Saturday, February 23, 2013
Self Relection Week 7
We have hit the end of our first major project--the Documentary Profile. I'm not totally thrilled with how our film "the Playground Pimp" went, but it was a great learning experience. I know now how risky it is to work with a subject so young (a 2 year old in this case), and am glad I had a team of people willing to do what it took to get the assignment done in a half decent fashion. It's hard to work on something like a film when everyone has minimal to no experience, but everyone did what they could. While I did the filming, producing, and editing, James worked on the script and directing, Carter acted and was the grip, and Angel and Radiance did a good job fawning over our subject for the film. It wasn't as hard to edit as I thought it was going to be, but I also could have done a much better job. There was definitely room for improvement on the camera angles, and I will see what I can do to improve this next project. Again, definitely a great learning experience.
Lost in Translation
It's hard to say exactly why I liked Lost in Translation, especially when it left me feeling so...empty. Bill Murray plays a character very unlike his usual, and Scarlett Johansson finally looks healthy. I didn't want their relationship to turn sexual, and it didn't, thanks to Sofia Coppola's directing and writing. But we don't find out if they stay with their other halves or if their lives get better. It is a slow moving film, and does an amazing job of depicting the feeling of the characters without the script forcing the characters to have a therapy session with each other.
Bill Murray is Bob Hanson, a fading movie star on a trip to Japan. When Charlotte (Scarlett Jo) asks him why he is there, he replies, "Taking a break from my wife, forgetting my son's birthday, and getting paid two million dollars to endorse a whiskey." Charlotte is a Yale graduate, on a trip with her husband John, a professional photographer. Feeling lost and alone, Charlotte attempts to figure out who she is and why she got married. Both characters roam Japan, crashing into each other seeking solace and comfort.
There is actually very little dialogue, considering the movie focuses on two people. Murray does an excellent job portraying the sleepless, weary, and sad man trying to deal with the fact that he is in a familial situation that leaves him feel as though he isn't needed, or wanted. He does have a few zinger lines, but this is an unusual role for him. He plays it convincingly, and with style. Johansson doesn't step out of her comfort zone in this movie, except maybe where here waist line is concerned. For the first time, looking at her without pants on isn't a painful experience because she is actually at a healthy weight. She does a good job looking lost and alone- just like in most movies she plays in (Vicki Christina Barcelona, anyone?). Her girl-next-door look was great for this movie, it added to the feeling that she was definitely out of her element.
Like I said before, probably the best part about this film is the fact that there is little dialogue that actually tells you how someone is feeling, but the actors and film work combine to give the viewer more than enough insight to know just that. The music varies between 80's reminiscence to 90's punk, and it all keeps in sync with the emotion of each scene. There are a lot of close ups to convey emotion. Even the full shots are appropriate, giving the viewer a feeling of being disconnected from the world (which is exactly how the main characters feel). There is a shot of Murray in the bathtub when his wife calls, a full still shot. It captures how distant he feels from his significant other. The cinematography was also very detailed, though a little generic (sweeping car shots of Japan lit up at night). I did enjoy the scenes where Johansson sits at the edge of a giant picture window looking down at the city during the day, giving the viewer a feeling of smallness and insignificance.
Overall, I loved this movie. Yes, it left me feeling empty (seriously, what the hell do they decide to do?), but that is part of why it is so great. Nothing is handed to you in this film, you are forced to think yourself into their shoes. Does Bill tell his wife about his affair with the redhead? Does Charlotte ever leave her husband? Or do they just stick it out, continuing to live a monotonous life? Does she ever figure out what to do with her philosophy degree, does he ever act in something fun, or does he sell himself for what money he can get to fund his family? The usual Hollywood solution is divorce, but the director doesn't sell herself out though such a cliche venue. Thumbs up on this one, for sure.
Bill Murray is Bob Hanson, a fading movie star on a trip to Japan. When Charlotte (Scarlett Jo) asks him why he is there, he replies, "Taking a break from my wife, forgetting my son's birthday, and getting paid two million dollars to endorse a whiskey." Charlotte is a Yale graduate, on a trip with her husband John, a professional photographer. Feeling lost and alone, Charlotte attempts to figure out who she is and why she got married. Both characters roam Japan, crashing into each other seeking solace and comfort.
There is actually very little dialogue, considering the movie focuses on two people. Murray does an excellent job portraying the sleepless, weary, and sad man trying to deal with the fact that he is in a familial situation that leaves him feel as though he isn't needed, or wanted. He does have a few zinger lines, but this is an unusual role for him. He plays it convincingly, and with style. Johansson doesn't step out of her comfort zone in this movie, except maybe where here waist line is concerned. For the first time, looking at her without pants on isn't a painful experience because she is actually at a healthy weight. She does a good job looking lost and alone- just like in most movies she plays in (Vicki Christina Barcelona, anyone?). Her girl-next-door look was great for this movie, it added to the feeling that she was definitely out of her element.
Like I said before, probably the best part about this film is the fact that there is little dialogue that actually tells you how someone is feeling, but the actors and film work combine to give the viewer more than enough insight to know just that. The music varies between 80's reminiscence to 90's punk, and it all keeps in sync with the emotion of each scene. There are a lot of close ups to convey emotion. Even the full shots are appropriate, giving the viewer a feeling of being disconnected from the world (which is exactly how the main characters feel). There is a shot of Murray in the bathtub when his wife calls, a full still shot. It captures how distant he feels from his significant other. The cinematography was also very detailed, though a little generic (sweeping car shots of Japan lit up at night). I did enjoy the scenes where Johansson sits at the edge of a giant picture window looking down at the city during the day, giving the viewer a feeling of smallness and insignificance.
Overall, I loved this movie. Yes, it left me feeling empty (seriously, what the hell do they decide to do?), but that is part of why it is so great. Nothing is handed to you in this film, you are forced to think yourself into their shoes. Does Bill tell his wife about his affair with the redhead? Does Charlotte ever leave her husband? Or do they just stick it out, continuing to live a monotonous life? Does she ever figure out what to do with her philosophy degree, does he ever act in something fun, or does he sell himself for what money he can get to fund his family? The usual Hollywood solution is divorce, but the director doesn't sell herself out though such a cliche venue. Thumbs up on this one, for sure.
Sunday, February 17, 2013
The Lion King
The Lion King has always been my favorite childhood movie. I can sing all the songs, I can quote all the characters. My first stuffed animal was Simba as a cub. And I cry every time Mufasa dies. There are very few movies that can tap into my emotional well every time I watch it--but with James Earl Jones as the voice of Simba's father, it's hard not to feel kinship to the deep, thundering voice that is so convincingly the King of the Savannah lands. Jonathan Taylor Thomas, a child actor of little fame since Home Improvement was the voice of young Simba, but the hugely famous Matthew Broderick took over as the adult Simba. The Lion King was directed by Roger Allers and Rob Minkoff.
The film opens with the birth of a cub to Mufasa and Sarabi. Simba is seen as precocious and eager to take his place along side his father. He wants to be brave, big, and bold. He also envisions the world bending at his feet--hardly the perfect King material. Constantly getting into trouble, Simba has no idea that his uncle Scar, Mufasa's brother, is going to play on Simba's youthful naivete to plan the 'coup of the century.' Convincing Simba that he has killed his father, Scar tells the young cub to "run, run away and never return," before turning to the hyenas--"Kill him." Simba does manage to escape, and is found on death's door in the desert by Timone and Pumba, a singing duo willing to raise the carnivore as their own. Eventually, fate brings Simba back to Pride Rock to challenge Scar's right as King. He finds out that Scar killed his father, and in turn, allows the hyenas to kill his uncle. The movie ends with Simba and Nala introducing a son of their own to the world.
It's difficult to judge actors in an animated film. Either a voice fits, or it doesn't. Thomas as the young Simba was a good fit--his voice was just as petulant as the cub liked to act. Broderick took Simba into the world of adulthood, a more mature and responsible lion, but reminiscent of the "Hakuna Matata" mantra taught to him by Timone and Pumba. And who doesn't love James Earl Jones as Mufasa? A strong and godly voice, he fit the image of a truly powerful yet loving King. Shenzi comments on how just saying Mufasa's name is spine tingling--Jones is fit to be a badass lion. The animation is fantastic. Mufasa is big and beefy, it is clear why he became King over the small and lanky Scar. Scar slinks around in a devious fashion--just as clear a statement on his character as the actor's words. Simba's movements are fluid but determined, especially at the end as he ascends Pride Rock--he is the future King. The expressions on the lion's faces are just as clear as those on a human, making it easy to relate to these animals.
Speaking of film techniques--there were a few moments when, to emphasize a moment, the 'camera work' adjusted to fit a feeling. Simba running back to Pride Rock was in slow motion, the music just as powerful and determined as his stride. Nala tries to wake Timone to ask where Simba went, and the 'camera' switches to a POV angle as he blinks awake, emphasizing the shock of seeing a lion stooped over you. Slow motion is used again as Simba battles his uncle, and when he climbs Pride Rock as the victor. The music, I believe, is based on traditional African music, scored by Hans Zimmerman. Not only does this reflect an authentic atmosphere to the movie, but it gives a primal surge to the feelings that accompany Mufasa's death, Scar's rise to power, Simba's return, his victory.
This movie, like I said before, has always been my childhood favorite. Watching it last night with my husband, I sang along with the songs, lamented the addition of two new scenes (really Disney, really? Not only were the lyrics terrible, but the added animation was so clearly defined it made the rest of the scenes look ridiculous), and cried on his shoulder as my favorite character was found dead under a broken tree. We debated if Simba and his pack ate all the hyenas to survive while they waited for Pride Rock to grow lush again. While some people take issue with certain scenes (apparently there is one where Simba flops to the ground and the resulting debris spells some kind of inappropriate word), I can't find a flaw in it. Obviously, Simba could be a smarter child--I mean, Scar does basically tell him he was there watching him be attacked by the hyenas: "Oh, and just between you and me, try to work on that little roar of yours." But, he is just a kid. And kids miss crucial evidence sometimes. All in all, The Lion King is fantastic. One day I may even see it on Broadway.
The film opens with the birth of a cub to Mufasa and Sarabi. Simba is seen as precocious and eager to take his place along side his father. He wants to be brave, big, and bold. He also envisions the world bending at his feet--hardly the perfect King material. Constantly getting into trouble, Simba has no idea that his uncle Scar, Mufasa's brother, is going to play on Simba's youthful naivete to plan the 'coup of the century.' Convincing Simba that he has killed his father, Scar tells the young cub to "run, run away and never return," before turning to the hyenas--"Kill him." Simba does manage to escape, and is found on death's door in the desert by Timone and Pumba, a singing duo willing to raise the carnivore as their own. Eventually, fate brings Simba back to Pride Rock to challenge Scar's right as King. He finds out that Scar killed his father, and in turn, allows the hyenas to kill his uncle. The movie ends with Simba and Nala introducing a son of their own to the world.
It's difficult to judge actors in an animated film. Either a voice fits, or it doesn't. Thomas as the young Simba was a good fit--his voice was just as petulant as the cub liked to act. Broderick took Simba into the world of adulthood, a more mature and responsible lion, but reminiscent of the "Hakuna Matata" mantra taught to him by Timone and Pumba. And who doesn't love James Earl Jones as Mufasa? A strong and godly voice, he fit the image of a truly powerful yet loving King. Shenzi comments on how just saying Mufasa's name is spine tingling--Jones is fit to be a badass lion. The animation is fantastic. Mufasa is big and beefy, it is clear why he became King over the small and lanky Scar. Scar slinks around in a devious fashion--just as clear a statement on his character as the actor's words. Simba's movements are fluid but determined, especially at the end as he ascends Pride Rock--he is the future King. The expressions on the lion's faces are just as clear as those on a human, making it easy to relate to these animals.
Speaking of film techniques--there were a few moments when, to emphasize a moment, the 'camera work' adjusted to fit a feeling. Simba running back to Pride Rock was in slow motion, the music just as powerful and determined as his stride. Nala tries to wake Timone to ask where Simba went, and the 'camera' switches to a POV angle as he blinks awake, emphasizing the shock of seeing a lion stooped over you. Slow motion is used again as Simba battles his uncle, and when he climbs Pride Rock as the victor. The music, I believe, is based on traditional African music, scored by Hans Zimmerman. Not only does this reflect an authentic atmosphere to the movie, but it gives a primal surge to the feelings that accompany Mufasa's death, Scar's rise to power, Simba's return, his victory.
This movie, like I said before, has always been my childhood favorite. Watching it last night with my husband, I sang along with the songs, lamented the addition of two new scenes (really Disney, really? Not only were the lyrics terrible, but the added animation was so clearly defined it made the rest of the scenes look ridiculous), and cried on his shoulder as my favorite character was found dead under a broken tree. We debated if Simba and his pack ate all the hyenas to survive while they waited for Pride Rock to grow lush again. While some people take issue with certain scenes (apparently there is one where Simba flops to the ground and the resulting debris spells some kind of inappropriate word), I can't find a flaw in it. Obviously, Simba could be a smarter child--I mean, Scar does basically tell him he was there watching him be attacked by the hyenas: "Oh, and just between you and me, try to work on that little roar of yours." But, he is just a kid. And kids miss crucial evidence sometimes. All in all, The Lion King is fantastic. One day I may even see it on Broadway.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Pride and Prejudice
After years of loving Pride and Prejudice (the 2005 movie), I have finally figured out why Joe Wright, the director of the film, has captured my heart with this movie. Cinematography. I have an unadulterated love of English landscape. As I watched Elizabeth Bennet (Keira Knightly) and Mr. Darcy (Matthew Mcfadyen) clash on the screen, I realized: the acting isn't actually that great. In fact, the only person who does an outstanding job of creating their character is the dreaded Bennet cousin: Mr. Collins (Tom Hollander).
I hate to say it, but even Donald Sutherland (Mr. Bennet) falls short of his usual brilliance. The only scene in which passion is felt between Lizzy and Darcy is when she confronts him, wet to the bone, about breaking Jane and Mr. Bingley up. The moment Lizzy finishes ranting "And those are the words of a gentleman. From the first moment I met you, your arrogance and conceit, your selfish disdain for the feelings of others made me realize that you were the last man in the world I could ever be prevailed upon to marry," the two actors lean in as though all they want to do is kiss. Of course, being the 1800's, stealing kisses was as hot as things got (in literature). Of course, I still love this movie. It's just easier to enjoy when my husband isn't making fun of it the whole time. Funny that my favorite romantic fictional story is mocked helplessly by the most romantic and caring man I know. Anyway.
Based on Jane Austin's book "Pride and Prejudice," the story revolves around the social woes of the Bennet family, but focuses most prominently on Elizabeth Bennet and Mr. Darcy. Lizzy, a bookish girl whose beauty pales in comparison to her older sister Jane, does not share the family worry: marriage. Though her views on men are called 'bitter' by her aunt, Lizzy is actually an example of the future feminist. Mrs. Bennet's one goal is to marry her girls off to save them from a life of destitution after the eventual (and expected) death of their father. Lizzy, courted by Mr. Collins (the cousin who is to inherit the Bennet home) at one point, angers Mrs. Bennet by refusing his proposal. "You could not make me happy and I'm convinced I'm the last woman in the world who could make you happy." Lizzy makes it clear to her mother that she will not marry for anything less than happiness and love. The battle of the sexes does not truly begin until the bookish Bennet encounters the seemingly standoffish (and handsome) Darcy.
As I stated before, the chemistry within the movie is less than stellar. The romance between Darcy and Elizabeth appears less passionate of that between Jane and Mr. Bingley, though they are not the focus of the plot. Strangely, I can not see anyone else playing Elizabeth Bennet. Knightly appears the tomboy, and with her spunk and clever wit, I can hardly imagine anyone else chosen to portray one of my favorite literary characters. As for Mcfadyen. . . I've never actually seen him in anything before, but it seems his romantic side is not the best. It was his acting I took most fault with. He seemed practically turned off by Lizzy for most of the movie. Their dynamic is in its element in the rainy confrontation scene, but it tapers off again from there. Every other emotion (happiness, worry, anxiety, ect) are conveyed excellently. . . but his chemistry with Knightly is lacking. As for the rest of the Bennet family, their close-knit and quirky ways were enjoyable to watch. Jane and Mr. Bingley convincingly play the shy and loving couple, and Caroline Bingley was a proper nasty piece of work. Of course, who can fault the talented Judi Dentch as Lady Catherine de Bourge?
And now, the cinematography. It should be noted that almost all the
important scenes are shot at either sunset or sunrise--the warm glow
over the English landscape casts the scenery in a permanent incandescent
glow (take a look at the cover picture above, it is a great example of
this). There was also a softer focus to most of the film, conveying a
rustic age (better suiting the environment to an 1800's feel). The three
most important scenes in the movie that made the best use of camera
work and lighting were: rainy rejection scene,
Lizzy's meditation scene,
their first dance scene,
Overall, this movie is worth the watch. I haven't seen the earlier versions of the movie, but I have read the book (once). The movie is better. I've never really been a fan of Austin's books (Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre is more my style), but the overall plot of Elizabeth and Darcy has always appealed to me. Elizabeth is not just a woman looking to get married, she is looking for the ability to be independent, but happy. She wants to find love in an era where arranged marriages were all the rage. Yes, the acting could be better, but the movie is still one of my favorites, and I will continue to watch it over and over again (just maybe without my mocking hubby in the room).
Saturday, January 26, 2013
The Hobbit
I admit, while I did actually manage to suffer through The Hobbit sometime around my middle school years, it never stuck with me. Tolkien's writing was more tedious (he needed to learn how to leave a few things to the imagination) than I could have conceived, so I never pressed on to the rest of the LOTR series. I planned on reading them some day, just not then. And not now. But, when my dad insisted that we see the Fellowship of the Ring when it came out in theaters in 2001, I didn't resist. I'm glad. The Lord of the Rings series has become one of my favorite. . . to watch. It is literally the only major series I watched before considering reading. I loved them because they made sense, even though my dad and now, my husband, assures me: Peter Jackson left out A LOT. So, despite how slightly boring the commercials looked, I was excited to watch The Hobbit.
I'll say this--I've never been more shocked.
The acting was great: Sir Ian McKellen (Gandalf) and Martin Freeman (Young Bilbo) have never let me down yet. And Richard Armitage was amazing as Thorin. These are all spectacular actors. The CG (aside from the Orks and Wargs) and special effects are awe inspiring. Looking over the dwarven kingdom in the beginning was jaw dropping--our ability to depict endless dwarven crafting into the mountain really does shock me sometimes. The costuming doesn't look cheesy at all, and the editing was fairly flawless. But. . . there was a problem. The writing. If it hadn't been for the fact that this was a Jackson film about a Tolkien book, I would have walked out. The writing was so contrived that even Gandalf managed to look a fool in the beginning. If Sir Ian McKellen is looking like an idiot, it is through no fault of his own (he managed to make Magneto look impressive and almost scary for God's sake). Whoever wrote the script for The Hobbit should be ashamed. Having never read the LOTR series itself, I still managed to know what end was up by the time credits rolled. Ten minutes into The Hobbit, I was staring at my husband thinking, "Um. . .what?" It was an hour into the movie before we settled back and enjoyed. You know what made it suddenly great?
They stopped talking.
The fight scenes were detailed, the mountain giants made me giggle with glee, and the riddles between Golum and Bilbo were well played--Golum's split personality stood out well (I especially liked the song he sang as he killed the. . . Ork, I think. A nice play on the fish he smashes in The Two Towers). The music was beautiful and powerful, like usual. Whoever scores for these movies is a master (Howard Shore, I believe). I'm still humming the song the dwarves sung in Bilbo's home (not the dishes one, but the one as they sit by the fire. I think it's about the Misty Mountain). And who doesn't recognize the main theme song-- The Fellowship?
Overall. . . I'd have to say: go see the movie in a theater if nothing else because of the sweeping shots of New Zealand, the scenes with the dwarven kingdom. . . and every fight scene within. Suffer through the first hour, and the rest is gold. You will see a connection between The Hobbit and the other LOTR movies in many scenes--like Golum's song, the paths the dwarves and Bilbo take on their quest, and parallel conversations between Bilbo and Gandalf that are similar to ones Frodo and Gandalf have. I did leave the theater with more questions (luckily my hubby was able to fill me in on the LOTR elements and references at least) than answers. I hope the next two movies go a little better. And that they've found some new script writers.
Edit note: I should add that after a conversation with someone who has read The Hobbit who assured me the scriptwriters kept to the book, I need to say this: sometimes, what looks great on paper doesn't translate well to the movie screen. Look at Shawshank Redemption. The movie managed to be way better than the book. If they had kept the script writing word for word, it definitely would have fallen short. Any script writer (or novelist who options their books) will tell you: script writing is very formulaic. It's a totally different form of writing. I'm not saying plots need to change. That's not it at all. I loved the plot of this movie. But the script needed to morph into something that looked better on screen.
I'll say this--I've never been more shocked.
The acting was great: Sir Ian McKellen (Gandalf) and Martin Freeman (Young Bilbo) have never let me down yet. And Richard Armitage was amazing as Thorin. These are all spectacular actors. The CG (aside from the Orks and Wargs) and special effects are awe inspiring. Looking over the dwarven kingdom in the beginning was jaw dropping--our ability to depict endless dwarven crafting into the mountain really does shock me sometimes. The costuming doesn't look cheesy at all, and the editing was fairly flawless. But. . . there was a problem. The writing. If it hadn't been for the fact that this was a Jackson film about a Tolkien book, I would have walked out. The writing was so contrived that even Gandalf managed to look a fool in the beginning. If Sir Ian McKellen is looking like an idiot, it is through no fault of his own (he managed to make Magneto look impressive and almost scary for God's sake). Whoever wrote the script for The Hobbit should be ashamed. Having never read the LOTR series itself, I still managed to know what end was up by the time credits rolled. Ten minutes into The Hobbit, I was staring at my husband thinking, "Um. . .what?" It was an hour into the movie before we settled back and enjoyed. You know what made it suddenly great?
They stopped talking.
The fight scenes were detailed, the mountain giants made me giggle with glee, and the riddles between Golum and Bilbo were well played--Golum's split personality stood out well (I especially liked the song he sang as he killed the. . . Ork, I think. A nice play on the fish he smashes in The Two Towers). The music was beautiful and powerful, like usual. Whoever scores for these movies is a master (Howard Shore, I believe). I'm still humming the song the dwarves sung in Bilbo's home (not the dishes one, but the one as they sit by the fire. I think it's about the Misty Mountain). And who doesn't recognize the main theme song-- The Fellowship?
Overall. . . I'd have to say: go see the movie in a theater if nothing else because of the sweeping shots of New Zealand, the scenes with the dwarven kingdom. . . and every fight scene within. Suffer through the first hour, and the rest is gold. You will see a connection between The Hobbit and the other LOTR movies in many scenes--like Golum's song, the paths the dwarves and Bilbo take on their quest, and parallel conversations between Bilbo and Gandalf that are similar to ones Frodo and Gandalf have. I did leave the theater with more questions (luckily my hubby was able to fill me in on the LOTR elements and references at least) than answers. I hope the next two movies go a little better. And that they've found some new script writers.
Edit note: I should add that after a conversation with someone who has read The Hobbit who assured me the scriptwriters kept to the book, I need to say this: sometimes, what looks great on paper doesn't translate well to the movie screen. Look at Shawshank Redemption. The movie managed to be way better than the book. If they had kept the script writing word for word, it definitely would have fallen short. Any script writer (or novelist who options their books) will tell you: script writing is very formulaic. It's a totally different form of writing. I'm not saying plots need to change. That's not it at all. I loved the plot of this movie. But the script needed to morph into something that looked better on screen.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Self Reflection Week 2
This week I focused on writing out an interview for those I hope to write about for my documentary piece, as well as finishing my movie review for the week. I'm also in the midst of working on my Time of Day project, as well as looking ahead to finishing my media survey in the next few days. While I do have questions on the Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down assignment, I'll be emailing my professor soon to look for some answers. I'm finding it more difficult than I would have imagined, maintaining a weekly blog post, not to mention keeping up with the reading for this class as well as the several other assignments tasked us (on top of the other classes I have homework for). Perhaps I'm allowing my lazy side to emerge too often these days.
As far as difficulties...not only is it hard for me to keep up with the weekly blog (tsk tsk lazy me), but I am finding it hard to keep my writing to a minimum in the reviews. I literally could write pages about this last one--the Tudors. There is so much I left out, I feel like I haven't properly reviewed it at all. But the longer the blog post became, I started to wonder: how do movie reviewers do it? How do they keep the word count down and yet maintain a feeling of completion? That will be something I definitely need to work on in the future...as well as being able to keep to a deadline!
I still worry and hope for the collaborative projects coming up. All in all, it has been an interesting week. Can't wait for class on Friday.
As far as difficulties...not only is it hard for me to keep up with the weekly blog (tsk tsk lazy me), but I am finding it hard to keep my writing to a minimum in the reviews. I literally could write pages about this last one--the Tudors. There is so much I left out, I feel like I haven't properly reviewed it at all. But the longer the blog post became, I started to wonder: how do movie reviewers do it? How do they keep the word count down and yet maintain a feeling of completion? That will be something I definitely need to work on in the future...as well as being able to keep to a deadline!
I still worry and hope for the collaborative projects coming up. All in all, it has been an interesting week. Can't wait for class on Friday.
The Tudors
It's difficult to believe "Hollywood" hasn't tried this before. I
can see it now--the directors, producers, writers at Showtime sitting around a
table thinking...hmmm...what hasn't been done before? Alien robots, tween
vampires, zombie invasions...
"Wait," says the unassuming assistant in the background, hand wavering in the air. "There was this neat period of time I learned about in history class...there's this guy, um...Henry the Eighth, or something?" He would press on, despite the incredulous looks shot his way. What's this, someone wanting to film something based on history? "He uh...he had a lot of affairs. And cut off a lot of people's heads. And um, some history and stuff happened on the way? So, like, we've already got the romantic part figured out. I'm sure that France had something to do with it. And Henry was like, this King so...maybe there is something to it?"
Okay, okay, I have no idea how Showtime came up with the idea for The Tudors. From the creator Michael Hurst, The Tudors stars Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Henry Cavill and Anthony Brophy. The guest list for this four season affair are too numerous to list, but I must mention one to make a later point--Sam Neill stars as Cardinal Wolsey. Having heard nothing but good (from my husband included, who has watched all 38 episodes) about the show, I decided to use the first episode as a review for this week's blog post. I was impressed. The writing was witty, the camera direction could have been considered the comic relief, and the acting was beyond commendable, down to the last squire. What is so fascinating to me about this show is how historically accurate it is. Showtime didn't need to 'Hollywood' it up because for once... English history was so interesting, some people don't believe it's true. Romantic affairs, beheadings, murderous plots, treachery, betrayal, insanity, more beheadings... what more can a TV show ask for? Apparently, a lot. After only four seasons, which was just long enough to (according to my husband) go through the fates of his wives, recognize the toddler Elizabeth the First, and and show Henry's slow decent into madness. Regardless of the reason, this show has me captivated. I might actually learn something...that sticks with me!
This first episode opens with the French murdering Henry's uncle, an ambassador in France. Thus begins the plot line of Henry's debate: war or peace with France? Other plot lines, like the Duke of Buckingham's future attempt on Henry’s life and the first appearance of Anne Bolin begin as well. The main focus, though, is Henry’s relations with France. After hearing on the death of his uncle, Henry calls for war. Flashes of the King’s affairs give the viewer just enough to understand—this king is a player. Not only does he manage to bed both of his Queen’s chambermaids, but we discover that one of them is pregnant. He does not visit his wife’s bedchamber. The Queen, while having dinner with her husband, urges him to write back to the King of Spain—her nephew—who wishes to align with Henry against France. She begs him not to give ear to Cardinal Wolsey who appears to favor a French alliance. Henry makes it clear that he is not interested in a wife with an opinion and rebuffs her plea to attend her room like he once used to. Cardinal Wolsey appears on the scene with an idea for Henry; do not go to war, instead, make peace. Playing on Henry’s need for power and immortality, he tells his King that this treaty with France would be one of universal peace as well as the beginning of pan-European institutions. He would be the architect of the new and modern world. Henry agrees eagerly, happy to save his kingdom money and the sorrow of war. Toward the end of the episode, the viewer is introduced to an interesting character… to those who know the names of Henry’s wives. Thomas Bolin enters as England’s new ambassador to France. He gives Henry information on the French King over dinner, as well as the hint at the goodness and virtue of his daughters.
The actors in this episode were flawless, as I said, down to the last squire. The only man I had trouble accepting was Cardinal Wolsey (Sam Neill). He will forever be Dr. Alan Grant from the Jurassic Park movies. He is the only one who has trouble meshing time periods—all the others I easily believe to be sixteenth century characters… but from Wolsey, I feel the modern day man emerge. Call me crazy, but I just feel like Dr. Grant is suddenly wearing some very long robes and has acquired a nasty temper.
That being said, I have to comment on the camera work and editing. With a quick eye, the viewer is able to see The Tudors through a third-person omniscient perspective. Cut scenes during dinner between Catharine and Henry show the jealously on Lady Blunt’s (one of the King’s lovers) face. The look of loathing on Buckingham’s face while Henry walks away. The fresh whip marks on Sir Thomas More’s back. The sly smiles from Charles Brandon and Buckingham’s daughter when caught having sex. The small pieces shown by the camera do more than just let us know what people are thinking without having to hear them say it…it allows the viewer to become more intimate and familiar with the characters. In one episode, I feel heartbroken for Queen Catharine, I despise Lady Blunt, and I am not impressed with the young Henry the Eighth. He seems more like a man-whore who is only interested in his own honor than invested in the good of his kingdom. One episode made me want many more—and that is the point. Even the music is mostly period; trumpets, snare drum… and very, very dramatic. I love the theme song. It makes you just know you are watching a show about Kings.
I recommend The Tudors to anyone reading this. . . even to those who aren’t reading this. Watching the Tudors is the most fun I’ve had being educated on history.
"Wait," says the unassuming assistant in the background, hand wavering in the air. "There was this neat period of time I learned about in history class...there's this guy, um...Henry the Eighth, or something?" He would press on, despite the incredulous looks shot his way. What's this, someone wanting to film something based on history? "He uh...he had a lot of affairs. And cut off a lot of people's heads. And um, some history and stuff happened on the way? So, like, we've already got the romantic part figured out. I'm sure that France had something to do with it. And Henry was like, this King so...maybe there is something to it?"
Okay, okay, I have no idea how Showtime came up with the idea for The Tudors. From the creator Michael Hurst, The Tudors stars Jonathan Rhys Meyers, Henry Cavill and Anthony Brophy. The guest list for this four season affair are too numerous to list, but I must mention one to make a later point--Sam Neill stars as Cardinal Wolsey. Having heard nothing but good (from my husband included, who has watched all 38 episodes) about the show, I decided to use the first episode as a review for this week's blog post. I was impressed. The writing was witty, the camera direction could have been considered the comic relief, and the acting was beyond commendable, down to the last squire. What is so fascinating to me about this show is how historically accurate it is. Showtime didn't need to 'Hollywood' it up because for once... English history was so interesting, some people don't believe it's true. Romantic affairs, beheadings, murderous plots, treachery, betrayal, insanity, more beheadings... what more can a TV show ask for? Apparently, a lot. After only four seasons, which was just long enough to (according to my husband) go through the fates of his wives, recognize the toddler Elizabeth the First, and and show Henry's slow decent into madness. Regardless of the reason, this show has me captivated. I might actually learn something...that sticks with me!
This first episode opens with the French murdering Henry's uncle, an ambassador in France. Thus begins the plot line of Henry's debate: war or peace with France? Other plot lines, like the Duke of Buckingham's future attempt on Henry’s life and the first appearance of Anne Bolin begin as well. The main focus, though, is Henry’s relations with France. After hearing on the death of his uncle, Henry calls for war. Flashes of the King’s affairs give the viewer just enough to understand—this king is a player. Not only does he manage to bed both of his Queen’s chambermaids, but we discover that one of them is pregnant. He does not visit his wife’s bedchamber. The Queen, while having dinner with her husband, urges him to write back to the King of Spain—her nephew—who wishes to align with Henry against France. She begs him not to give ear to Cardinal Wolsey who appears to favor a French alliance. Henry makes it clear that he is not interested in a wife with an opinion and rebuffs her plea to attend her room like he once used to. Cardinal Wolsey appears on the scene with an idea for Henry; do not go to war, instead, make peace. Playing on Henry’s need for power and immortality, he tells his King that this treaty with France would be one of universal peace as well as the beginning of pan-European institutions. He would be the architect of the new and modern world. Henry agrees eagerly, happy to save his kingdom money and the sorrow of war. Toward the end of the episode, the viewer is introduced to an interesting character… to those who know the names of Henry’s wives. Thomas Bolin enters as England’s new ambassador to France. He gives Henry information on the French King over dinner, as well as the hint at the goodness and virtue of his daughters.
The actors in this episode were flawless, as I said, down to the last squire. The only man I had trouble accepting was Cardinal Wolsey (Sam Neill). He will forever be Dr. Alan Grant from the Jurassic Park movies. He is the only one who has trouble meshing time periods—all the others I easily believe to be sixteenth century characters… but from Wolsey, I feel the modern day man emerge. Call me crazy, but I just feel like Dr. Grant is suddenly wearing some very long robes and has acquired a nasty temper.
That being said, I have to comment on the camera work and editing. With a quick eye, the viewer is able to see The Tudors through a third-person omniscient perspective. Cut scenes during dinner between Catharine and Henry show the jealously on Lady Blunt’s (one of the King’s lovers) face. The look of loathing on Buckingham’s face while Henry walks away. The fresh whip marks on Sir Thomas More’s back. The sly smiles from Charles Brandon and Buckingham’s daughter when caught having sex. The small pieces shown by the camera do more than just let us know what people are thinking without having to hear them say it…it allows the viewer to become more intimate and familiar with the characters. In one episode, I feel heartbroken for Queen Catharine, I despise Lady Blunt, and I am not impressed with the young Henry the Eighth. He seems more like a man-whore who is only interested in his own honor than invested in the good of his kingdom. One episode made me want many more—and that is the point. Even the music is mostly period; trumpets, snare drum… and very, very dramatic. I love the theme song. It makes you just know you are watching a show about Kings.
I recommend The Tudors to anyone reading this. . . even to those who aren’t reading this. Watching the Tudors is the most fun I’ve had being educated on history.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)