances he is able to get out of his actors and The Wrestler shows this yet again primarily through Mickey Rourke as Randy. I can honestly say that Rourke deserves an Oscar nomination for this film, and I had no idea he was capable of the sheer raw emotion he brings to this film.
I know that The Wrestler will not be a box office smash, it will actually probably piss off a lot of people that see it. However, for those that want to see a moving, relevant film I do recommend it.
Director: Darren Aronofsky
Writer: Robert D. Siegel
Randy “The Ram”: Mickey Rourke
Cassidy: Marisa Tomei
Stephenie: Evan Rachel Wood
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
